Lethal Heating: 10/02/18

02/10/2018

Australia's Emissions Data Would Shame The Coalition, If Such A Thing Were Possible

The Guardian - Greg Jericho

The government consistently buries the quarterly figures, and no wonder

‘Australia is able to take into account the high amount of forest clearing that was occurring at the time, and bank improvements merely due to us being less bad now than we were, not because we have actually improved our emissions.’ Photograph: Auscape/UIG via Getty Images

Late on Friday, under the cover of the release of the first interim report from the Hayne royal commission into the financial sector and the day before a weekend of AFL and NRL grand finals, the government released the latest quarterly data showing greenhouse gas emissions had once again risen.
You can call this government many things – a bunch of dolts deluded into believing climate change is a global conspiracy, a bunch of feckless cowards lacking the intellectual ability or political acumen to stand up to those climate change-denying fools occupying positions on the backbench and in cabinet – but you can’t call them subtle.
Ever since they have taken office from the ALP, this government has sought to release the quarterly greenhouse gas emissions data at times when it will most likely be lost in the news cycle. The usual favourite is the week before Christmas. The previous batch of data was released late on Friday of budget week. That it is now more than four months since that last “quarterly” release serves to highlight how planned this past Friday’s release was.
The reason they choose to release the data at times when it is unlikely to get much attention is because the emissions data is continually awful and would be utterly shameful, were this government possessed of the ability to feel that emotion in relation to climate change.
In the past 12 months the annual level of emissions reached a record level of 559m tonnes CO2-e if we exclude the controversial component of “land use, land use change and forestry” (LULUCF), which includes a measure for the amount of forest and grasslands and the amounts of those cut down or converted to other uses.

Australia's annual greenhouse gas emissions
LULLUCF = Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry

Chart: Greg Jericho Source: Depot of Environment, Table 1A, derived Get the data

Rather disgracefully Australia is allowed to count that use towards its Paris agreement to reduce emissions by 26% below 2005 levels. The reason this is disgraceful is because it means we are able to take into account the high amount of forest clearing that was occurring at the time, and to bank improvements merely due to us being less bad now than we were, not because we have actually improved our emissions.
We did the same thing for our Kyoto commitment, which had 1990 as the base year – a year in which we had a massive amount of land clearing:

Net greenhouse gas emissions from land use, land use change & forestry sector

But even if we include the LULUCF measure, our annual emissions rose in the past 12 months by 0.9% – and they are now at their highest level since 2011. It is a terrible result, but one that is not surprising given our emissions have been increasing every quarter since the end of the carbon price period in June 2014:

Total annual greenhouse gas emissions (excl LULUCF)

LULUCF = Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry

The good news is electricity emissions have been falling recently, the bad news is so too has our level of renewable energy production. The only reason emissions in the national energy market have fallen is because of the drop in brown coal production:

Breakdown of electricity generation

And the problem is while emissions from electricity have fallen since June 2016, in that time emissions from all other areas have increased by more than that amount:

Annual emissions by sector compared to year to Jun 2016

It’s the problem with focusing only on electricity emissions – they either need to come down by overly large amounts in order to meet our overall target, or we are not going to be able achieve it.
The prime minster, when asked about the figures on ABC’s Insiders program parroted the inane media release that accompanied the data. Rather than focus on the overall increase in emission, the prime minister boasted that: “We’ve got emissions per capita at the lowest level in 28 years.”
Whoop dee fricken doo.
Is anyone shocked to discover that cars and equipment made now are more fuel-efficient than those made in 1990? Out of the past 28 years, only seven times have emissions per capita not declined.
Not only is it a worthless boast, it says nothing about the impact on the environment. The atmosphere doesn’t react on a per capita basis, it reacts to the total level of CO2 emissions.
Boasting about emissions per capita falling while total emissions are rising is like a general arguing that it doesn’t matter that the number of innocent civilians killed in bombing raids has increased in the past year because the average number killed per raid has fallen.
At a political level it also doesn’t matter because our Paris commitment to reduce emissions to 26% below 2005 levels is total emissions, not per capita. But here again we find the prime minister in the land of obfuscation and outright fertiliser production.
When Barrie Cassidy asked Morrison on Insiders if he still believed we would meet our 26% reduction target “in a canter” he replied that “people choose and pick their figures to make their political arguments. We’re going to meet those in a canter our 26% target … All of the issues are pointing to that outcome so I’m comfortable with our 26%.”
So let us pause now as I choose to show the government’s own figures, which reveal not only that we are not going to make the 26% target in a canter, but instead by 2030 our emissions will be about 29% above the level they need to be:

Australia's greenhouse gas emissions projections

If the prime minister has some data in his back pocket that leads him to believe that “based on our assessments” Australia will meet its targets, maybe he could give those assessments to the Department of Environment and Energy so they can then publish them for all of us to see.Though, of course, given how the government hides its emissions data, they’ll probably publish it at a time for maximum exposure – say Christmas Eve at 4.50pm.

