29/04/2019

Tim Winton: Our Leaders Are Ignoring Global Warming To The Point Of Criminal Negligence. It's Unforgivable

The Guardian - Tim Winton

Our leaders are ignoring global warming to the point of criminal negligence. It's unforgivable
Two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef was hit by back-to-back mass coral bleaching. Photograph: Kerryn Bell/ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies 
I’ve been asking myself a question – and even posing it makes me queasy.
Is it too late – are we beyond saving?
As a culture and a polity, when it comes to climate change, have we arrived at a point where we are now expected – even trained – to abandon hope and submit to the inevitable?
OK, I guess that’s two questions. In good faith I can still say that the answer to the first is no. But I’d be a liar and a fool to give the same response to the second.
No, it isn’t too late. But we’ve squandered decades of opportunities to mitigate and forestall impacts and we’re making a pig’s breakfast of responding to what is now a crisis. Even so, humans are not yet beyond saving themselves from the worst ravages of global warming. There’s fight in us yet, even if it’s a bit shapeless.
The problem – and it’s an existential threat both profound and perverse – is that those who lead us and have power over our shared destiny are ignoring global warming to the point of criminal negligence.
Worse than that, their policies, language, patronal obligations and acts of bad faith are poisoning us, training citizens to accept the prospect of inexorable loss, unstoppable chaos, certain doom. Business as usual is robbing people of hope, white-anting the promise of change. That’s not just delinquent, it’s unforgivable.
Over the last 15 years in Australia our national governments have failed to respond effectively to the challenge of climate change, and for most of that time we actually gave ourselves the luxury of calling it a challenge.
Now it’s more of a crisis. And it’s not as if our leaders are incapable of producing a timely response to a crisis. After all, in 2009 the government took bold steps to avoid an economic depression. And in the matter of refugees arriving by boat, governments still spend billions on emergency-level funding and infrastructure to meet what they view as a crisis of national security.
But in the case of climate change there’s no equivalent sense of immediacy, no sense of priority commensurate with the dangers it poses to our future ability to feed ourselves, defend our largely coastal settlements, insure our homes, maintain national security and keep our children safe from harm.
I worry that this widely-shared grief and unfocussed rage may become the signal human disposition of our time
The message implicit in our governments’ refusal to act is that we should all just suck it up – as in “climate change is bullshit, and even if it’s not there’s nothing you can do about it”.
Once internalised, this narrative is profoundly dangerous, not only for individuals, but for the entire community. It’s a licence for nihilism, a ticket to hell in a handbasket. And the cohort responsible for this mixture of denial and fatalism is far removed from the daily experience of the ordinary citizen, especially the youngest and poorest of us. They have become a threat to our shared future and we must hold them to account, immediately and without reservation.
In the last 25 years I’ve observed a peculiar social phenomenon in individuals and communities that I mistakenly thought I understood because I was a child of the cold war.
Dead fish in the Darling River at Menindee, New South Wales, Australia. Officials on 28 January 2019, found hundreds of thousands of dead fish in the Menindee weir pool and neighbouring waterways. Photograph: Graeme Mccrabb Handout/EPA

