12/05/2019

Come Senators, MPs, There's A Climate Emergency Raging

FairfaxJohn Hewson*

Bob Dylan brilliantly crafted an anthem for the substantial economic and social upheaval of the '60s in his The Times They Are A-Changin’. The third verse defined the reality of the inevitable changes for the political process:
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside
And it is ragin’
It’ll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’
A demonstrator with a giant head in the likeness of former prime minister Tony Abbott holds a sign referencing his 2017 remark belittling the science of climate change during a student-organised protest in Sydney this month. Credit: AP
Such is the reality of climate change, and such is the challenge for our political leaders. The transition to a low-carbon society is inevitable. Only this week, Britain's National Grid declared it had gone almost a record six days without using coal and predicted it would transition to a carbon-free electricity system by 2025.
In Australia, the longer our leaders “stall”, the greater damage they will do to themselves, to all of us. Our nation, our living standards, and the planet are worth savin’. If we don’t start swimming, we’ll “sink like a stone”.
Our leaders have three tiers of responsibility, national, international and intergenerational. Leadership needs to be dignified and respectful to build national solidarity to respond to the urgency of the challenge.
The “climate wars” of the past three decades have seen our leaders squander too many opportunities. The UN's former climate change czar and current climate leader at the World Bank, Christiana Figueres, intervened in the Australian federal election this week, backing four female independent candidates and condemning the climate wars and "extreme elements from both sides of the political spectrum" who had "frustrated sensible, forward-looking policies founded in what must be our most important guide — the science".
Not only have electricity and gas prices rocketed up to the significant detriment of households, and destroying the viability of many businesses, but we still don’t have a national energy policy, nor a responsible, whole-of-economy, emissions-reduction target for 2050. Our Paris commitment is about half what it should be.
Even Labor's commitment of reducing carbon emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 falls short. It just sneaks in to the range of 45 to 63 per cent recommended by the Climate Change Authority. Labor's aspiration to lift electric-vehicles to at least 50 per cent of new car sales by 2030 is commendable, but it offers little detail on how this might be achieved, and is not so different to the Coalition's expectation of 30 to 50 per cent.
As perhaps the highest per capita polluter on the planet, and the second largest exporter of coal and LNG, our international responsibilities are clear. Yet, Australia is “missing in action”, falling from Kyoto leader to now global laggard.
Neither major party offers a genuine transition strategy to achieve emission reductions, nor a national waste strategy, nor a national fuel security strategy, nor a regional development strategy.
All up, our politicians have seriously compromised and constrained the future of our children. Valuable time has been lost. Many hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of investment have been forgone as we have failed to capitalise on our enormous national assets of sun, wind, graphite, lithium, and a significant range of feed stocks, with world-class technology to convert them to power. Our political leadership has just left us to sink.
Even though climate has emerged as the major election issue, we have been reduced to the facile debate about relative targets and “how much each will cost the economy”. Scott Morrison confines his estimate to the cost to the budget, while attempting to pin Bill Shorten on the cost to the economy, which the Labor leader, in turn, basically says can’t be estimated. Neither will rule out new coalmines, especially Adani.
The debate about targets is a sideshow when global targets are woefully inadequate to save the planet. An effective transition does not need to “cost” – an assumption since climate sceptics such as John Howard and Tony Abbott. Sure, those in coal and coal-fired power and petrol vehicles will be adversely effected, initially, but the transition to renewables, bio-energy and fuels and storage will bring with it new industries, business opportunities, and lifestyle possibilities –  as did the transition from horse-drawn to petrol vehicles.
Consider the monumental and rapidly mounting cost of inaction: extreme weather, financial collapses, the unprecedented loss of bio-diversity, species extinction and, ultimately, of the planet itself. This is a climate emergency. Refer then to this week's UN report on a million species – including our own – in peril.
To be serious about a response to climate, the focus should be, positively, on the detail of the transition and its management – how many jobs will be lost in coal mining and power generation and in the transition to autonomous trucking, to cite just a few of the more obvious. How will people in those industries be compensated, retrained, relocated? How will communities be supported and the development of new industries facilitated?
Many more jobs are available in tourism, aged, health, disability care and education than could be supported by, say, Adani. But in this election campaign, genuine leadership on climate is a scarce commodity.  Both sides are still “standing in the doorway” and “blocking up the halls”. It will be our nation that “gets hurt”.
I was particularly struck in the recent student climate protests that children from Byron Bay Public  recorded themselves as “absentees” to stand in a public space and trace out the words Our Future. They get it. They clearly understand the failure in political leadership. They deserve, and will increasingly demand, better.