Links

The Trial Of The Century

Project Syndicate - Peter Singer*

Will 21 young plaintiffs ultimately be able to persuade a conservative-dominated US Supreme Court that the federal government is violating their constitutional right to a livable planet? It depends on whether the Court is willing to heed the scientific evidence.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

PRINCETON – This month, a judge in Oregon will begin hearing a case brought against the United States government on behalf of 21 young people, supported by the non-profit organization Our Children’s Trust, who allege that the authorities’ active contributions to the climate crisis violate their constitutional rights.
The government defendants have repeatedly tried – so far without success – to have the case thrown out or delayed, and the trial is currently scheduled to start on October 29.
In principle, governments, not courts, are best placed to decide which policies will best solve environmental and social problems.
In 1992, countries, including the US, China, India, and all European states (and a total of 189 by 2006) accepted responsibility for addressing climate change. Meeting at the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, they agreed to stabilize greenhouse gases “at a low enough level to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
The agreement did not specify what level is low enough to prevent such dangerous interference with our climate, but the scientific consensus is that to allow the global temperature to rise to an average of more than 2^°C above pre-industrial levels is to risk catastrophe. The basis of this conclusion is that warming of this magnitude may make much more warming inevitable.
When the Arctic Ocean warms, it contains less sunlight-reflecting ice and more dark water that absorbs the sun’s heat. Similarly, as the frozen Siberian earth thaws, it releases methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that accelerates global warming.
Even a rise of 1.5^°C will clearly be dangerous. Scientists predict that exceeding that lower limit will cause low-lying Pacific island states to disappear beneath the rising seas, and will lead to unprecedented drought, wildfire, and flooding. To preserve safe climate conditions, we need to hold the global temperature increase to no more than 1^°C.
Yet, with very few exceptions, governments have failed to take sufficient action to halt climate change, and most exacerbate the danger by continuing to support the use of fossil fuels.
Hence activists in Belgium, Colombia, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Switzerland, and the Netherlands are seeking to use the courts to gain what they cannot obtain through political action.
The first climate litigation to win a positive decision was Urgenda Foundation v. The State of Netherlands, in which a Dutch court ruled, in 2015, that the government must ensure that the country’s emissions are cut by one quarter within five years.
In response, the Dutch government did step up its actions to reduce emissions, but it also appealed the judgment. In October, The Hague Court of Appeals will deliver its verdict on that appeal.
Important as Urgenda has been, Juliana v. United States is by far the most significant climate case to date. If ever a case has deserved to be called “the trial of the century,” this is it. Its outcome has ramifications for everyone who will live on Earth during the remainder of the twenty-first century and perhaps for several centuries beyond.
The US is the world’s second-largest greenhouse-gas emitter, and its per capita emissions are about twice those of the largest emitter, China. If we take the view that every person on this planet is entitled to an equal share of the atmosphere’s capacity to absorb our greenhouse-gas emissions, then the US is emitting 3.5 times its fair share.
The US emits more greenhouse gases than India, for example, although it has only one-quarter of the population. Moreover, the principle of equal per capita emissions is generous to the old industrialized countries, because it ignores their historical responsibility for the past emissions that have led to the situation we face today.
In not sharply reducing its greenhouse-gas emissions, the US arguably is acting contrary to international law, for it is violating the most basic human rights guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international covenants.
Plausible as this argument may be, it is not the basis of the plaintiffs’ case in Juliana. The lawyers working pro bono on the case understand that to win, they will ultimately have to persuade the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court that the government’s failure to act is a clear violation of its constitutional responsibilities.
The plaintiffs claim that their government’s active contribution to climate change has violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. When the government sought to prevent the case from being heard, the federal district court of Oregon issued a historic ruling that “the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.”
When Juliana v. United States is appealed to the US Supreme Court, as seems inevitable, the question may no longer be whether the preservation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights requires “a climate system capable of sustaining human life”; it undeniably does.
Instead, the Court will have to decide whether it is willing to heed the scientific evidence that the actions of the US government are indeed jeopardizing the survival of human life on our planet.
If it is, even the most conservative justices will find it difficult to escape the conclusion that the government is in violation of the US Constitution.

*Peter Singer is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, Laureate Professor in the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne, and founder of the non-profit organization The Life You Can Save. In 2013, he was named the world's third "most influential contemporary thinker" by the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute.