While working to help save ecosystems across Australia I’ve noticed a bruised attitude of beleaguerment in individuals and within groups that’s increasingly hard to ignore, a mounting grimness in the faces and language of people barely holding on in the face of steady, cumulative and unrelenting losses.
They’re losing places, ecosystems, potential. It’s not restricted to activists; I see it in neighbourhoods and towns, I read it online, I get it in the mail. Ordinary folks – young and old – watching their waterways curdle, their soils blow away, their green spaces bulldozed, their fish gasping for air. Feeling wounded and betrayed, some are clinging to the last tendrils of hope, others are falling into despair. And that worries me.
Ecological depletion is being experienced communally as a mounting loss of access and an erosion of possibility. In essence, a pruning back of future prospects. It’s expressed as grief, and the most palpable, widespread and immediate expression of it is now brewing over climate change.
Beneath that grief there’s rage.
I worry that this widely-shared grief and unfocussed rage may become the signal human disposition of our time, that the Anthropocene will be marked by fury and hopelessness. This frightens me just as much as the prospect of beachside properties falling into the sea, or even the death of our coral reefs. Acidifying cultures are as chaotic and dangerous as acidifying oceans.
Younger people in particular have begun to feel abandoned by their leaders and elders. They suspect they’ll be left without food or ammunition to stage a fighting retreat in which every battle is a defeat foreseen and every bit of territory was surrendered in advance by politicians and CEOs who deserted them long ago to hide in their privileged bunkers and silos.
So what hope for our kids? Why should we be surprised they’d walk out of school and march? Their futures are being traded away before their eyes. They see what many of their elders and betters refuse to acknowledge. That they’re being robbed.
During the cold war many of us were gripped by dread – it was personal and communal – and in the books and films of the era our anxiety was palpable. We lived every day with the prospect of nuclear annihilation, and sometimes that possibility was clear, present and extremely proximate, a matter of hours and minutes when a possibility became an actual probability.
And for some time now I’ve been trying to see our current crisis through that lived experience. Because we survived, didn’t we? The worst never happened. No one pressed the button. So, chances are, all will be well this time, too – right?
The Great Barrier Reef experienced bleaching events so catastrophic they caused our most senior coral scientists to weep
But the reason humanity survived the cold war is because world leaders paid attention. They took emergent crises seriously. And in each instance of utmost danger, arguments of ideology and nationalism eventually fell away before the sacred importance of life itself. Beneath all the posturing there was, finally, a bedrock of humanity informing the technocrats and generals. Stepping back from the brink was expensive. Think what it cost in terms of pride, political prestige, assets, even territory. Consider the expenditure of ingenuity and infrastructure.
And there’s our problem. Because in this country, when it comes to climate change, there’s no equivalent attention to the crisis. For some there’s no crisis at all.
Our governments and corporations are ensnared in a feedback loop of “common sense” and mutual self-preservation that’s little more than a bespoke form of nihilism. Ideology, prestige, assets and territory are now tacitly understood to be worth more than all life, human or otherwise.
And the four great capacities of humanity to solve a crisis – ingenuity, discipline, courage and sacrifice – these seem to be reserved for more important enterprises. The future, by all accounts, can wait.
But the future is already with us. The button has been pushed – again and again.
In 2011, along hundreds of kilometres of the West Australian coast, abalone crawled off the reefs to die in their untold thousands on the baking white beaches because of a 2-degree spike in sea temperature. A little further north at Shark Bay, the world’s largest seagrass meadows suffered a sudden mortality of 20%. In the Northern Territory two years later, mangrove forests died along a 1,000km stretch of coast. And the Great Barrier Reef experienced successive bleaching events so catastrophic they caused the nation’s most senior coral scientists to weep.
Here’s the thing. To our current national government climate change is but a dry-lightning storm in a district unknown. For the denialists who control policy, the storm itself is an endlessly debatable phenomenon. And if the parish it’s lighting up really does exist, then it can safely be dismissed as remote and insignificant.
But that district is real. Most of us know it as the immediate future. Some know it as the present. And it’s already burning. It’s peopled with folks who weep and seethe and dread what else may lie ahead.
We can no longer wait patiently for our leaders to catch up. We cannot allow ourselves to be trained to accept hopelessness. Not by business, nor by governments. Both have subjected us to a steady diet of loss and depletion. It’s sapped us and left us mourning a future we can see fading before it even arrives.
There’s no good reason to submit to this. No sane purpose in putting up with it. Because grief will paralyse us, and despair renders doom inevitable. We can afford neither.
Australians can make a bad outcome inexorable by submitting to it meekly. Or we can fight for a viable future and meet this crisis shoulder to shoulder. I am of the passionate belief that we can and will. But to do this we’ll need to get our house in order – and fast. That means calling bullshit on what’s been happening in our name for the past 15 years.
It’s time to make sharp demands of our representatives, time to remove those who refuse to act in our common interest, time to elect people with courage, ingenuity and discipline, people who’ll sacrifice pride, privilege and even perks for the sake of something sacred.
Because there’s something bigger at stake here than culture wars and the mediocrity of so-called common-sense. It’s the soil under our feet, the water we drink, the air we breathe.
Life. It’s worth the fight. But, by God, after decades of appeasement, defeatism and denialism, it’s going to take a fight. Time’s short. So, let’s give our grief and fury some shape and purpose and reclaim our future together.
Enough cowardice.
Enough bullshit.
Time for action.