*John Hewson is a professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, and a former Liberal opposition leader.

Links

Climate Change Threat Now Tops Australians' Concerns, Lowy Poll Finds

FairfaxPeter Hannam

Australians rate climate change as the top threat to the country's "vital interests", the first time it has topped the list of concerns, according to Lowy Institute polls going back to 2006.
The polling, of 2130 adult respondents between March 12 and 25 by the Social Research Centre, found 64 per cent agreeing climate change was "a critical threat", up six percentage points from a year earlier.
Local residents wade through flood water in Townsville, Queensland, in February this year. Credit: AAP

That rating was matched by cyber attacks from other countries, and eclipsed international terrorism at 61 per cent and North Korea's nuclear program at 60 per cent, Lowy said in a statement on Wednesday.
"Climate change has become much more mainstream [as a concern]," said Natasha Kassam, head of polling at the Lowy Institute. "Power cuts, droughts, those things are touching people's lives."


The Lowy poll, part of a wider survey to be released next month, is the latest to indicate voters have become more concerned about climate threats, possibly prompted by extreme weather events such summer floods in the north and widespread drought in the country's south.
Australia posted its hottest summer on record in 2018-19 - by almost a whole degree - and the first four months have continued to be the warmest in data going back to 1910, the Bureau of Meteorology said.
Lowy found six of ten respondents agree "global warming is a serious and pressing problem [and] we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs". That view has marked a huge turn around - jumping 25 percentage points since 2012's nadir - and is closing in on the peak reading of 68 per cent in 2006.
By comparison, only a tenth said "until we are sure that global warming is really a problem, we should not take any steps that would have economic costs". Just over a quarter agreed with the view "the problem of global warming should be addressed, but its effects will be gradual, so we can deal with the problem gradually by taking steps that are low in cost".
During the election, the Morrison government has demanded Labor present costings for its climate policies, including its target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions 45 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030.
By contrast, the Coalition is proposing about $3 billion to meet Australia's Paris climate target of a 26 per cent reduction in emissions - a figure that will be roughly half met by applying expected surplus credits earned during the Kyoto Protocol period. Most nations with such "carryover" credits have vowed to voluntarily extinguish them.
According to Lowy, support for climate action is strongest among Australians aged 18-44, with slightly more than three-quarters in favour - up from 70 per cent a year ago. Just under half of those over 45 "share this concern", Lowy said.
On a two-party perspective, 59 per cent of respondents said Labor "would do a better job of managing Australia's response to climate change than the Coalition", the institute said. Only 32 per cent backed the Coalition's position.
Of the nine foreign policy issues, the Coalition was preferred on five of them, including national security and economic management, and was tied on the other three, Ms Kassam said.
Worries about climate change eased to just 36 per cent in 2012 in part because of better weather, but also because the government at the time - under Labor's Julia Gillard made "some real policy developments' to tackle the issues, she said.
Since then, there's been "a very significant trend" of increased concern, she said.
Across the states, the highest readings of climate concern were in NSW and the ACT, with 67 per cent saying it was a serious and pressing concern. WA lagged at 51 per cent and Queensland reported 57 per cent sharing that view. Victorians came in at 62 per cent.
On the sceptical side, though, only 6 per cent of WA respondents said they were unsure global warming was "really a problem", compared with 15 per cent from South Australia and the Northern Territory - the highest such reading, Lowy data showed.

Links

Carry-Over Credits And Carbon Offsets Are Hot Topics This Election – But What Do They Actually Mean?

The ConversationAlan Pears | Tim Baxter

Organisations can use offsets as part of their emission reduction strategy. Shutterstock
In this election, often dubbed the “climate election”, voters are refusing to settle for weak policies on climate change.
But between the “will they/won’t they” question of whether the coalition will meet their climate targets and the costing of the ALP’s targets, there is a lot of misunderstanding, even among experts.
Unsurprisingly, even the best-informed voter is liable to struggle, particularly when generic terms like “carbon credits” are used to describe completely different things.
Broadly, carbon credits work as a certificate permitting someone to emit greenhouse gases. To assess Australia’s performance, it’s important to understand the differences between the types of certificate.
Just because we can count something as climate performance does not mean we should. Both approaches from the two major parties have their own issues, but that does not mean they are equal.

