Lethal Heating: 04/06/19

06/04/2019

Climate Change Helped Destroy These Four Ancient Civilisations

World Economic Forum - Sean Fleming

Are we next?
Image: REUTERS/File Photo

Ignorant, malign and evil. This is some of the unapologetically harsh criticism directed at climate change deniers by Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Her point is as simple as it is blunt: “Climate change undermines the enjoyment of the full range of human rights – from the right to life, to food, to shelter and to health. It is an injustice that the people who have contributed least to the causes of the problem suffer the worst impacts of climate change.”

Image: NASA

It is widely accepted that the Earth’s climate is in a near-constant state of flux. There have been seven ice age cycles, featuring the expansion and contraction of glaciers, over the last 650,000 years. The last major ice age ended approximately 11,000 years ago, ushering in our modern climate era, the Holocene. Since then, the climate has been mostly stable, although there was a Little Ice Age that took place between 1200 and 1850 CE.
But there’s more to climate change than the spread of glaciers and many once-mighty civilizations have been devastated by the effects of locally changing climate conditions.
The Mayan civilization in Mesoamerica lasted for some 3,000 years. Their empire was spread throughout the Yucatan Peninsula and modern-day Guatemala, Belize, parts of Mexico, and western Honduras and El Salvador. Agriculture was the cornerstone of Mayan civilization, with great cities being built as the population grew. Religion was an important part of Mayan life; sacrifice – including human sacrifice – was a regular ritual, intended to appease and nourish the gods and keep the land fertile.
However, somewhere around 900 CE, things started to go wrong for the Mayans. Overpopulation put too great a strain on resources. Increased competition for resources was bringing the Maya into violent conflict with other nations. An extensive period of drought sounded the death-knell, ruining crops and cutting off drinking water supplies.
They were not the only ancient people catastrophically caught out by climate change.
More than 4,000 years ago in Mesopotamia – the area currently made up of Iraq, north-east Syria and south-east Turkey – the Akkadian empire ruled supreme. Until a 300-year-long drought quite literally turned all their plans to dust. It was part of a pattern of changing climate conditions in the Middle East around 2,200 BCE that was constantly disrupting life and up-ending emerging empires.
When the effects of drought began to be felt, people would leave the stricken areas and migrate to more abundant ones. These mass migration events, however, increased the pressure on remaining resources, leading to yet more problems.
The iconic Angkor Wat temple is a reminder of the prowess of another of history’s lost civilizations – the Khmer empire of south-east Asia, which flourished between 802 and 1431 CE. It too was brought down by drought, interspersed with violent monsoon rains, against the backdrop of a changing climate.
Even the Viking settlers of Greenland, in the far north Atlantic, are believed to have been affected by climate change. Some 5,000 settlers made the island their home for around 500 years. But they may have had their way of life disrupted by climate change. Temperatures dropped, reducing substantially the productivity of their farms and making it harder to raise livestock. They adapted their eating habits, turning their attention to the sea as a source of food. But life on Greenland became unbearably difficult, leading to the eventual abandonment of the island colony.
The natural cycle of climate change is an ongoing and unavoidable part of life. But history seems to be telling us that when past civilizations have overstretched themselves or pushed their consumption of natural resources to the brink, the effects of climate change soon become amplified. With dire consequences for those caught up in it.
Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, increasing amounts of polluting gases have been pumped into the atmosphere, triggering an unprecedented rate of warming. According to the IPCC, human activity has caused around 1°C of global warming (above pre-industrial levels). The likely range is between 0.8°C and 1.2°C. Between 2030 and 2052, global warming is likely to hit a 1.5°C increase.
That increase of 1.5°C could put between 20% and 30% of animal species on the fast track to extinction. If the planet warms by an average 2°C the damage will be even worse. For the human population, one of the threats climate change poses is rising sea levels and eight of the world’s 10 largest cities are in coastal locations.
Another is the risk of climate-driven drought leading to mass migration events similar to those seen thousands of years ago. The Climate & Migration Coalition has warned that countries caught up in armed conflict or civil war are particularly vulnerable to famine in the event of drought. The Horn of Africa, home to Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia is an area that has been hit hard by both man-made conflict and climate change. Around 13 million people there face serious food shortages.
In volatile parts of the world, it is exceptionally difficult to address the challenges of drought and famine; getting aid to people in a conflict zone is fraught with difficulty and danger. This can make the effects more profound and longer-lasting, which will, in turn, increase the likelihood of large numbers of people uprooting themselves in search of somewhere they can live.
The challenge facing our world due to climate change is something that should not be underestimated. But neither is it cause for despondency. Because unlike the Mayans, the Mesopotamians and other ancient civilizations, here in the 21st century, we are in a position to do something constructive.
The Paris Agreement was one significant milestone in the fight back against climate change. Signed by 195 members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, it has put in place a serious of goals and commitments to keep the increase in average global temperatures below 2°C. Despite a high-profile decision to leave the Paris Accord, there is now a growing movement in the US political sphere to rejoin. There is also talk of the European Union refusing to sign trade deals with countries that are not signatories to the agreement.

