Lethal Heating: 05/30/19

30/05/2019

Rising Seas Threaten Australia’s Major Airports – And It May Be Happening Faster Than We Think

The Conversation - Thomas Mortlock | Andrew Gissing | Ian Goodwin | Mingzhu Wang

Sydney’s airport is one of the most vulnerable in Australia to sea level rise. Shutterstock

Most major airports in Australia are located on reclaimed swamps, sitting only a few metres above the present day sea level. And the risk of sea level rise from climate change poses a greater threat to our airports than we’re prepared for.
In fact, some of the top climate scientists now believe global sea-level rise of over two metres by 2100 is likely under our current trajectory of high carbon emissions.
This makes Cairns (less than 3m above sea level), Sydney and Brisbane (under 4m), and Townsville and Hobart (both around under 5m) airports among the most vulnerable.

Antarctica’s ice sheets could be melting faster than we think. Tanya Patrick/CSIRO science image, CC BY

In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has recommended that global mean sea level rise of up to 2.7 metres this century should be considered in planning for coastal infrastructure. This is two to three times greater than the upper limit of recommended sea level rise projections applied in Australia.
But generally, the amount of sea level rise we can expect over the coming century is deeply uncertain. This is because ice sheet retreat rates from global warming are unpredictable.
Given the significant disruption cost and deep uncertainty associated with the timing of sea level rise, we must adopt a risk-based approach which considers extreme sea level rise scenarios as part of coastal infrastructure planning.

Are we prepared?
As polar ocean waters warm, they can cause glaciers to melt from beneath, leading to more icebergs breaking off into the ocean and then a rapid rise in global sea level. This has happened multiple times in the Earth’s past and, on some occasions, in a matter of decades.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts sea level rise projections for Australia somewhere between 50 to 90 centimetres by 2090, relative to the average sea level measured between 1986 to 2005. But the emerging science indicates this may now be an underestimate.
Some studies suggest if substantive glacial basins of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet were to collapse, it could contribute at least a further two metres to global sea levels.
Most Australian airports have conducted risk assessments for the IPCC projections.
In fact, there is no state-level policy that considers extreme sea level rise for the most critical infrastructure, even though it is possible sea levels could exceed those recommended by the IPCC within the coming century.
And for airports, the planning implications are stark when you compare the current projection of less than a metre of sea level rise and the potential of at least a two metre rise later this century.
Taking the most low-lying major airports in Australia as an example, our modelling suggests a collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would see their near complete inundation – without any adaptation in place.
For more elevated locations, coastal infrastructure may still be inoperable more frequently when the combined effect of storm surges, waves, elevated groundwater or river flooding are considered.

A $200 billion problem
Our airports and other forms of infrastructure near the coastline are critical to the Australian economy. The aviation industry has an estimated annual revenue of over A$43 billion, adding around A$16 billion to the economy in 2017.
While there are many uncertainties around the future cost of sea-level rise, a study by the Climate Council suggests over a metre sea level rise would put more than A$200 billion worth of Australian infrastructure at risk.
It is difficult to assign a probability and time-frame to ice sheet collapse, but scientific estimates are reducing that time frame to a century rather than a millennium.
Uncertainty generally comes with a cost, so proactive planning would make economic sense.
Adapting our most critical coastal assets while sea levels rapidly rise is not an option – mitigation infrastructure could take decades to construct and may be prohibitively expensive.
Given the deep uncertainties associated with the timing of ice-sheet collapse, we suggest airport and other critical coastal infrastructure is subjected to risk analysis for a two to three metre sea level rise.

Links

Australia To Achieve 50% Renewables By 2030 Without Government Intervention, Analysis Finds

The Guardian - Paul Karp

RepuTex modelling suggests surge in state schemes and rooftop solar will reduce wholesale prices, making gas and coal-fired power less competitive

According to modelling by the energy analysts RepuTex, a rise in rooftop solar installations will help reduce wholesale power prices from $85 per MWh to $70 over the next three years. Photograph: Glenn Hunt/AAP

Australia is on track to achieve 50% renewable electricity by 2030 even without new federal energy policies, according to modelling by the energy analysts RepuTex.
The analysis, to be released on Wednesday, suggests that a surge in renewable energy driven by state schemes and rooftop solar installations will reduce wholesale prices from $85 per MWh to $70 over the next three years.
Lower prices will make gas and coal-fired power less competitive, even without a market mechanism to make fossil fuels reflect the cost of pollution or a direct constraint on emissions, although a lack of federal policy could lead to longer-term price rises, RepuTex found.
During the election campaign, the Coalition attacked Labor for its 50% renewable energy target – as well as its 45% emissions reduction target – claiming they would harm energy-intensive industries and cost jobs.
But after the Coalition won on 18 May, the Liberal senator Arthur Sinodinos urged the government to use the changing energy mix to bolster its environmental credentials, and treasurer Josh Frydenberg declared that the “inevitable” transition to low-emissions sources created an opportunity for the country.
With the federal renewable energy target set to expire in 2020, RepuTex noted that state policy was now the dominant signal for new investment in the national energy market.
RepuTex projected that current policies, including renewable energy targets in Queensland and Victoria, were likely to drive about 13GW of new renewable energy capacity by 2030, in addition to 6GW of renewable capacity currently committed for development.
The head of research at RepuTex, Bret Harper, said the 6GW of renewable capacity to be installed by the end of 2020 “should begin to reduce the role of marginal gas-fired generation in the market, leading to lower wholesale prices”.

