27/06/2017

Embracing Hope — And A Carbon Tax

bioGraphicElisabeth Holland*

To curb climate change, step one is imagining a sustainable future; step two is figuring out how to pay for it. 

When I need inspiration, I stop for a moment and recite the names of the countries I represent—the 16 tropical island nations that rise from the Pacific Ocean: Timor Leste, Cook Islands, and Samoa; Kiribati, Fiji, and Vanuatu…. The poetry created by the recitation calms me, reminds me of the history and resilience of these countries and the people who live there, and reassures me that there is still hope for a better future, for our oceans and our planet.
As a climate scientist who has worked on climate adaptation strategies in these communities for the past six years, I know that hope—while sometimes hard to come by—is a necessary first step for imagining and enacting a more sustainable future. We'll need more than hope to get there, though.
I am convinced that we need a carbon tax with global reach and revenues that benefit the countries and communities most heavily impacted by climate change. Willing nations, states, and cities must come together to impose a carbon tax that will, in turn, accelerate action to reduce carbon emissions, increase mitigation, and catalyze greater innovation.

Sinking nations and stormy seas
Climate change is already shifting weather patterns in the Pacific, often to disastrous ends. In February of 2016 Tropical Cyclone Winston became the most intense tropical cyclone yet to make landfall in Fiji.
The destruction began near dawn and roared through Fiji's islands and waters for a full day and night; wave heights topped 30 meters (98 feet) and inundation extended kilometers inland. Despite having spared the most populated areas, thus avoiding worst-case scenarios, the Category 5 cyclone brought with it $1.4 billion in damage—nearly a third of Fiji's GDP—and took the lives of 44 people, including an 8-month-old baby who was torn from his mother's arms, never to be seen again. Now, more than a year later, children still study in tent schools as the rebuilding continues.
And Cyclone Winston is just the latest in a string of devastating examples. In March of 2015, Tropical Cyclone Pam, another Category 5 storm, slammed into Vanuatu with the highest wind speeds ever measured in the South Pacific. The cyclone killed at least 15 people on the island, and the resulting storm surge displaced 45 percent of the population on Tuvalu.
Climate scientists know that if global carbon emission trends continue, the impacts of climate change will be felt much more severely by Pacific Island nations over the course of the next century. As continental ice sheets melt, sea levels could rise more than 3 meters (10 feet) by the end of the century. In the coral atoll nations of Kiribati, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Tuvalu, 3 meters is the islands' maximum elevation—which means our homes, our nations, and our entire reality could be submerged beneath the waves.
As the world's waters continue to rise, the availability and quality of fresh water is falling fast. Ocean warming extends 1.5 kilometers (almost 1 mile) beneath the surface, changing the species compositions and ecosystems on which Pacific food and economic security depend. Ocean acidification, too, is worsening, and will further threaten the coral reefs that sustain fisheries and protect our islands from wave energy.
When Pacific leaders raise the issue of an existential crisis, it is not a hypothetical exercise meant to spark philosophical discussion. For the Pacific Islands, the crisis is literal, and refers to very real questions about whether or not these nations have a future at all.
Will Tuvalu continue to exist? Will Kiribati culture find a way to persist? Will Republic of the Marshall Islands retain its voting rights in the United Nations, one of the few organizations in which Pacific voices are heard? What happens in the high islands, like Fiji, Vanuatu, and the Solomon Islands, where more than 80 percent of people now live along the coast? Where will our Pacific climate refugees go?



Slowing the rising tide
The Paris Agreement is a critical cornerstone of survival for Pacific nations. It reflects key demands made in declarations by the leaders of these island countries in advance of the Paris negotiations. The result is an international commitment to: a long-term temperature goal limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit); a periodic five-year review; and increasing ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Some 195 member nations have signed the accord. In keeping with the vagaries of shifting national positions on climate change, though, Australia established and then two years later abolished its carbon tax—the world's first. And in June, President Trump announced the U.S. was pulling out of the Paris Agreement altogether.
These moves stand in stark contrast to the commitment and leadership of the Pacific nations, which was reinforced by the United Nation's first-ever Oceans Conference, held just after Trump's announcement. The result was a global call to action that underscored the connections between healthy oceans and climate change.