Links

Support For Action Surges, As Majority Say We Face Climate Emergency

Renew Economy*

Climate Emergency
Key Findings:
  • 60% of Victorians and 57% of Queenslanders agreed that Australia is facing a climate change emergency and should take emergency action (58% nationwide).
  • More respondents in Queensland (56%) than Victoria (51%) support the Government mobilising climate efforts like they mobilised everyone during the world wars.
  • Less than a third of voters (28%) agreed that what Australia does on climate change will make no difference.
In the first-ever poll of its kind, new research from The Australia Institute (TAI) has found that a clear majority of Australians agree the nation ‘is facing a climate emergency’ requiring emergency action.
In response, governments should “mobilise all of society” like they did during the world wars.
It is an extraordinary finding that shows public sentiment is well ahead of the major political parties, and ahead of the large climate advocacy organisations.
The findings are part of a larger survey which found majority support, and across the political parties, for:
  • A rapid transition to 100% renewable energy; 
  • A national program to switch to an electrically charged transport system;
  • Stopping any more native forest logging, and 
  • A large publicly-funded research program into zero-carbon industry and agriculture (See Table 1).
There was also more support than opposition for no new coal mines and no new exploration for new deposits of coal, oil or gas, but a clearer divide between the two political sides on these two issues.


The research sample was 1536 people across four states: Queensland, NSW, Victoria and WA.
The results were released as the ABC’s Vote Compass found that the environment (including climate change) is rated as the number one issue by 29 per cent of respondents in this federal election, a “massive shift” from just 9 per cent in 2016. The environment was nominated as the top concern among undecided voters.
Growing public concern about climate issues was also picked up in the annual Lowy Institute Poll on Australian attitudes released in June 2018, and in the TAI 2018 Climate of the Nation report.
The new TAI poll found that all statements in support of taking ambitious action on climate change received majority agreement, and all statements opposing ambition on climate change received majority disagreement. TAI says:
“Results show support for a wide range of ambitious climate policies and broad agreement that climate change is serious and can and should be addressed. What’s more, the support is present across Australia, rather than being focused in particular states.”
Amongst the results:
  •  Support was greatest for stopping any more native forest logging and reforesting other areas;
  • Two in three supported a rapid transition to 100% renewable energy, including a majority of each party’s voters;
  • Three in five supported a large publicly funded research program into zero-carbon industry and agriculture;
  • Three in five supported a national program to switch to an electrically charged transport system;
  • Half of Australians supported no new coal mines constructed and no new exploration for new deposits of coal, oil or gas.
But the biggest news is that almost six in 10 respondents agreed that “Australia is facing a climate change emergency and should take emergency action”, and over half agreed that governments should “mobilise all of society to tackle climate change, like they mobilised everyone during the world wars”.
On these two questions, every political party had more support than opposition (see Table 2). TAI notes that “It is especially significant that many respondents disagreed only modest changes are needed, but still supported these required changes.


This shows a good understanding that the fast transition now required will be disruptive and cause some pain, but people accept that is reasonable because a climate emergency level of economic mobilisation is now necessary.
A number of factors have probably contributed to these findings of high levels of understanding of the growing climate emergency, including:
  • The sustained drought and year of extraordinary climate extremes in Australia; the slow death of the Great Barrier Reef;
  • The more direct language employed by the likes of  Greta Thunberg, the school students strikers, Extinction Rebellion in the UK, and authors such as David Wallace-Wells over the last year;
  • The growing climate emergency declarations by local governments in Australia and elsewhere; and the campaign to make this the “climate election”.
*David Spratt is Research Director for Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration

Links

Why The Climate Protests That Disrupted London Were Different

VoxEliza Barclay | Umair Irfan

Extinction Rebellion skillfully used civil disobedience to sound the alarm on the climate emergency.
Climate activists blocked Waterloo Bridge on April 16 as part of the Extinction Rebellion movement in London.
Amer Ghazzal / Barcroft Media via Getty Images
 Thousands of activists unleashed strategic disorder in London for 10 days to draw attention to the accelerating climate crisis. In costume and in tents, they barricaded roads and bridges at major city landmarks, with more than 1,000 peacefully submitting to arrest.
The coordinated direct actions across the city were organized by Extinction Rebellion, a movement founded last year to demand a more aggressive climate target from the British government: net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.
With a core message that climate change is an “emergency” that threatens the survival of the human species, Extinction Rebellion sounded a shriller alarm than past climate protests. Members also deployed ostentatious, nonviolent tactics — such as gluing themselves to the Waterloo Bridge — at a scale that “has never been done before,” according to Alanna Byrne, a press coordinator with Extinction Rebellion.
“We know we have disrupted your lives,” the group said Wednesday in a statement. “We do not do this lightly. We only do this because this is an emergency.”
Extinction Rebellion’s urgency and energy on climate change is aligned with a wave of youth climate activism bubbling up in Europe, the United States, and beyond including a series of student strikes, led by the riveting Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old from Sweden.
Thunberg arrived in London on Sunday to join the Extinction Rebellion protests and deliver a fiery speech to British members of Parliament, whom she says have failed to take climate change seriously: “You don’t listen to the science because you are only interested in solutions that will enable you to carry on like before,” she chided.
If a protest is measured by how much attention and irritation it stirs up, then Extinction Rebellion has been wildly successful. London Mayor Sadiq Khan, Conservative member of Parliament Boris Johnson, and media celebrities have all called the protesters a nuisance and asked them to stop. A couple of lawmakers and the actress Emma Thompson have rallied behind them.
“I think Extinction Rebellion is extremely important,” Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, told Vox. “They’re showing how much they care and that they’re willing to pay the price — be arrested — because government inaction on climate change is unacceptable. I hope it catches on.”
Yet as the protesters transition this week from disrupting transit to pleading with policymakers, new questions have emerged: How quickly can the UK get to net-zero emissions? And will Extinction Rebellion make a difference in setting that target?
Environmental activists from Extinction Rebellion march to Parliament Square on the ninth day of protest action, aiming to invite MPs to take part in people’s assembly on climate and ecological crisis as they return to the Commons after Easter break, on 23 April, 2019 in London, England.
Wiktor Szymanowicz/Barcroft Media/Getty Images
 A brief history of Extinction Rebellion
Extinction Rebellion began in the minds of 15 organizers in April 2018 who were part of the UK activist group RisingUp!. The premise was that a more rebellious resistance was needed against “business as usual” and that governments needed to be pressured more to cut greenhouse gas emissions to zero.
Extinction Rebellion, also known as XR, officially launched in October, a few weeks after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a massive report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Its key message, which reverberated around the world, was that humanity still has a shot at limiting warming to 1.5°C, and thereby avoiding further catastrophe in the form of disease, famine, water scarcity, and sea-level rise. But time is running out — we may have as little as 11 years left to hit that target, and we are way off track.
The movement also burst onto the scene with the explicit support of the leftist Guardian columnist George Monbiot, who wrote on October 18 that “a people’s rebellion is the only way to fight climate breakdown.”
The movement introduced its “Declaration of Rebellion” at London’s Parliament Square October 31, with the goal of “peaceful civil disobedience, traffic disruption, and symbolic criminal actions” highlighting the British government’s inaction on the climate emergency.
A man holds a placard with a dinosaur drawn on it during a protest about climate change in the middle of Oxford Circus on April 15, 2019, in London, United Kingdom. Extinction Rebellion has blocked five central London landmarks in protest against government inaction on climate change.
Jonathan Perugia/In Pictures/Getty Images
 In November, XR shut down several streets in London and targeted government buildings with acts of mass civil disobedience. These, according to XR, would be “minor inconveniences when compared to the potential extinction we are facing.”
XR does not feature any individual leaders on its website. Rather, it describes itself as “a movement that is participatory, decentralized, and inclusive.” Its mission is to get 3.5 percent of the population involved in changing the system — using ideas such as “momentum-driven organizing.” Spinoff groups have now formed in dozens of countries, including the US.
On April 15, XR began a fresh round of actions to shut down London, some of which extended for 10 days. They took a large pink boat emblazoned with the words “Tell The Truth” to Oxford Circus, staged a “die-in” at the Natural History Museum to bring attention to the mass die-off of species, barricaded roads, locked and glued themselves to the Waterloo Bridge, climbed on top of trains, and sat in trees in Parliament Square. Actress Emma Thompson appeared at the Oxford Circus event on Friday.
As of Friday, more than 1,000 people had been arrested in the protests, most of them for violating orders about where protests are permitted.
While they did not completely shut down the city of 8.1 million, they did cause considerable disruption, prompting the irritated mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, to tweet on Sunday that the protests had become “counter-productive” and that the protestors should “let London return to business as usual.”


Climate experts took this as an opportunity to point out that “business as usual” in the context of climate change means utterly catastrophic global warming.


Former London Mayor Boris Johnson, who’s now a member of Parliament, also scolded the protesters and encouraged them to instead blame China for its greenhouse gas emissions. “Surely this is the time for the protesters to take their pink boat to Tiananmen Square, and lecture them in the way they have been lecturing us,” he wrote in the Telegraph. (China does contribute a large and growing share of global emissions — which must be slowed down and reversed — but most of the warming we’re experiencing now is due to the past emissions of wealthier countries like the UK and US.)
Yet not all Londoners were unhappy with the disruption, and many tweeted about how much they enjoyed the opportunity to participate.


Extinction Rebellion protesters in London have three key demands
The protestors want three things from the UK government:
  1. For climate change to be treated as an emergency
  2. A commitment to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2025
  3. The creation of a citizen assembly for climate action
“We don’t want to be doom and gloom, but we also think it’s really, really important to use emergency messaging,” said XR’s Byrne. “One of the major problems that we have is that so many people are not aware of the crisis we’re in and we want the government to be talking about it.”
While the UK government is already mired in Brexit negotiations that have continued to drag on, protestors argue that climate change poses an even bigger threat to the long-term health and security of the country and deserves the same, if not more, political attention.
Climate change activists in red costume protest during the ongoing Extinction Rebellion climate change demonstration, near the Houses of Parliament in central London on April 23, 2019.
Isabel Infantes/AFP/Getty Images
As for the citizen assembly, campaigners say that this is a way to address the inherent inequities of climate change — that the people who contributed the least stand to suffer the most — and to bring more solutions to bear.
It’s also a way to make sure everyone is included in a decision-making process that could ripple throughout all of society. “We don’t think the government is capable of sorting this out themselves,” Byrne said. “We need expert knowledge on this, we need everybody to have a say in how we move forward.”

Is net-zero emissions by 2025 a reasonable goal?
XR’s demand for the UK to commit to net-zero emissions by 2025 comes at an interesting moment. The UK is already committed to 80 percent reductions by 2050, and as Vox’s David Roberts has reported, that’s been going pretty well so far, as coal has declined dramatically.
But the hardest work lies ahead: the country now must tackle “emissions from aviation, agriculture, biomass, and above all transportation, which in the UK (as in the US) is now the largest source of emissions.” Oh, and gas boilers; the UK has a lot of those.
As the Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg noted in her Monday speech, another obstacle to net-zero emissions by 2025 is that the UK is still developing new fossil fuels.
“The UK’s active current support of new exploitation of fossil fuels — for example, the UK shale gas fracking industry, the expansion of its North Sea oil and gas fields, the expansion of airports as well as the planning permission for a brand new coal mine — is beyond absurd,” she said.
On May 2, the Committee on Climate Change, an independent body tasked with advising the UK government on emissions targets, will deliver a long-awaited report on how and when the country can reach net-zero emissions. (The CCC declined to comment for this story.) The CCC is expected to propose 2050 as the net-zero target. “2050 is do-able and desirable and would have an insignificant overall cost to the economy,” Lord Turner, chair of the Energy Transitions Commission, told the Observer.
But UK politics seems to be shifting in favor of tougher climate targets. Leaders from the Labour party came out in support of XR on Tuesday, and organizers are hoping for meetings with environment secretary Michael Gove and energy minister Claire Perry next week.
As Dawn Foster writes in Jacobin, “Whereas [former Prime Minister Tony] Blair’s government would have clamped down hard on the protestors and [former Labour Party leader] Ed Miliband’s Labour would have condemned, or at least refused to support, the protestors, Labour now see the protests as an opportunity to nail the Conservatives for ignoring climate change and the environment.”
But some in the UK government have already dismissed the XR demand, claiming that net zero by 2025 is politically impossible. “Yes, you could decarbonize Britain by 2025 but the cost of implementing such vast changes at that speed would be massive and hugely unpopular,” Turner told the Observer.
Nonetheless, in this moment of crisis, young leaders will keep reminding us of how resourceful humans can be in the face of a challenge. “Sometimes we just simply have to find a way. The moment we decide to fulfill something, we can do anything,” Thunberg said. “And I’m sure that the moment we start behaving as if we were in an emergency, we can avoid climate and ecological catastrophe. Humans are very adaptable: We can still fix this.”
Can the UK fix it to the tune of net-zero emissions by 2025? Why not try?

Links