30/12/2018

Going Nowhere Fast On Climate, Year After Year

New York Times - Paul Bledsoe*

Three decades after a top climate scientist warned Congress of the dangers of global warming, greenhouse gas emissions keep rising and so do global temperatures.
Firefighters lighting backfire while battling the Delta Fire in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Calif., in September. Credit Noah Berger/Associated Press
Thirty years ago, a NASA scientist, James Hansen, told lawmakers at a Senate hearing that “global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause-and-effect relationship with the greenhouse effect.” He added that there “is only 1 percent chance of accidental warming of this magnitude.”
By that, he meant that humans were responsible.
His testimony made headlines around the United States and the world. But in the time since, greenhouse gas emissions, the global temperature average and cost of climate-related heat, wildfires, droughts, flooding and hurricanes have continued to rise.
This fall, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released an alarming report warning that if emissions continue to rise at their present rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, resulting in the flooding of coastlines, the killing of coral reefs worldwide, and more catastrophic droughts and wildfires.
To avoid this, greenhouse gas emissions would need to fall by nearly half from 2010 levels in the next 12 years and reach a net of zero by 2050. But in the United States, the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, President Trump continues to question the science of climate change, and his administration is rolling back emissions limits on power plants and fuel economy standards on cars and light trucks, while pushing to accelerate the use of fossil fuels. Other major nations around the world aren’t cutting emissions quickly enough, either.
So what has happened over the last 30 years? Progress has been made in fits and starts, but not nearly enough has been done to confront the planet-altering magnitude of what we have unleashed. Here’s a look at some of what has occurred:

1988
A report to Congress by the Environmental Protection Agency warns that global warming caused by industrial pollutants is likely to shrink forests, destroy most coastal wetlands, reduce water quality and quantity in many areas and otherwise cause extensive environmental disruption in the United States over the next century.
The United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization form the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to report to world leaders on the science of climate change.

1989
Britain’s prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, who earned a degree in chemistry at Oxford, tells the United Nations in a speech, “We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere.” She warns that, as a result, “change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto.” She calls for a global treaty on climate change.

1990
In its first report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that “human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases” and will lead to a predicted “increase of global mean temperature during the” 21st century “of about 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade,” which it says is “greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years.” That’s a little more than a half-degree Fahrenheit per decade.

1991
An internal study by the oil giant Exxon finds that “warming will clearly affect sea ice, icebergs, permafrost and sea levels” in the Arctic and that “higher sea levels and bigger waves” could “damage the company’s existing and future coastal and offshore infrastructure.”

1992
The United States and 171 other nations, meeting at the Earth Summit in Brazil, sign a treaty on climate change to limit greenhouse gas emissions to a level that will not interfere with the planet’s climate. But the deal lacks mechanisms to achieve that goal.

1993
President Bill Clinton proposes a federal tax on fossil energy sources to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The measure narrowly passes the House of Representatives but dies in the Senate; a gasoline tax increase of 4.3 cents per gallon becomes law instead, the last time federal energy taxes have been raised. 

1994
An Earth Summit agreement, approved by 166 counties, enters into force, committing nations to “stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” 

1995
Countries that signed the Earth Summit agreement in 1992 agree to negotiate “binding targets” on emissions for major developed countries like the United States, but set significantly less stringent requirements for developing countries like China and India. 

1996
Climate change plays almost no role in the presidential campaign, with no mentions in the presidential debates and only a passing reference in the vice-presidential debate.
Delegates in 1997 from about 170 countries met in Kyoto, Japan, for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Credit Toru Yamanaka/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
1997
Concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, reach the highest levels in at least 400,000 years, as measured in Arctic ice cores.
More than 1,500 scientists from 63 countries, including 110 Nobel Prize winners, issue a call to action: “A broad consensus among the world's climatologists is that there is now a discernible human influence on global climate” that represents “one of the most serious threats to the planet and to future generations.”
One hundred and ninety-two nations agree to the Kyoto Protocol to fight global warming. The agreement requires the United States and other developed countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but not developing countries like China.

1998
The global average temperature of 58 degrees Fahrenheit is the warmest since reliable records began about 120 years ago.
Industry opponents of the Kyoto Protocol draft a proposal to spend millions of dollars to convince the public that the environmental accord is based on shaky science.