Why a carbon tax?
Our climate change research at the University of the South Pacific focuses on both describing the problems and searching for solutions relating to adaptation, risk, and science-backed policy. The famed climatologist James Hansen has long argued that a carbon tax is the only way to ensure that everyone, every country, is accountable for their own carbon emissions—their own contributions to changing a climate. Like Hansen, I support early action to reduce emissions as well as a carbon tax—that is, a tax on fossil fuel consumption—to create economic incentives to reduce carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions.
But I take the carbon tax argument a step further. Revenues from the tax should be reinvested in those countries most affected by climate change, such as the Pacific Islands. The Paris Agreement acknowledges that these states retain special status because of their vulnerability to climate change, defined as the seriousness of the challenges and impacts they face as a result of increasing climate change worldwide.
In order to support the Pacific, carbon tax revenues should be directed toward sustaining and generating ecosystem services. Take, for example, the coasts. By investing the revenue from a carbon tax in replanting mangrove or dilo silo seedlings, we could provide storm protection, create subsistence fisheries, and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. These coastal ecosystems also support the establishment of sustainable blue carbon economies that do not rely on intensive fossil fuel emissions. Protecting these services could become the foundation for truly sustainable ocean economies for our big ocean states.
While such investments are certainly costly, the value of these services is very real. Every year, in Fiji alone, healthy ecosystems provide nearly $1 billion worth of services, driving $78 million in fisheries revenue and $574 million in tourism revenue, not to mention $85 million worth of coastal protection and carbon sequestration. The positive effects of these investments will reverberate throughout the globe, which is growing more connected every day. At the unsuccessful Copenhagen climate negotiations in 2008, a journalist asked Minister and climate champion Tony deBrum of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, "Are you here to save your island?" deBrum replied, "No, I am here to save the planet."
A healthy future depends on the creation and maintenance of healthy ecosystems, both in our land, voana, and our seas, moana. The Paris Agreement, combined with a carbon tax, would give us a chance to do just that. And the best way to do it is through talanoa, the collective and inclusive decision-making process used by our Pacific ancestors—a strategy that Fiji will employ during its COP23 presidency this November. Such global collective action will lay the foundation for Pacific leaders to take us all on a new voyage to a sustainable planet on which diverse peoples and cultures flourish into the future.

*Elisabeth Holland directs The Pacific Center for Environment and Sustainable Development at The University of the South Pacific in Fiji. She works with Pacific Island communities to build resilience as sea levels rise. Holland was a co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for her contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.
 
Links

Paris Agreement's 1.5c Target 'Only Way' To Save Coral Reefs, UNESCO Says

The Guardian

First global assessment of climate change impact on world heritage-listed reefs says local efforts are ‘no longer sufficient’
The report says the Great Barrier Reef was ‘seriously affected’ by bleaching this year and last, despite considerable investment in efforts to build resilience. Photograph: Greg Torda/EPA
Greater emissions reductions and delivering on the Paris climate agreement are now “the only opportunity” to save coral reefs the world over from decline, with local responses no longer sufficient, a report by UNESCO has found.
The first global scientific assessment of the impacts of climate change on the 29 world heritage-listed coral reefs, published on Saturday, found that the frequency, intensity and duration of heat-stress events had worsened with increasing global warming, with massive consequences for the 29 world heritage sites.
The reported level of coral die-off can hardly be seen by anyone to be acceptable.
Contributing author Jon Day
Analysis of recent studies and newly-developed data from the US national ocean and atmospheric administration (NOAA) coral-reef watch showed that 13 of the 29 listed reefs had been exposed to levels of heat stress that cause coral bleaching, on average more than twice per decade from 1985 to 2013.
Bleaching had occurred more frequently in recent years than in decades prior, with coral mortality during the third global bleaching event from mid-2014 to mid-2017 “among the worst ever recorded”. Twenty-one listed sites had suffered severe and/or repeated heat stress in the last three years.
Compounding the devastating impact of bleaching – which can take coral communities at least 15 to 25 years to recover from – were more frequent and more severe extreme weather events, increasing ocean acidification, and pollution.
The Great Barrier Reef, “one of the world’s most iconic coral reef systems” and among four of the total 29 listed located in Australia, had been “seriously affected” by back-to-back severe bleaching events this year and last, despite considerable investment in efforts to build resilience.
Professor Terry Hughes, director of the Australian Research Council centre of excellence for coral reef studies in Townsville, provided an analysis of bleaching records for the report. “It basically makes the point that everywhere is bleaching,” he said. “It’s certainly not a phenomenon only on the Great Barrier Reef.”
Australia’s scientific community had appealed to the UN world heritage committee to list the Great Barrier Reef as “in danger” last year. Hughes said this was “not on the current agenda”, as the committee awaited the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s third outlook report due in 2019.
The UNESCO report found that local efforts to increase reefs’ resilience “remain necessary but are no longer sufficient” without complementary national and international efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels – the most ambitious target set by the Paris agreement, and understood to be the maximum possible to secure coral reefs’ long-term survival.
“We need all of the above,” said Jon Day, a former director with the Great Barrier marine park authority, now at James Cook University. “We can’t just assume local responses are enough, and they must be augmented by global’s efforts too.”
He said while the world heritage convention aimed to “transmit the world heritage values” of listed sites for future generations, a natural system would inevitably change with time. “The question is what is acceptable change, and the reported levels of coral bleaching and coral mortality can hardly be considered by anyone to be acceptable.”
The report found that, if emissions were to follow their current trajectory and not decline – similar to a “business-as-usual scenario” – 25 of the 29 world heritage reefs (68%) would suffer severe bleaching twice per decade by 2040, rapidly killing most corals present and preventing successful reproduction necessary for their recovery.
Reducing emissions so that they peak around 2040 and then decline would reduce that number of affected sites to 14 (48%), and allow an extra 12 years, on average, for them to recover.
Hughes said the prospects of coral reefs’ long-term survival was at a crossroads, with the worst-case scenario able to be avoided only “if we quickly adopt the 1.5C target”.
“1.5C or 2C degrees won’t be a particularly comfortable place for reefs – they will still see quite regular bleaching and they will be different to how they were 15 or 20 years ago – but they will be able to survive.”
He said he was optimistic about reefs’ prospects, given that the business-as-usual path was looking “increasingly unlikely” as cities and states the world over moved to exceed federal or commonwealth commitments to curbing emissions.
A draft decision prepared by UNESCO, to be addressed by the world heritage committee at its meeting in Krakow in Poland from 2 to 12 July, had stated the report’s findings were of “utmost concern”.
But Day said it was “very disappointing” that the draft decision only committed to further studies at this stage: “How much evidence do they need?”

