02/05/2019

Climate Change Forced These Fijian Communities To Move – And With 80 More At Risk, Here’s What They Learned

The Conversation -  |   | 

Many houses were flattened after Tropical Cyclone Evan, leading to the partial relocation of the Fijian viillage Denimanu. Rowena Harbridge/AusAID, CC BY-SA
The original Fijian village of Vunidogoloa is abandoned. Houses, now dilapidated, remain overgrown with vegetation. Remnants of an old seawall built to protect the village is a stark reminder of what climate change can do to a community’s home.
Vunidogoloa is one of four Fijian communities that have been forced to relocate from the effects of climate change. And more than 80 communities have been earmarked by the Fiji government for potential future relocation.
Low lying coastal communities like these are especially vulnerable to threats of sea-level rise, inundation of tides, increased intensity of storm surges and coastal erosion. Extreme, sudden weather events such as cyclones can also force communities to move, particularly in the tropics.
But relocating communities involves much more than simply rebuilding houses in a safer location.
It involves providing the right conditions for people to rebuild the lives they knew, such as equitable access to resources and services, social capital and community infrastructure.
Our research documents the experiences and outcomes of relocation for two of these Fijian communities – Vunidogoloa and Denimanu.

The relocated villages
My colleagues and I visited Vunidogoloa and Denimanu, villages in Fiji’s Northern Islands, at the end of 2017 and spoke to village leaders and community members to learn how they felt about the relocation process.
All 153 residents of Vunidogoloa and roughly half of the 170 people in Denimanu moved away from their climate ravaged homes.
Map of Fiji showing the two case study sites. Author provided
Flooding in Vunidogoloa
Vunidogoloa is a classic example of the slow creep of climate change. For a number of decades the residents have fought coastal flooding, salt-water intrusion and shoreline erosion. The village leaders approached the Fijian government, asking to be relocated to safer ground.
The relocation was originally set for 2012 but, after delays, the entire village moved roughly 1.5 kilometres inland two years later. This is often recognised as the first ever village in Fiji to relocate from climate change.
The new village relocation site of Vunidogoloa.
Cyclone in Denimanu
In contrast to Vunidogoloa, Denimanu experienced sudden onset effects of climate change.
While the village had been experiencing encroaching shorelines for years, it was Tropical Cyclone Evan, which hit in 2012 destroying 19 houses closest to the shoreline, that prompted relocation.
These homes were rebuilt roughly 500 metres from the original site on a hill slope. With the remaining houses still standing on the original site, the village was only partially moved.
The new village relocation site of Denimanu. Author provided
Was relocation a success?
The relocation was a success in Vunidogoloa, and residents said they now feel much safer from climate change hazards. One villager told us:
We were so fearful because of the tides living at the old site. We were happy to move away from that fear.
But in Denimanu, where the relocated villagers live on a slope, fears of coastal threats have now been replaced by a fear of potential landslides. This is especially concerning as the village’s primary school was recently destroyed by a nearby landslide.
A relocated Denimanu local said:
We were delighted with the move to the new houses, but we were still worried about the landslide because the houses were on the hill and we know this place.
The landslide that destroyed the primary school in Denimanu village.
Ultimately, residents in both villages were happy with many aspects of the relocation process.
For example, they were provided solar power, rainwater tanks, and household facilities that weren’t available in the original villages. Vunidogoloa also received pineapple plants, cattle, and fish ponds, which have helped reestablish their livelihoods.
But it’s not all good news. While new housing was built for the community, they were built to a poor standard, with leaking through the doors and walls, especially in periods of high rainfall. Fiji is located in the tropics, so these infrastructure problems are likely to get worse.
And moving the Vunidogoloa villagers away from the ocean might damage their livelihoods, as fishing is one of their dominant sources of food. The ocean also provides an important spiritual connection for local people.
The impacts of climate change are set to rise, especially if global action to halt greenhouse gas emissions stagnates. More vulnerable communities will need to move away from their current homes.
While relocating communities to safer, less exposed areas is one option to help people manage climate hazards, it’s not a viable solution for all those affected.
Our research shows relocation must be done in a manner that accounts for the rebuilding of local livelihoods, with sustainable adaptation solutions that put local priorities at the centre of this process.
And we need them before more coastal villages are impacted by both slow and sudden onset climate impacts, putting more people in danger.