2000
In the presidential campaign, George W. Bush, the Republican nominee, promises to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, while Al Gore, the Democratic candidate, calls for aggressive climate policies but does not make climate change a major campaign issue and mentions it only once in the debates.

2001
Under strong pressure from conservative Republicans and industry groups, President Bush says his administration will not seek to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants. reversing a campaign pledge. He also says he will seek to withdraw the United States from the Kyoto climate accord and that the United States will not comply with its emissions-reduction targets.
China declines to slow the rapid growth of its greenhouse gas emissions.

2002
President Bush proposes a voluntary plan involving tax credits and other incentives to encourage businesses and farmers to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

2003
The Senate votes 55 to 43 against a bill sponsored by Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, and Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat from Connecticut, to limit carbon dioxide emissions by creating a market-driven “cap and trade” program. Only four Republicans vote yes.
The Republican campaign adviser Frank Luntz writes a memo to party officials noting: “Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue.”

2004
Climate scientists across the globe overwhelming agree that evidence of climate change is clear and persuasive, according to a detailed analysis in Science Magazine by the science historian Naomi Oreskes. As she puts it: “Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.”

2005
At a climate conference in Montreal, the United States and China refuse to agree to take mandatory steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Congress passes an energy policy act that provides tax and other incentives for some low emissions energy sources, including nuclear power, hydropower and wind and solar power. But it also continues large subsidies for fossil fuels.
A Beijing street this year. Credit Tim Graham/Getty Images
2006
With its rapid industrialization, China surpasses the United States as the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases.

2007
Congress raises auto fuel efficiency standards for the first time since 1976.

2008
Barack Obama and John McCain, the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, endorse limiting greenhouse gas emissions through cap-and-trade legislation.

2009
The House of Representatives passes a cap-and-trade bill that would require cuts in greenhouse gas emissions of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. Only eight Republicans vote yes. The bill never receives a vote in the Senate, even though Democrats control 57 seats and two independents caucus with them.
The American Petroleum Institute, funded by major oil companies, helps organize and pay for the first Tea Party rallies, including protests against the House-passed cap-and-trade legislation.
President Obama says the United States will cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 as part of the Copenhagen Accord signed by 193 nations. Large developing nations, including China, also pledge reductions, though they are voluntary.

2010
The International Energy Agency reports that global energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide hit a high of 30.6 billion tons, an increase of 1.6 billion tons over 2009.
President Obama reaches an agreement with American auto companies to raise fuel efficiency standards to 54 miles per gallon by 2025, the largest emissions-cutting action of his presidency.

2011
More than half of all carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels combustion since the Industrial Revolution began in 1751 have occurred just since the mid-1980s, according to a study by scientists for the United States government.
Greenhouse gas emissions in the United States decline slightly, but China’s have increased by about 170 percent since 1999.

2012
In his acceptance speech to become the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney mocks President Obama’s climate efforts: “President Obama promised to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family.”

2013
Scientists report that concentrations of carbon dioxide reached a record 400 parts per million in the atmosphere, the highest levels in at least three million years, before human beings evolved, and that global emissions rose by 60 percent between 1990 and 2013.
In his second Inaugural Address, President Obama calls climate change the leading issue of our time. “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”
More than 60 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions come from six nations: China, 30 percent; the United States, 16 percent; India, 6 percent; Russia, 5 percent; Japan, 4 percent; and Germany, 3 percent.

2014
President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China announce limits on greenhouse gas emissions; the United States agrees to cut emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025; China says it will begin scaling back emissions before 2030. The agreement sets the stage for a global climate deal.
A United Nations study finds that even if global greenhouse gas emissions are cut to the level required to keep temperature rise below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit or 2 degrees Celsius, the cost of climate change adaptation in developing countries is likely to reach two to three times previous estimates of $70 billion to $100 billion per year by 2050

2015
The Paris climate accord is approved by 195 nations, including the United States, marking the first time that all major nations pledge to make emissions reductions to limit the global average temperature increase to less than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
The Republican-controlled Congress votes to phase out tax credits for wind and solar energy by 2020; various tax incentives for fossil fuel production remain. President Obama signs the bill, citing support from the renewable energy industry.