Links

Human Survival Cannot Be Left To Politicians. We're Losing Our Life Support Systems

ABC - David Shearman*

Jonas Salk warned: "If all insects on Earth disappeared, within 50 years all life on Earth would end. If all human beings disappeared from the Earth, within 50 years all forms of life would flourish." (ABC Open contributor _joaodecarvalho_)

When medical researcher Jonas Salk discovered the Salk Vaccine for polio, it prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths throughout the world.

His work on viruses gave him a deep understanding of the natural world.
He warned "if all insects on Earth disappeared, within 50 years all life on Earth would end. If all human beings disappeared from the Earth, within 50 years all forms of life would flourish".

Climate change is WWIII,

and we are leaderless

The Western world is bereft of leaders and now the US and Australia have deserted the trenches by trading ideology for human lives and health, writes David Shearman.

Eighty years later, scientists understand these words, but governments do not.
Insects play a vital role to recycle nutrients by decomposing plant litter and dung, by providing a food source for birds, mammals and amphibians. Many flying insects are important pollinators.
The current pollinator crisis and its impact on food production first came to notice in many countries because of a fall in bee numbers.
Insecticides have played a part, but the numbers of insects in West German nature reserves distanced from farm spraying fell by more than 76 per cent in 27 years, a finding repeated in other regions.

The increasing extinction of species
Scientists and environmentalists recognise that many species are disappearing from the Earth and 26,000 are threatened.
Extinctions in Australia are subject of a current Senate inquiry.
These extinctions are the tip of the iceberg which will affect food production and therefore the economy, and the pillars of human health and survival, water, air, biological resources and soil.
Biodiversity loss and climate change augment each other and are set to transform us to an alien world.

The grassland earless dragon is one of the species under threat. (Supplied: ACT Government)

An increase in the number and intensity of heatwaves is the main cause of biodiversity loss on land and sea, for example the Great Barrier Reef.
The loss of forest biodiversity from land clearing, logging and forest fires enhances climate change and increases atmospheric instability.

Population growth and the economic system
Like climate change, the key facilitators of biodiversity loss are population growth and the economic system, which ignore the finite nature of planetary resources.
August 1 this year was the date by which humanity used its 2018 world resources (defined as carbon, food, water, fibre, land and timber).
Each year the world eats its future earlier than the previous year.
This year Australia had used its share by March 31, as the eighth-most profligate nation on Earth.
This year Australia's population reached 25 million and was celebrated. Is this sustainable? We don't know.
There is no policy based on facts and projections, but Australia's food production is likely to contract with climate change and decrease in water resources, degrading of soil due to the loss of its life forms, demise of pollinators and the increase in pests.

Each year the world eats its future earlier than the previous year. (ABC News: Gian De Poloni)

Current environmental laws
The Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is totally inadequate to prevent loss of biodiversity.
The individual states and territories' Planning Laws and Environmental Impact Assessments often approve land clearing, prodigious water usage, and pollution under the guise of essential development of resources and economic growth and are a significant cause of loss of biodiversity.
A case in point is the almost tripling of clearing of forest and woodland in NSW in the year to 2017.
This devastation of habitat for some 247 native species may see the iconic koala extinct in NSW by 2050.

Koalas could be extinct in NSW by 2050. (Supplied: WWF Australia/Doug Gimesy)

"The World Commons", as explained by the scientist Garrett Hardin in 1968, is the stability of resources of land, sea, air and fresh water, all necessary for the health and wellbeing of humanity.
Hardin predicted a confluence, this century, of population growth, depletion of resources and the ravages of climate change bringing ruin to humanity this century.
Some actions of state governments can be seen as a transgression of collective human rights for the Commons facilitated by the current economic system.

The new environmental laws
These must give primacy to sustainability as a security issue.
They must be national, statutory and based on expert scientific advice.

Can we afford to lose the Murray Darling under incompetent collective management? (ABC News: Sarah Clarke)

Should the states be able to meddle in the defence of the nation?
Can we afford to lose the Murray Darling under incompetent collective management where each jurisdiction fights for its share regardless of consequence? We need national leadership.
New laws have been proposed by a national alliance of over 50 environmental groups, laws based on sustainability and protection.
In a world of increasingly complex issues, survival cannot be left to political opinion — it has to be guided by our best scientific and technological minds encompassed in a Commonwealth Sustainability Commission and delivered by a National Environmental Protection Agency.
Doctors support the new laws because human health and a healthy environment are indivisible.
Together hundreds of thousands of species provide humanity with free ecological service to filter, purify and conserve our water, provide temperature, climate, and rainfall control, stabilisation of soils, carbon storage and air purification.
Not only that, they continue to provide humanity with the biological secrets of many medical cures and treatments.

*Dr David Shearman is the honorary secretary of Doctors for the Environment Australia and Emeritus Professor of Medicine at Adelaide University.

Links