Links
at No comments:

'Imminent risk': Climate crisis facing Australian rainforests likened to coral bleaching

Fairfax - Nicole Hasham

Animals in Australia’s globally renowned wet tropics are on the brink of extinction after the hottest summer on record, according to official advice that equates the scale of the crisis to coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.
The extraordinary warning relates to the lush green coastal fringe spanning Townsville, Cairns and Cooktown in Queensland’s north – the Earth’s oldest rainforest and a World Heritage-listed tourist drawcard.
A statement from the board of the Wet Tropics Management Authority on Tuesday said more than half of animal species endemic to the area may be extinct within decades. It called for strong global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the ancient area for future generations.
A government body warns that climate change threatens to force animals in the Wet Tropics to extinction.

The climate change policies of the major parties are under the microscope during the federal election campaign, as Labor and the Coalition pledge starkly different action to address the crisis.
The Queensland government authority says "concerning new evidence has shown an accelerating decline" in the wet tropics' unique rainforest animals.
The authority says the lemuroid ringtail possum is one of the worst affected species. Credit: Wet Tropics Management Authority.
"Following the hottest summer ever recorded, some of the key species for which the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area was listed are at imminent risk of extinction,” the statement said.
The Wet Tropics bring $5.2 billion worth of economic benefits each year. It runs parallel to the Great Barrier Reef, and includes the Daintree and Barron Gorge national parks and 13 river systems.
A 2016 report found that region’s biodiversity was already declining, largely due to warming global temperatures. Species such as the lemuroid ringtail possum, green ringtail possum and tooth-billed bowerbird were progressively moving to cooler, higher ground "leaving alarming population declines" in lower areas.
Modelling has previously predicted that more than half of the area’s endemic species may be extinct by the end of this century. However the latest findings by James Cook University biodiversity professor Steve Williams suggested “these extinctions are happening even sooner”, the statement said.
Some mountain-adapted species, such as the lemuroid ringtail possum, could not survive even a day of temperatures above 29 degrees. However Mount Bartle Frere, the highest mountain in the Wet Tropics, recorded "an unprecedented 39 degrees" on six days this past summer, the board said.
"If the trends continue, populations at sites that previously had the highest density of lemuroid ringtail possums in the region could become locally extinct as early as 2022. This species is currently not even classified as endangered," it said.
The wet tropics were inscribed on the World Heritage register in 1988, and are a tourist drawcard.
The statement said extreme heat events were as devastating to the wet tropics as coral bleaching was to the Great Barrier Reef. But unlike the Reef, funding to address the effects of climate change in land-based World Heritage Areas "has not been commensurate with the urgency" of mitigation.
The board said "strong intervention is required immediately" to secure the future of the area, including urgent action on reducing global emissions. Other measures to increase the area’s resilience were also required, such as land restoration, monitoring and pest management.
The authority says the International Union on the Conservation of Nature has ranked the Wet Tropics as the second most irreplaceable World Heritage Area on Earth, largely because many of its animal species are found nowhere else.
Australian Conservation Foundation chief executive Kelly O’Shanassy said the authority's call showed that climate change is hurting Australia and a responsible government would act accordingly.
"Our political leaders must explain how they will protect places like the Wet Tropics of Queensland by urgently cutting our climate pollution and showing global leadership to encourage other countries to do likewise," she said.
"Ultimately we are witnessing the destruction by climate change of one of the most ecologically important and beautiful places in the world that we as Australians have promised to look after on behalf of all humankind."
Voter concern over climate change is at record highs during the election campaign. The Morrison government has pledged to cut Australia's emissions by 26 per cent by 2030, based on 2005 levels. This is in line with the Paris target but experts say it is not consistent with keeping global warming below the critical 1.5 degree threshold.
Labor would reduce emissions by 45 per cent over the same period. Scientists and environmentalists have welcomed the policy, but say more must be done to avert the worst climate change impacts.