2016
2016 is the warmest year on record, the third consecutive year that a global annual temperature record has been set, and the 40th consecutive year that annual temperatures have been above the 20th-century average. The five warmest years have all occurred since 2010.
James Hansen and other scientists publish research finding that current global temperatures are the highest in at least 115,000 years, when sea levels were 20 to 30 feet higher than today.
Nearly all of the 16 Republican presidential hopefuls deny the science of climate change, and none support the Paris climate agreement. Donald Trump pledges to “cancel” American involvement in the Paris accord.
Not a single question on climate change is asked by moderators in any of the four presidential or vice-presidential debates.
The United States joins with 189 other countries to phase out hydrofluorocarbons, gases used as refrigerants, a move that will stave off nearly a degree Fahrenheit of warming by 2100.
Mr. Trump is elected president following a campaign in which he called for more fossil fuel drilling, fewer environmental regulations and vowed to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord. “Regulations that shut down hundreds of coal-fired power plants and block the construction of new ones — how stupid is that?” Mr. Trump asked during the campaign.

2017
Following up on his campaign promises, President Trump signs an executive order directing his administration to undo regulations to cut emissions from the electric power sector; orders the resumption of the federal coal leasing program; says he will seek to weaken fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks; and proposes to cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by 30 percent. He also says he will withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord.
Hurricane Harvey unleashes 50 inches of rain, the largest rainfall in United States history, paralyzing five million in Houston, killing 30, with a price tag of at least tens of billions of dollars to federal taxpayers. Multiple peer-reviewed studies find that Hurricane Harvey was made as much as 40 percent larger and more intense because of warming Gulf of Mexico waters tied to the changing climate.
More than 30 leading climate science and policy experts, including Nobel Prize winners, say that limiting global temperatures to below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit will require removing fossil fuels from the global energy system by 2050, reducing emissions of super greenhouse gas pollutants like HFCs, methane and black carbon rapidly by 2030, and extracting carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere.
A wildfire raging through Paradise, Calif., in November. Credit Noah Berger/Associated Press
2018 
Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reach 410 parts per million, the highest level in at least three million years
President Trump insists coal is the key to the country’s energy and economic future and orders Energy Secretary Rick Perry to take immediate steps to prevent market shutdowns of coal plants.
The Trump administration says it will roll back fuel economy standards set by the Obama administration for cars and light trucks, a move that would increase greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by an amount greater than many midsize countries put out in a year.
In another move to undo the Obama climate legacy, the Trump administration proposes letting states set their own coal emissions regulations, upending rules to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. Many experts say this will cause greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector to begin rising for the first time in decades.
After falling for more than a decade, carbon dioxide emissions in the United States are set to rise by 2.5 percent in 2018. Global emissions grew by 1.6 percent in 2017 and will increase by about 2.7 percent in 2018.
Go. Jerry Brown of California signs legislation requiring that 100 percent of the state’s electricity come from carbon-free sources by 2045.
Thirteen federal agencies present the starkest warnings to date of the consequences of climate change for the United States, predicting in a report that if significant steps are not taken to rein in global warming, the damage will knock as much as 10 percent off the size of the American economy by century’s end. The report warns of devastating effects on the economy, health and the environment, including record wildfires in California, crop failures in the Midwest and crumbling infrastructure in the South.
An international team of scientists finds a growing likelihood that runaway warming could destabilize the entire global climate system and lead to a “Hothouse Earth” that in the long term will push global average temperatures to seven to nine degrees Fahrenheit warmer than preindustrial temperatures, with seas 60 to 200 feet higher than today. “Humanity is now facing the need for critical decisions and actions that could influence our future for centuries, if not millennia,” the scientists write.

*Paul Bledsoe is strategic adviser at the Progressive Policy Institute and a lecturer at American University’s Center for Environmental Studies. He served on the White House Climate Change Task Force under President Bill Clinton.