Links

News Corp Launches Offensive Against Labor's Climate Policy Amid Glowing Budget 2019 Previews

The Guardian - Amanda Meade

Murdoch papers label Shorten’s energy plans a ‘lunchbox tax’ and paint Coalition as saviours of Australian ‘workers’

Ahead of budget 2019, the front pages of the Australian and the Daily Telegraph newspapers on 2 April feature a barrage of negative stories about Labor’s climate change policy.

The Daily Telegraph and its stablemates have taken the blowtorch to Labor’s climate policy, labelling it a “lunchbox tax” across numerous news stories, editorials, graphics and opinion pieces.
The barrage of negative stories is in sharp contrast to the glowing previews of Scott Morrison’s first budget as prime minister which the publications say will bring “tax relief for millions of workers”.
The treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, and finance minister, Mathias Cormann, are pictured in smart blue suits on the front page of the Australian with the accompanying report reassuring readers the government will “declare an end to the debt and deficit disaster the Coalition inherited from Labor six years ago”.
The release of the final component of Labor’s climate change policy has sparked a tidal wave of negative coverage, but none so extreme as that in Rupert Murdoch’s Sydney tabloid.

“Pay as you eat” and “Labor climate plan hits food costs” were the front-page headlines as the Tele followed Scott Morrison’s line that the “carbon tax 2.0” would impose massive costs on Australians.

It followed Monday’s bellicose front page: “Carbon Bill’s Green Whack.”
“Household grocery bills are in line to soar, with major food manufacturers included in Bill Shorten’s aggressive plan to make businesses pay to pollute,” the Daily Telegraph’s front page story on Tuesday said.
“Arnott’s, Bega Cheese, Ingham’s, McCain, Nestle, Parmalat, Coca-Cola, Pepsi and the Australian Lamb Company are among 250 businesses that would be forced into Labor’s rebooted carbon trading scheme.
“Energy minister Angus Taylor labelled Labor’s policy a ‘lunchbox tax’ given at least 15 food and beverage companies were among the 147 businesses facing emissions caps.”
Inside, an editorial also criticises the plan: “And, for that matter, how will average families feel if they are hit by four-figure quarterly power bills and then get hit again when shopping for food?”
The rightwing thinktank the Institute of Public Affairs was given two-thirds of a page to rail against the policy, which research fellow Andrew Bushnell alleges would punish “ordinary Australians” while putting a smile on the faces of “inner-city greenies”.
“What do Bill Shorten and Mike from Married At First Sight have in common? They are both gaslighting the entire nation,” Bushnell said.
The Australian’s economics commentator, Judith Sloan, took a different slant, lamenting that Labor’s “carbon crusade” would “hit blue-chip firms” rather than lunchboxes.
The Australian was a little more subtle than the Tele, labelling the Labor policy “a re-Rudd”.
“Labor leader Bill Shorten is standing firm behind his plan to cut carbon emissions despite fierce Morrison government attacks labelling it ‘a re-Rudd of failed policy’,” the Oz reported.
The Courier Mail’s front page went with the lunchbox tax angle, saying “Labor’s hit on food bill”.
“Upwards pressure will be put on the price of biscuits, beers, soft drink and groceries under Labor’s carbon plan, which will capture some household name brands under an expanded cap-and-trade carbon scheme,” the Queensland masthead said.