Links
at No comments:

Climate Change Activists Worldwide Look To Courts As A Powerful New Ally

Washington Post - Rick Noack | A. Odysseus Patrick

Young activists and others rally in Eugene, Ore., to support a high-profile climate change lawsuit brought by 21 young people against the federal government. (Andy Nelson/Associated Press)
FOROS DE VALE FIGUEIRA, Portugal — Alfredo Sendim was just 8 years old when his family was forced off its 1,100-acre farm in central Portugal amid a wave of nationalizations in the 1970s.
The hard-left policies introduced during Portugal’s tumultuous path to democracy were later reversed, and the Sendim family has since returned to its land an hour’s drive from Lisbon. But in recent years, the now 52-year-old Sendim has grown increasingly worried he might have to leave again, perhaps for good.
This time, it is not a government’s action he fears, but inaction — over climate change.
Last May, Sendim and other plaintiffs from eight countries filed suit against European Union institutions, arguing that the bloc’s emissions cuts were inadequate and had exposed them to the ill effects of climate change. Evidence cited in the case includes devastating fires, record droughts and recurrent flooding.
It is still unclear how far the lawsuit will proceed, but the likelihood of success has never been higher, according to experts and activists. “Legal obstacles once considered insurmountable by many are now coming down one after the other,” said Christoph Bals, policy director with Germanwatch, one of several nongovernmental organizations supporting Sendim’s lawsuit.
Until recently, action on climate change was widely seen as a political issue. But according to Mark Clarke, a partner with the international law firm White & Case, Sendim’s case is part of “a global trend” — a development that adds a legal dimension.
More than 1,300 lawsuits related to climate change, many targeting governments or corporations, have been filed around the world since the 1980s, with a surge in recent years, according to research by Columbia University’s law school and the Arnold & Porter law firm. While judicial systems differ, the various rulings suggest the potential for climate-change litigation to expand and evolve across borders.
If the trend continues, Clarke said, “the volume of such cases alone may drive governments and corporations to take action.”
Alfredo Sendim, 52, who operates Herdade do Freixo do Meio, a farm in central Portugal, and plaintiffs from eight other countries filed suit against the European Union over climate change. (Rick Noack/The Washington Post)
Most cases citing climate change have been brought in the United States. But courts elsewhere have shown more willingness in recent years to take on the kind of broad lawsuits that would force defendants to adjust emissions targets rather than merely pay compensation.
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated its opposition to such challenges when it declined to hear a lawsuit brought by Alaskans against several major U.S. energy firms over climate change attributable to emissions. The justices said it was a political rather than a legal matter.
While courts in Europe have similarly rejected such claims in the past, that changed in 2015 when a Dutch court ruled that the government had breached the European Convention on Human Rights by reducing its emissions requirements more slowly than scientists have deemed necessary. An appeals court upheld the decision last year.
The ripple effects quickly reached as far as the United States.
One suit filed in 2015, Juliana v. United States, is still on track, albeit bumpily, after a judge in Oregon ordered the case to trial in a potentially landmark ruling a year later. The 21 young plaintiffs argue that they have a constitutional right to a clean environment.
The Supreme Court might yet doom their case, but that would not necessarily end large-scale ­climate-change litigation in the United States. Activists have also turned to state courts, particularly in California, with its tough public-nuisance law. So far, judges have differed on whether state courts are appropriate venues for lawsuits with global implications.
Some recent U.S. lawsuits have also focused on planned projects rather than past liability, paralleling similar efforts in Australia, where in February a judge blocked a proposed midsize coal mine in the state of New South Wales on the grounds that it would contribute to global warming — a legal first in the world’s largest coal exporter.
The young plaintiffs in the Juliana v. United States suit. (Andy Nelson/AP)
In a ruling that was front-page news in Australia, the chief judge of the state’s planning court, ­Brian Preston, agreed with the residents of Gloucester, a town about 150 miles north of Sydney, that the Rocky Hill mine’s potential harm to the climate and the environment outweighed its likely economic benefit.
“What is now urgently needed, in order to meet generally agreed climate targets, is a rapid and deep decrease in greenhouse gas emissions,” Preston wrote.
Legal experts predicted that the ruling would produce copycat cases across the country.
“I think this does send a signal that the legal system is an appropriate place to challenge the ongoing development of fossil fuels,” Will Steffen, a climate scientist who provided pivotal evidence in the case, said in an interview.
While foreign rulings are generally not accepted as precedent by U.S. courts, the parallel rulings in Australia and other countries could still set standards for how to measure a country’s contribution to global warming — a consensus that may then also be followed by U.S. judges.
In 2011, at a legal conference in Hong Kong, Preston became one of the first jurists to advocate using lawsuits to generate political pressure on governments to curtail industries contributing to global warming.
The following year, former Irish president Mary Robinson urged an international meeting of lawyers in Dublin to lead a global effort that would become known as the climate-change justice movement.
Preston was among 19 experts who responded. Their 2014 report, “Achieving Justice and Human Rights in an Era of Climate Disruption,” was a detailed plan for using legal systems to combat global warming.
One key suggestion was to ­extend well-established human rights laws to cover the harm to individuals from the effects of a hotter climate, including damage to crops, spreading deserts and rising sea levels.
Acknowledging the difficulty of connecting harm done to any individual to a greenhouse gas emitter, the report proposed a wave of new laws around the world giving people the right to sue governments and companies simply for contributing to climate change. It also recommended the creation of a global judicial body, the International Court on the Environment, to enforce climate treaties.
So far, those bold proposals have not become reality.
Standing on a Portuguese hilltop overlooking his tree-covered farmland, which he runs as a cooperative with the help of local families, Alfredo Sendim agreed that global action — along with cross-border legal proceedings — is needed. “We have only one nation. It’s our planet,” he said.
Sendim hopes his suit will force the European Union to abide by its emissions targets. (Rick Noack/The Washington Post)
Every year, Sendim said, wildfires have become more frequent in his part of Portugal. In one week last summer, thousands of his grapevines suffered irreversible heat damage amid temperatures never before measured at Herdade do Freixo do Meio, his farm.
He says he has done everything he could to prepare for a drier, hotter future, training his workers to fight fires and adopting water-saving farming methods.
Meanwhile, E.U. member states continue to fall short of their own emissions targets. It is time, he said, for them to do “what they told us they were going to do.”