What are Kyoto carry-over credits and carbon offsets?
  • Kyoto carry-over credits
    Carry-over credits are “certificates” that translate our international commitments as a number of tonnes. These credits represent emissions we could have released into the atmosphere under our international commitments, but didn’t.
    As we come to the end of the second international commitment period, we have a lot of leftover credits. The government wants to use credits from the first and second periods (2008-2012 and 2013-2020) to satisfy our obligations under the third (2021-2030).
  • Carbon offset credits
    In the case of offsets, these certificates come from actions that reduce emissions. These actions should be measurable and new. Sadly, they do not always meet that simple standard.
    Offset credits are a trading “currency” that, in principle, reduces the overall cost of emission reduction.
    Emission reduction can be costly or difficult for some, and offsets allow individuals or businesses to buy certificates from others who can cut or capture emissions at lower cost.
    Rules to create, trade and monitor offsets can be set at an international, regional or national level. Some offsetting is voluntary, but most is to comply with legal requirements.
The carry-over credit debate
The Coalition plans to use credit from our “over-achievement” in meeting Kyoto targets, as a shortcut to meet the Paris Agreement targets.
Under the Paris Agreement, Australia has voluntarily agreed to reduce its cumulative emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030. If we use the Kyoto-era credit for the Paris Agreement, it will take only a 15% reduction on 2005 levels to successfully meet our commitment.
Australia’s current and projected emissions and targets with Kyoto carry-over credit transfer. Tim Baxter, 'In a Canter'? Demystifying Australia's Emissions Budget for Paris. Author provided
But the Kyoto Protocol only applied to developed countries, while the Paris agreement applies to many developing countries.
This means many signatories to Paris have no “carry-over” credits they can use. Among those developed nations that do have this credit, almost all have said they will not use Kyoto carry-over credits to meet their Paris commitments.
So the coalition’s position is widely seen as morally dubious. And there are real questions around whether our supposed credit from the Kyoto era can be used at all.
Given the nature of the Paris Agreement, the international community will unlikely enforce an express ban on using carry-over credit.
But that doesn’t mean we should use it. Australia’s international reputation depends on rejecting the use of Kyoto carry-over. More importantly, so does our climate.

Carbon offsets
Under the Kyoto Protocol, several offsetting schemes were created between countries, so-called “flexible mechanisms”. Among these emission reduction opportunities is the Clean Development Mechanism.
The Clean Development Mechanism is an offset scheme where developed countries fund emission reduction action in developing countries.
If projects meet the requirements of the mechanism, the developing country claims certificates equal to the amount of emissions reduction they can prove. They then sell the certificates they have earned to developed countries.
This scheme has seen a number of renewable energy projects constructed, such as hydroelectric dams and projects that consume waste to create electricity.

Offsetting carbon voluntarily
Voluntary use of carbon offsets has also grown. For example, Australia’s voluntary National Carbon Offsets Standard allows organisations to use offsets as part of their emission reduction strategy.
Australia’s Carbon Farming Initiative is one such example. This offsetting scheme was originally designed by the ALP, but now underpins the coalition’s Emissions Reduction Fund.
Projects registered under this scheme can create Australian Carbon Credit Units through methods such as revegetation, capture and combustion of methane or surrender of land clearing rights.
Sydney’s School Strike 4 Climate, March 2019. Climate change is one of the top issues voters care about in the upcoming election. Shutterstock
The government buys these credits through reverse auctions – one buyer with many potential sellers. They’re also frequently purchased by Australian facilities caught by the safeguard mechanism (a framework for the largest emitters to measure, report and manage their emissions) and individuals looking to voluntarily offset their own emissions.
The ALP plans to tighten the baselines under the safeguard mechanism, compelling Australia’s major emitters, such as our largest resource companies, to either reduce on-site emissions or purchase Australian Carbon Credit Units.
In a 2014 report, the Climate Change Authority recommended Australia adopt an emission reduction target between 45% and 65% below 2005 levels by 2030. It noted international carbon offsets would help ensure Australia could meet this more ambitious target.
The ALP’s approach is superficially compatible with the Climate Change Authority, though it plans to negotiate the detail if elected. A lot will hang on where these negotiations fall.
Using offset credits is undoubtedly better than taking no action at all. But offsetting must have integrity, not accounting sleight-of-hand. If genuine, they can help cut global emissions at the lowest cost while also delivering local social, economic and environmental benefits.
It is important offsetting methods continue to be refined and debated, while keeping a critical eye on whether they provide environmental benefit.

Links