Links

Climate Change: Six Positive News Stories You Probably Missed This Year

The ConversationRick Greenough | Anna Pigott | Daniele Malerba | Mike Wood
                                Parakram Pyakurel | Rory Telford | Stuart Galloway

Philip David Williams / shutterstock
Climate change news can be incredibly depressing. In 2018 alone, The Conversation covered the loss of three trillion tonnes of ice in Antarctica; Brazil’s new president and why he will be disastrous for the Amazon rainforest; a rise in global CO₂ emissions; and a major IPCC report which warned we are unlikely to avoid 1.5℃ of warming.
Then there were the rogue hurricanes, intense heatwaves, massive wildfires and the possibility we are emitting our way towards a Hothouse Earth. Global warming has left some wintery animals with mismatched camouflage, and it may even cause a global beer shortage.
But things cannot be entirely bad, can they? We asked some climate researchers to peer through the smog and highlight a few more positive stories from 2018.

Renewable energy is being set up faster than ever
Rick Greenough, professor of energy systems, De Montfort University
2018 saw the largest annual increase in global renewable generation capacity ever, with new solar photovoltaic capacity outstripping additions in coal, natural gas and nuclear power combined.
This is one of several hopeful signs that the “cleantech” sector is rising to the challenge of climate change. The UK, for instance, set new records for wind generation. And now that subsidy-free solar generation has proven possible, there are plans for the UK’s largest solar farm to provide the cheapest electricity on the grid, thanks to battery backup (crucial for intermittent renewable technology). Tesla, meanwhile, installed the world’s largest lithium battery in Australia and it is set to pay back a third of its cost within one year.

Chernobyl fights against climate change
Mike Wood, reader in applied ecology, University of Salford
Three decades ago, the world experienced its worst nuclear accident to date. The damaged Chernobyl nuclear power plant released large quantities of radioactive material into the environment, necessitating evacuation of an area now known as the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ). But forget the popularised imagery of a nuclear wasteland; Chernobyl is now home to an amazing diversity of wildlife, its forests are expanding and the future of this region is looking positive.
Forests have reclaimed the ‘abandoned city’ of Pipyat near Chernobyl. podorojniy / shutterstock
In the fight against climate change, there is a global need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to increase the removal and storage of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (a process known as carbon sequestration). The ongoing expansion of Chernobyl’s forests means more atmospheric carbon is becoming incorporated into the trees. Additionally, the central part of the CEZ is now home to a major new solar farm development and wind farm development is being considered. Consequently, this post-accident landscape is now contributing to a sustainable future.

A new mobilising force for climate action
Anna Pigott, researcher in environmental humanities, Swansea University
The Extinction Rebellion direct action movement might not be the most obvious choice for positivity, what with its use of skull imagery and banners such as the one hung over Westminster Bridge in November reading: “Climate Change: We’re F****d”. But a closer look suggests that the movement’s acknowledgement of personal and collective despair in the face of environmental collapse might be a very positive move indeed.
‘Grief is welcome here’: Extinction Rebellion protesters in London, November 2018. Rupert Rivett / Shutterstock
As its co-founder Gail Bradbrook explains, “grief is welcome here – it is an emotional, physical, and spiritual necessity”. Poets and scholars alike have long spoken about how grief mobilises awareness and action, but rarely has this wisdom found its way into large environmental movements.
Pain usefully alerts us to problems that need our attention, and, in the case of climate change and species loss, our grief is a sign that we care deeply. Now is not the time to turn our back on such emotions. As the poet Mary Oliver has written: “You tell me your despair, yours, and I will tell you mine.” For many, the Extinction Rebellion movement has given them permission to grieve, and to share this grief with others. And this could be the most mobilising force for climate action yet.

Global economic growth may have peaked 
Daniele Malerba, honorary research fellow, University of Manchester 
Expansion in the global economy may have peaked, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The economic think-tank is worried by the slowdown, but it may actually be good news for the climate and possibly for society too. This is because less global economic growth means less production, less consumption – and lower emissions.
But any slowdown or eventual reversal in growth must happen in an equitable way to make sure that human well-being still increases. This is why an increasing number of researchers, politicians and citizens are advocating for degrowth.
Degrowth addresses the issue technological improvements are not enough to avoid climate change and an alternative to capitalism is urgently needed. The recent protests in France show that environmental and social issues need to go hand-in-hand. And this is critical in a situation when populist movements are spreading. Degrowth is the solution. As Ghandi once said, we have enough for everybody’s needs, but not everybody’s greed.