Links
at No comments:

ABC News: Your Questions About Electric Cars Answered, As Federal Election Campaign Ramps Up

ABC News - Kristian Silva

Electric vehicles are estimated to make up at least 25 per cent of new car sales by 2030. (ABC News: Leah MacLennan)
Electric vehicles have been one of the talking points of the 2019 federal election campaign, and both major parties have made commitments to boost sales.
While the number of electric vehicles on Australian roads is extremely low, consumer sentiment is changing.
The Opposition has set a target of making up to half of new cars sold in Australia electric by 2030.
The Coalition has argued that is unrealistic, although Government agency estimates put new electric car sales in 2030 as sitting between 25 and 50 per cent of the market.
At the moment, you can expect to pay about $45,000 for the cheapest car on the market, with prices well over $100,000 for premium models.
Hundreds of voters have asked questions about electric cars via the ABC's You Ask, We Answer project.
Here are some answers.

What is the expected life of an electric car battery?
The "official answer" is at least eight years, according to the Electric Vehicle Council's Tim Washington.
"Most manufacturers warranty their battery packs for eight years unlimited warranty," Mr Washington said.
After that point, the batteries should be able to hold about 70 per cent of their original charge levels, he said.
Mr Washington expects battery swap schemes to be created in future.
"We just haven't hit a stage where that's readily a market that needs serving," he said.