Without a plan to prepare for the exit of fossil fuel generation we forecast a return to a boom-bust investment cycle
Bret Harper

“The competitive pressure of new low-cost supply is modelled to significantly limit demand for coal-fired energy, even without a direct emission constraint,” he said.
“As a result, fossil fuel generation is modelled to be more broadly on the decline, displaced by a large volume of solar, wind and pumped hydro.”
RepuTex noted that the absence of a federal energy policy framework could force wholesale prices back up to $100 per MWh in the long term as ageing coal-fired generators are forced to close, reducing supply.
“The low price environment over the medium term is good for consumers, but not so good for inflexible generators, which will be at risk of being pushed out of the market by cheaper, more flexible technologies like wind and solar with pumped hydro,” Harper said.
“Without a plan to prepare for the exit of fossil fuel generation we forecast a return to a boom-bust investment cycle, with elevated wholesale prices and increased volatility, rather than a more orderly transition.”
The Coalition’s strong results in Queensland have emboldened conservatives who before the election demanded Scott Morrison examine whether a new coal-fired plant was needed in north Queensland and sign off on a shortlist for the electricity underwriting scheme that includes “one very small” coal project in New South Wales proposed by the coal baron and LNP donor Trevor St Baker.
The Coalition began 2019 by trying to bolster its climate credentials with a $2bn cash injection to the emissions reduction fund and government support for the “battery of the nation” project in Tasmania.
But a feasibility study for the Tasmanian interconnector proposal states the benefits are greater “when approximately 7,000MW of the national electricity market’s present coal-fired generation capacity retires”.

Links

Brace For Impact - Climate Change Litigation Is Fast Approaching

Canberra Times - Arthur Marusevich*

Since the late 1990s, Australian politics on climate change has been divisive. Although Australia signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1998, it did not ratify it until 2007.
Then, in 2011, the Clean Energy Act purporting to reduce greenhouse emissions was passed, only to be repealed in 2014.
In 2016, Australia ratified the Paris Agreement and the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol; however, any serious action on climate change remains to be seen.

Supporters gather outside of the US federal courthouse before a hearing in the landmark Juliana v. United States climate change lawsuit. Picture: Robin Loznak

At the same time, some states and territories also have emissions reduction targets.
The uncoordinated approach is a problem for at least two important reasons.
First, climate change is an ever-increasing phenomenon, with tremendous impact on corporate, social and political discourse.
Any meaningful legal framework to govern climate change requires the development of a legal consensus at the federal level, in line with international commitments.
Second, there is a rising wave of climate change-related litigation globally which is headed for Australia.
Climate change litigation 2.0 (targeting companies) and climate change litigation 3.0 (targeting governments) will sink Australia, unless drastic measures are implemented.
Under the current legal regime, company directors may only be liable if found to be in breach of their duty of care or for failing to address a foreseeable risk.
However, guidance from case law suggests that it is difficult to establish that the actions or omissions of a particular entity or director caused or contributed harm to be suffered by another. With the arrival of climate change litigation 2.0, this will all change.

There is a rising wave of climate change-related litigation globally which is headed for Australia ... it will sink Australia, unless drastic measures are implemented.

For one, litigation 2.0 will force companies to assess and report on the risks of climate change and potentially set out plans for mitigating those risks.
The recent tide of comments from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority and the Reserve Bank of Australia are a testament to this.
Companies and their directors could soon face liability (including personal liability) if they fail to assess and address risks relating to climate change.
Investors, shareholders and even communities will be able to recover losses and seek damages from companies and their directors, auditors and advisors, for failing to assess and mitigate risks.
As major climate change attribution studies emerge to assist in tracing particular weather events with greenhouse gasses, causation will be easier to establish.
It is likely that in the future, courts will rely on such studies to conclude that a particular entity has contributed, at least in some proportion, to a particular harm.
It would be interesting to see how companies and directors brace for impact as climate change litigation 2.0 approaches.
Although unprecedented and unheard of in Australia, climate change litigation 3.0 will be the next phase.
It will allow Australians to bring action against the government for failing to mitigate risks.
Claims of this nature around the world are already proving to be quite successful.
The Urgenda litigation in the Netherlands is the leading example. In that case, a Dutch NGO argued that the Netherlands Government had breached its duty of care to the Dutch people by failing to mitigate the risks of climate change and reducing greenhouse gases.
The remedy ordered by the court was that the Netherlands Government reduce emissions by at least 25 per cent by the end of 2020.
Similarly, the Juliana case brought against the US government argued that current policies fail to satisfy their obligations to hold certain essential resources on trust for all US citizens. The case is currently awaiting a determination as to whether it will go to trial.
We can only ignore it for so long - in the coming years, we are destined to see a rise in climate change litigation in Australia.
While this may be welcome news for practitioners, it is not so much for companies and governments, who need to re-examine their approach to assessing and mitigating climate change risks now.
If not, litigation 2.0 and 3.0 will do it for them.

*Arthur Marusevich is a lawyer and writer. He is an advocate for legal reform and social justice.

Links