Glimmer of hope in emissions reduction
Parakram Pyakurel, researcher, Warsash School of Maritime Science and Engineering, Solent University
A lot still needs to be done to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions but not all is doom and gloom. For instance, the US, UK and Japan are among the countries whose total carbon emissions from energy fell in 2017 (the most recent year available), according to BP’s statistical review of world energy.
Interestingly, Ukraine showed the greatest reduction, with its 2017 energy emissions around 10% lower than in the previous year. This was thanks to a big fall in coal use, perhaps part of the country’s grand vision of a 2050 low emission development strategy, though it remains to be seen whether Kiev will take the strategy seriously in the long term.
Ukraine’s coal mines reduced production by 14% in 2017. Roman Pilipey / EPA
Other nations that managed to reduce their energy emissions include South Africa, Argentina, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates. We’ll need to carefully monitor the statistics in upcoming years to see whether they continue on this path.

Local community energy is doing well
Rory Telford and Stuart Galloway, Department of Engineering, University of Strathclyde
Renewable generation technologies such as wind turbines or solar photovoltaics are now a familiar sight, but many may not realise that communities themselves are accelerating the transition towards low carbon energy. In Scotland, the government’s programme to support local involvement in renewable energy has been a success. An initial target of having 500MW of community and local owned energy was achieved early and with policy stability and continued effort the new 1GW target by 2020 also looks achievable.
The Smart Fintry project based in Stirlingshire is an excellent example of a community approach to decentralised energy provision. The project balances local renewable electricity generation with community energy needs via dynamic energy management technology and an innovative tariff. This offers far greater flexibility to the network and cheaper energy for households.

Links

In The Hot Seat: Joelle's Journey From The Dole To A Global Role

Fairfax - Julie Perrin

In 2006, climate scientist Dr Joelle Gergis was pulling weeds under Melbourne’s West Gate Bridge on the work-for-the-dole scheme. Centrelink advised removing her PhD from her resume, saying: “It’s not going to help you find a job.”
She refused, and instead enrolled in a professional writing course.