How far can you travel on a single charge?
Electric cars and vehicle emissions standards have become a major election issue. (ABC News: Chris Gillett)
Mr Washington said the range is between 250 kilometres and 650km for top-end models.
"It's pretty comfortable for your average weekly commute," he said.
"You could almost do that with just a charge a week."
Can electric cars go the distance?
The ABC test drives an electric car from Perth to Augusta to see if it can go the distance on Australia's vast regional roads without running out of juice.
There are several ways to charge a car.
Mr Washington said plugging the car into a regular power socket overnight would provide enough charge for a 100km journey.
A dedicated power station — a more popular option that costs about $2,000 to install at home — is capable of delivering 350- to 400kms'-worth of charge overnight.
That range is more than doubled with a three-phase charging station.
The cost of charging varies because of peak and off-peak power rates and the vehicles themselves.
Mr Washington believes it would cost between $360 and $750 to power a vehicle driven 15,000km per year.
Very cold conditions, such as those on snow-topped mountains during winter, can affect the amount of charge batteries can hold.

The number of public charging stations is expected to increase. (ABC News: Lexy Hamiton-Smith)
Who pays at public charging stations?
In many cases, drivers do not need to pay to recharge their cars.
"It is the site host who pays for the electricity because they gain a benefit from you being there," Mr Washington said.
"So if you go to a shopping centre, for example, you stay there, you charge your car, it costs them almost nothing.
"But it means that you stay a bit longer."
In February, Infrastructure Australia proposed a national rollout of fast-charging sites as one of its most pressing investment priorities over the next 15 years.
Under the proposal, fast-charging sites would be established along the national highway network for use by truck companies and private drivers.

What about taxes?
A shift towards electric vehicles is going to impact fuel excise collected by the Federal Government, which rakes in about $18 billion a year.
About 41 cents from every litre of fuel goes to government coffers, and that money is used to build and maintain roads.
It isn't only cars — Australia Post has rolled out e-trikes on some of its routes. (ABC News: Meghna Bali)
Some groups, including think-tank Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, believe a tax based on distance travelled is the way forward.
"Over the last decade or so, fuel excise has been in decline, but with new, more fuel-efficient vehicles — and particularly hybrid and electric vehicles — it's now in terminal decline," Infrastructure Partnerships Australia chief Adrian Dwyer said last year.
Mr Washington believes a road use tax is inevitable.
"I have faith that the government will find new ways to tax us," he said.
Links
at No comments:

ABC News: What We Know About Adani's Carmichael Coal Mine Project

ABC News - Josh Roberston

Adani's Carmichael coal mine highlights the political divide on climate change in Australia. (Twitter: Matthew Canavan)
Adani's Carmichael coal mine looms as a federal election issue after the miner was granted a contentious eleventh-hour environmental approval by the Morrison Government in April.
That takes Adani another step closer to a golden-shovel moment which is already four years overdue.
It's also put the spotlight on federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and whether Labor would overturn the decision if it wins power.
Here's what we know — and still don't know — about the project.

Why is the Adani mine still controversial?
It highlights the political divide on climate change in Australia.
Adani shelled out half-a-billion-dollars for the Carmichael Coal tenement in 2010.
It wants to export coal for electricity to Asia, including in the company's home market, India, where it's a power player.
It originally planned to have the mine up and running four years ago.
The project has become a touchstone for an environmental movement trying to stop new thermal coal mines.
This argument says there are enough carbon emissions from existing fossil fuel projects to blow the world's "carbon budget" to keep average temperature rises above 2 degrees Celsius.
The controversial mine has been be scaled back significantly from earlier plans. (ABC News)
The Carmichael mine, they say, is the thin edge of the wedge.
Adani would blaze a trail for five other mining hopefuls in Queensland's Galilee Basin, which contains enough coal to outstrip Australia's annual carbon emissions if it was all burned.
Project supporters say local benefits — jobs and property booms from mining income — would otherwise go overseas.
Asia will get its coal from somewhere else, they say, so the argument is better it be regional Queensland where, in an economy still reeling from the end of the mining boom, Adani has become a symbol of hope.
And Adani has stared down numerous legal challenges in court, while striving for nine years to get the most-scrutinised coal project in modern Australian history over the line.
Traditional owners of the mine site are bitterly split on the project.
Other concerns include that the mine could potentially drain the nationally important Doongmabulla Springs dry, and deprive the black-throated finch out of habitat critical to its survival.