Links

The Challenge Facing Labor On Climate Change

AFR - Tony Wood*

The nation is desperate for an end to the climate wars but Labor is asking us to take a lot on trust.

Reducing emissions will be an enormous challenge in years to come - whoever wins the election. Photo Paul Jones

Australia needs a credible and predictable climate-change policy to ensure affordable and reliable electricity while contributing to the global task of avoiding catastrophic climate change.
Sound policy and winning politics have been horribly out of alignment since Kevin Rudd failed to implement his carbon pollution reduction scheme. Whoever is prime minister after next month’s election must not squander the opportunity to finally forge a coherent climate-change policy.
The Labor policy announced this week looks sound enough, but it’s not first-best. Sadly, an economy-wide policy that tackles climate change at lowest cost was left behind on the battlefield of the climate wars.
Labor is basically proposing to take the Coalition’s policy vehicle, put its own badge on the bonnet, and then drive it faster. Bill Shorten’s policy looks a bit like what an earlier Coalition would have done had its own internal politics not destroyed coherent policy.
It’s a combination of the National Energy Guarantee (NEG), the Emissions Reduction Fund and the so-called Safeguard Mechanism. It’s a workable model that could encourage investment without getting bogged down in unco-ordinated and incoherent federal and state subsidies and threats.
No matter who wins the election, their task is enormous. Australia’s total emissions in 2018 were 534 million tonnes, down from 605 million tonnes in 2005. The Coalition’s target implies emissions will come down to 448 million tonnes in 2030. Labor’s more ambitious target implies emissions will be down to 333 million tonnes by then. And whoever is in government would need to keep going from there.

It would truly be a tragedy for Australia if the Greens once again let pursuit of the perfect prevent implementation of the good.

The overwhelming contributor to the fall in emissions since 2005 is a dramatic reduction in emissions from land clearing. The effect of this "windfall" for Labor’s target is that, if the electricity sector is set a 45 per cent emissions reduction target, the target for the rest of the economy would be closer to 30 per cent.
The Coalition has no overarching policy and no specific emissions-reduction mechanism for the electricity sector. The biggest weight in the Coalition’s saddle is its track record, highlighted by the dumping of both its prime minister and its preferred policy in 2018.
Labor proposes a combination of approaches for the various sectors that contribute to Australia’s emissions.
This avoids a rerun of previous climate battles over an economy-wide carbon tax, but it leads to selective targets and tougher fights with each sector.

Additional safety valve
Under Labor, the key mechanism for the electricity sector would initially be the NEG; for large-scale industrial emissions it would be the Safeguard Mechanism; for agriculture it would be tightened restrictions; and for the transport sector it would be emissions standards that tighten over time. Domestic credits would become the tradeable commodity across industry sectors, with international credits an additional safety valve.
Simple logic reveals the extent of Labor’s challenge. Every tonne of emissions conceded to one sector is a tonne that must be picked up by someone else. If agriculture is excluded and large trade-exposed businesses are substantially shielded, then other sectors such as electricity and transport will have to pick up that load.
None of this is likely to be simple. Although much of the business community now supports action on climate change, if Shorten wins the election then business will stride through the door that Labor has opened for negotiation. The Coalition will argue that Labor’s target is economically irresponsible. The Greens will argue that it is environmentally irresponsible. The Coalition and the Greens, in an unholy agreement, both intend to reject the use of international credits. It would truly be a tragedy for Australia if the Greens once again let pursuit of the perfect prevent implementation of the good.
If Labor wins, Mark Butler as the new Energy and Environment Minister will have the further, non-trivial task of securing agreement from the states and territories to integrate their various climate-change and energy policies into a coherent whole.

Moral high ground
Between now and polling day, Labor will claim the moral high ground on climate change. It will point to official figures that show Australia is not on track to meet even the Coalition’s less-ambitious target. Labor will also highlight modelling that suggests more renewable energy means lower electricity prices. The Coalition, for its part, will highlight other, recently published modelling that suggests much higher prices under Labor’s more ambitious emissions-reduction target.
Labor appears to have decided against providing design details or costings for its climate-change policy. That political judgment may be vindicated, but it provides the opportunity for a scare campaign. The Coalition, and sections of the media, will not miss that opportunity.
Climate change is upon us. Australian businesses and voters are looking for credible action on emissions but want reassurance that electricity will remain reliable and affordable.
Let the climate-change election campaign begin.

*Tony Wood is director of the Grattan Institute's Energy Program.

Links

ALP Climate Policy Requires Serious Scrutiny

Sydney Morning Herald - Editorial

The ALP's announcement of key details of its climate policy on Monday was quickly overshadowed by the federal budget but it could prove to be a more important document in the long-term if there is a change of government at the federal election.
The policy is complex and, unfortunately, the political debate on the details has been poor. Prime Minister Scott Morrison chose to respond to a question about climate policy in Parliament on Wednesday with a dad-joke impersonation of the slapstick character Borat from a 2006 movie.

Bill Shorten's plan includes international carbon permits. Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

The government's failure to engage intellectually is giving the ALP too easy a ride. There are serious questions to be answered.

The ALP must show it has a practical plan which will achieve its promise to cut emissions by 2030 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels while at the same time keeping costs to a minimum.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has been light on detail but this week did clear up a few things. First, he has confirmed that if elected he will not seek to use so-called 'carry-over credits' to meet Australia's targets under the Paris climate treaty. Because Australia cut emissions by more than it pledged under the Kyoto treaty for the period 2005 to 2020, it could have tried to carry that over as a credit for the new deal for 2020 to 2030.
This sleight of hand would sap Australia's moral authority to press other countries to act. It has already been rejected by European countries and Mr Shorten correctly described it as "fake action".

Another new point is that Mr Shorten said he would allow the use of so-called international carbon credits, which sound similar but are very different. Under this policy, Australian polluters would be able to meet some of their emissions reduction targets by paying for climate reduction projects in other countries.

This is what prompted Mr Morrison's joke in which he speculated Labor's policy could result in buying emissions credits from Borat's homeland of Kazakhstan.
It is strange that the Liberal Party, supposedly the party of business, is treating the idea as a joke. Businesses, such as oil producer Woodside, are big fans because it could be much cheaper than cutting their own emissions. Many companies already buy these credits on a voluntary basis as a public relation exercise to help them become carbon neutral. They are attractive because the cost per ton of reducing carbon emissions by, say, planting a forest in Papua New Guinea is currently only a fraction of the cost of doing it here.

Korea has already allowed the use of international permits for its new emissions trading scheme and it is likely they will be used soon in Europe, New Zealand and China to meet Paris commitments.
Yet international credits are not a panacea. For one thing, some of them can be fakes. A decade ago, Chinese companies were discovered to have sold permits based on misleading claims about reductions in carbon emissions from refrigeration gases.

There are also moral issues in foisting the responsibility for emissions reductions on developing countries. Moreover excessive dependence on international permits carries commercial risks. If other countries start to embrace them their price could rise dramatically.

The ALP is right to leave open the door to international carbon permits as a partial answer but it must ensure they are rigorously accredited and must not use them as a substitute for domestic carbon reduction. Most of the heavy lifting will have to be done here.

Links