This year Gergis is one of Australia’s lead authors on the Sixth Assessment Report of the United Nation’s IPCC – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 2014, her inter-disciplinary team SEARCH – South Eastern Australian Recent Climate History – won the Eureka science prize,  informally known as the Oscars of Australian science.
But the story is not all pretty. Since 2012, Gergis has had to face attacks from trolls and climate change sceptics. But 2018 has seen her climate scholarship vindicated and the story of her work published to acclaim.
Back in those Centrelink days, I met Gergis in a writing class at RMIT. She was a couple of years shy of 30. During class introductions she said: “I’m doing this course because I want to write about climate science in a way ordinary people can understand.”
You knew she meant it. Gergis was straight-shouldered and direct and had recently finished a PhD examining El Nino events using ancient climate records.
Dr Joelle Gergis speaks at the Melbourne University launch of her book Sunburnt Country in April.Credit:Les O'Rourke
We met up at the bike racks after class and rode homewards, chatting as our lights flashed in the winter dark. Twenty years Gergis' senior, I had no science background. She was a drummer from a girl band turned climate scientist - even my teenage kids were impressed.
In 2008, Gergis was introduced to eminent climate scientist Professor David Karoly at the University of Melbourne. He liked her research proposal to reconstruct Australia’s climate history of the past 1000 years. Karoly knew that nothing like this existed for Australia, so he backed her to write a multi-disciplinary research funding application, bringing on board some of Australia’s leading climate scientists, historians and water managers.
The result was the SEARCH team. Their  work was to gather early weather observations from historical sources and align climate information extracted from tree rings, corals and ice cores. The research would provide a better assessment of the range of natural climate variability over longer periods.
By 2012, the SEARCH project had produced remarkable results, including a study showing the unprecedented recent warming of Australian temperatures associated with greenhouse gases. The timing proved crucial, Gergis recalls: "Because the results had relevance for the climate change policies that were being fiercely debated in Canberra at the time, the paper received more attention than I could ever have imagined." The findings were seen as reinforcing the iconic "hockey stick" image of abrupt late 20th century warming which had become the bete noire of the climate change sceptics.
"As I wrote my book ... the Great Barrier Reef experienced back-to-back bleaching for the first time in its history." Credit: Dean Miller/Great Barrier Reef Legacy
While the manuscript was being prepared for print for the Journal of Climate, it was released online in May 2012. Within 24 hours an error had been discovered in the section describing the methods used. The paper said the study had used “de-trended” data – temperature data showing variations from year to year, with the longer-term trends removed – but it had in fact used raw data. The team withdrew the online release while they assessed the impact and decided what they needed to do to address it. Would using de-trended data deliver a different result?
International and local climate change sceptics had also noticed the error and soon set to work. The credibility of the team's results was lampooned. The sceptics claimed this was proof of cheating, ridiculed Gergis' credibility and in some cases referred to her as a “bimbo” and a “brain-dead retard”. The Australian published a piece by Queensland academic and climate sceptic the late Bob Carter that accused Gergis of producing "tendentious science".  “It was a complete nightmare,” Gergis says.
The inboxes of Karoly and Gergis were deluged. Under Freedom of Information laws that apply to university staff, critics demanded access to four years of email correspondence, determined to prove collusion and intent to deceive. Karoly stood solidly behind Gergis but nothing prepared her for this onslaught, which included abusive and bullying emails. She took unpaid leave in 2013 and Karoly had to talk her into returning to take up a prestigious Australian Research Council fellowship she’d been awarded during the ordeal.
But the sceptics didn’t win. Their trawling found nothing, no trail of deceit. Over four years, the SEARCH team re-crunched all of the statistical inputs using de-trended data and the outcome was virtually identical. The original research was now reinforced by extensive review. An independent group of international scientists reproduced the results using three additional statistical methods in one of the field's leading journals, Nature Geoscience.
Sunburnt Country by Joelle Gergis.
Gergis has now written Sunburnt Country: The history and future of climate change in Australia – the first book to piece together our nation’s climate history. It lays out a clear distinction between natural climate variability and human-caused climate change. Gergis has spoken in media and at writers' festivals around the country, at the same time keeping up her substantial teaching and research commitments.
In the book, Gergis gives a full account of the campaign of bullying by climate change sceptics. She concludes: “In the end, this saga will be remembered as a footnote in climate science, a storm in a teacup, all played out against the backdrop of a planet that has never been hotter in human history.”

In 2016 Gergis moved to the north coast of NSW. Reflecting on that time she now says: “As I wrote my book, my home town was flooded by record-breaking rainfall generated by Cyclone Debbie. The Great Barrier Reef experienced back-to-back bleaching for the first time in its history. It felt like there was no distinction between what I was writing about and what was playing out across the country.”
During the scheduled final proofing of Sunburnt Country, Gergis' father fell seriously ill and died. She had no choice but to complete this exacting work between distraught flights to family in Sydney and her university teaching in Melbourne.
At the Brisbane Writers' Festival in September, an interview delved into her personal experience as a climate scientist with a public voice. Gergis reflects: “It's an enormous privilege to be a spokesperson for this issue, but sometimes the responsibility and emotional toll is hard to bear. I  can’t just go home and forget about it.”
The audience at the Melbourne launch of Sunburnt CountryCredit: Les O'Rourke
She received a standing ovation that evening. As she tells me this, her shoulders shrug. “I was really touched - ” she looks up and grins, “well, bemused really."
In January 2019, while most Australians are on holidays, Gergis will be at an IPCC meeting in Vancouver, volunteering her time alongside almost 200 climate scientists from around the world. Afterwards they will write thousands of words in careful reports, despite the fact that many of them realise they are working in politically hostile environments.
The most recent IPCC recommendation by 91 eminent scientists – to end the use of coal power by 2050 – was dismissed in October by Federal Environment Minister Melissa Price as “drawing a long bow”. The disconnect between political comments like this and public perception of the issue has fuelled a growing response – most recently in demonstrations by thousands of Australian schoolchildren and the COAG revolt by the NSW government over federal inaction on emissions.
For her part, Gergis is as direct and determined as she was when I first met her 12 years ago: “We’ll keep going in the hope our work can help turn the tide before it is too late.”

Links