How big would the mine project be?
The controversial mine has been be scaled back significantly from earlier plans. (ABC News)
Not half as big as Adani first hoped — but still one of the biggest coal mines in Australia.
Adani has walked back its vision of a 60-million-tonne-a-year mega-mine to a 10-to-15MT-a-year proposition, with the option of ramping up to 27 MT.
That puts it on par with the country's largest existing thermal coal operations, BHP Billiton's Mount Arthur Mine — 15MT — in NSW and BMA's Blackwater mine in Queensland — 13MT — but which also includes coal for steelmaking.
Adani has also swapped its plan for a 388km rail line linking the mine to its Abbot Point coal port, to a 200km one piggy-backing Aurizon's network.
It put the original project cost at $16.5 billion over its lifetime. It now says the mine component will cost $2 billion.

How many jobs?
Adani used to run advertisements promising the project would generate 10,000 jobs — direct and indirect, at its peak from 2024, according to one form of modelling — and $22 billion in taxes and royalties.
Its economics expert in court in 2015 instead said it would create an extra 1,464 jobs in Australia — 1,206 of them in Queensland — and generate $16.8 billion in taxes and royalties.
While the revised mine plan could be less than a quarter of its original scale, Adani has not publicly put forward a new projection for jobs or tax and royalty streams.
It is yet to reach a final deal with the State Government on how its royalty payments might be deferred in the mine's first five years.

Who is funding it?
Adani.
It says it can "self-fund" the smaller project, after previously seeking finance from Asian banks without success, amid lobbying by anti-mining activists.
Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk killed off its chances of a $1 billion taxpayer-funded loan for its railway in 2017.
The project has become a touchstone for an environmental movement trying to stop new thermal coal mines. (ABC News: Lara Webster)
What is standing in Adani's way?
Adani has mining and environmental licences from the Queensland Government but it still needs the state to sign off on two environmental management plans — one for the black-throated finch and one for groundwater.
Adani managed to get federal approval for its groundwater plan on the eve of the Morrison Government hitting caretaker mode in the election campaign.
Federal Environment Minister Melissa Price reportedly came under pressure to sign off on the plan from Coalition MPs from Queensland.
But the Queensland Government will hold Adani to a different standard on groundwater.
Queensland Environment Minister Leanne Enoch has said Adani must "definitively" identify the source aquifers of the Doongmabulla Springs.
The Doongmabulla Springs complex is regarded as one of the world's last pristine desert oases. (Supplied: Tom Jefferson (Lock the Gate))
Ms Enoch said according to her department, the advice to Ms Price from federal agencies the CSIRO and GeoScience Australia was that Adani had not.
Adani Mining Australia boss Lucas Dow reportedly said last year the approvals were a formality.
The company is now campaigning against what it calls the State Government "changing the goalposts" and dragging its feet on approvals.
The decisions on both plans will be in the hands of the state Environment Department.

What else?
Adani also needs the Queensland Government to extinguish the native title claims of the Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J) people to the mine site.
It can then take up a freehold lease and start digging.
But the Palaszczuk Government has indicated it won't be rushing to make that happen.
It will wait at least until Adani opponents within the W&J exhaust their legal avenue of appeal in the Federal Court.
Traditional owners of the mine site are bitterly split on the project. (ABC News: Patrick Williams)
A hearing is set down for next month, and a decision on whether a crucial land-use agreement with the miner should stand is likely months away.
Adani supporters in the W&J maintain they have the numbers.
The anti-Adani contingent in the W&J, who describe themselves as the last line of resistance to the mine, have flagged taking their fight to the High Court.
It's not clear if the state would wait for that outcome. But most of the critical levers on the Adani project remain in the Palaszczuk Government's hands.
The Australian Conservation Foundation is also challenging Ms Price in the federal Court over her decision not to apply "water trigger" assessment over a water-pipeline project proposed by Adani.
It's one of at least a dozen legal challenges to Adani over the past eight years.