Links

Great Barrier Reef 'Too Big To Fail' At $56b, Deloitte Access Economics Report Says

ABC NewsLouisa Rebgetz


Severe coral bleaching hits two-thirds of Great Barrier Reef (ABC News)

Key points:
  • Deloitte Access Economics says GBR has calculated economic, social and iconic value of $56 billion
  • Tourism is the biggest contributor to the total asset value making up $29 billion
  • But tourist figures are down 50 per cent in the Whitsundays — operators say "this is as bad as it was during the GFC"
The Great Barrier Reef has a total asset value of $56 billion and is "too big to fail", according to a new report.
Deloitte Access Economics has calculated the economic, social and iconic value of the world heritage site in a report commissioned by the Great Barrier Reef Foundation.
Tourism is the biggest contributor to the total asset value making up $29 billion.
The Great Barrier Reef generates 64,000 jobs in Australia and contributes $6.4 billion dollars to the national economy, the report said.
It states the brand value, or Australians that have not yet visited the Reef but value knowing it exists, as $24 billion.
Recreational users including divers and boaters make up $3 billion.
"That's more than 12 Sydney Opera Houses, or the cost of building Australia's new submarines. It's even more than four times the length of the Great Wall of China in $100 notes," the report states.
The report does not include quantified estimates of the value traditional owners place on the Great Barrier Reef and it said governments should consider doing more to protect it.

Climate change remains biggest threat
It also references the back to back coral bleaching events which have devastated the reef and says climate change remains the most serious threat to the entire structure.
"We have already lost around 50 per cent of the corals on the GBR in the last 30 years. Severe changes in the ocean will see a continued decline ahead of us," the report states.
"Today, our Reef is under threat like never before. Two consecutive years of global coral bleaching are unprecedented, while increasingly frequent extreme weather events and water quality issues continue to affect reef health," said Dr John Schubert AO, Chair of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation.
The Great Barrier Reef supports 64,000 total jobs in Australia, including 31,000 outside Queensland. (Supplied)
Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators executive director Col McKenzie said the reef is crucial to the industry.
"We don't have an industry without the Barrier Reef being in good condition."
He said the negative coverage of the reef relating to the destruction caused by Cyclone Debbie earlier this year and the bleaching event is having an impact on visitor numbers.
Mr McKenzie said tourist figures are down 50 per cent in the Whitsundays and it is being felt along the Queensland coast.
"The majority of the operators in Cairns say this is as bad as it was during the global financial crisis," Mr McKenzie said.

Footage shows areas of the Great Barrier Reef in the Whitsundays devastated by Cyclone Debbie (ABC News)

Links