Would a Shorten government overturn approval of the project?
Maybe.
Federal Labor leader Bill Shorten has refused to rule out reviewing the groundwater approval but has "no plans".
He says Labor would, "adhere to the science, the law, we won't create sovereign risk".
Ms Enoch has claimed the approval "reeks of political interference" from Adani's supporters in the Coalition, which "may have compromised the integrity of the decision-making process".
Ms Price has noted the project must meet further conditions of approval from the Commonwealth before a golden-shovel moment.

Links
at No comments:

Government Accused Of Hiding Full Extent Of Climate Change

SBS News - Claudia Farhart

The Climate Council says the federal government has slashed climate research funding, censored reports showing the extent of the damage and released emissions data around Christmas when the public is distracted.
Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie says the federal government has been dishonest with the public about climate change. AAP
The Australian Government has been accused of going to "extraordinary lengths" to hide the full extent of climate change from the public, according to a new report.
The Climate Council's Climate Cuts, Cover-Ups and Censorship report found the government had slashed climate science funding, rejected advice from climate bodies, and weakened the nation's climate science capability by cutting jobs at the CSIRO.


Australia Street: How important is climate change policy to you?

Climate Council Report Key Findings
  • The Government’s tenure has been characterised by slashing climate science funding, cutting effective climate change programs, rejecting advice from expert domestic and international bodies, misleading claims from Federal Ministers, a lack of any effective climate programs, and consistently covering up poor performance.
  • Deep funding cuts and job losses at the CSIRO have weakened Australia’s climate science capability. As a result, Australia is unprepared to cope with the impacts of climate change.
  • The government’s lack of climate change action is the defining leadership failure of the past decade. We have not tackled climate change, the consequences are with us, and we must work very quickly to prevent catastrophic consequences.
  • Australia’s next government must adopt credible climate policy and a transparent and accurate approach to reporting and tracking Australia’s climate performance to ensure the public can appropriately evaluate its performance.
Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said the report's findings were shocking.
"I think most Australians would be outraged if they knew the full story," Ms McKenzie said.
"The Coalition Government has slashed climate science funding, censored important information and repeatedly made false claims."
The report was released the day after the first leader's debate between Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten ahead of the 18 May federal election.
Environmental policy has been a defining issue of the campaign to date, with coal-mining protests and debates over water buy-backs occupying much of the discussion.
The Climate Council's head of research Dr Martin Rice said the government had also been known to deliberately release climate information at the busiest times of the year and block other information from being released altogether.
“The Federal Government has repeatedly tried to avoid scrutiny by releasing greenhouse gas emissions data just before Christmas or on the eve of football grand finals when fewer people are paying attention,” Dr Rice said.
"The Federal Government censored a UNESCO report on climate change and World Heritage sites, convincing the UN agency to delete all references to Australia and the Great Barrier Reef."
While the debate around climate policy continues, the Climate Council's Professor Will Steffen said the test of good climate policy was simple.
"It must be aligned with the science, it must be clear and effective, and it must deliver greenhouse gas emission reductions consistent with the Paris targets," Professor Steffen said.
"Our current policy fails on all three counts."

United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF): Australian youth and climate change.

Australia recently experienced what the Climate Council called its 'Angriest Summer' in history.
Ms McKenzie said the effects of climate change were clear in the nation's increasingly extreme weather conditions.
“Heatwaves have become hotter and last longer, while droughts, intense rainfall and bushfire conditions have become more severe,” Ms McKenzie said.
“As Australians experience escalating consequences into the future, they are likely to view this period of missed opportunities and failed leadership with deep dismay."
Bill Shorten and Scott Morrison will have a leaders' debate in Perth on Monday night. AAP

Links
at No comments: