03/06/2019

Climate Change: Australia's Election Has Far-Reaching Consequences

Forbes - James Ellsmoor

Scott Morrison, then Treasurer, brings a lump of coal to Parliament during question time, where he defended coal as a power source of the future, February 2017. Andrew Meares
Australia’s national anthem reflects upon the nation’s environmental wealth:
Our home is girt by sea,
Our land abounds in nature's gifts,
Of beauty, rich and rare.
However, despite boasting an incredibly biodiverse environment and having the world’s largest biogenic structure in the Great Barrier Reef defining the nation’s north-eastern coast, Australia is an environmental paradox.
Australia’s recent federal election was touted as the “climate change election” with many seeing it as a potential turning point that could change the nation’s environmental policies for the better.
In a surprising twist, Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his conservative coalition were re-elected. But how does this affect anyone outside of Australia, and what effects could it have on the environment?

Environmental Context
The Paris Agreement is an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), dealing with greenhouse-gas-emissions mitigation, adaptation, and finance, adopted by consensus at the COP 21 conference in 2015. At its core, the Agreement outlined how nations would collaborate to reduce carbon emissions with the aim of keeping global warming below 2°C.
Data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provided the scientific background for the Paris Agreement and was integral in helping form policy decisions to reduce carbon emissions. 196 nations took part in deliberations and as of May 2019, 195 are signatories. Each country committed to various changes in policy that would lead to emissions reduction and therefore help mitigate the damages from the upcoming climate crisis.
As part of its COP21 commitments, the Australian government pledged to reduce their carbon emissions by 26%-28% on 2005 levels by 2030 as well as invest in renewable technology. Although some experts believed the target to be low, pointing towards evidence that Australia could reach a 45% reduction, there was hope that Australia would become a leader in the fight against climate change. However, as watchdogs have pointed out, the country’s emissions have continued to rise with little to no change in their policies.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, left, holds his wife's, Jenny, hand as an anti-coal mining protester runs in from the right after Morrison voted in a federal election in Sydney. The parties have changed their rules to make the process of lawmakers replacing a prime minister more difficult. ASSOCIATED PRESS
A Tale Of Two Countries
Despite being condemned by both the United Nations and the IPCC for continued inaction, newly re-elected Prime Minister Scott Morrison has repeatedly told Australian media outlets that the country is set to reach their emissions reduction targets “in a canter”.
 Government reports continue to espouse the party line that Australia is on track to meet its targets, but a range of studies have shown that the country has continued to pollute and is therefore likely to miss their emissions target.
Closely aligned with the United States, Australia has joined them in pro-coal events and has backed up the Trump administration’s stance on “clean-coal”, referring to the use of coal power-plants in tandem with technology that mitigates the environmental damage they produce.
However, contrary to what the moniker implies “clean-coal” is anything but, as it still produces high levels of carbon emissions. Seen as a cost-inefficient option that goes against current energy trends, “clean-coal” has been dismissed as a viable option by nations looking to curb their carbon emissions as well as transition away from fossil fuels.
The US, which publicly withdrew from the Paris Agreement in 2017, has received considerable support from Australia. Both countries have continued to invest in coal power, with Australia looking to open the world’s largest open-air coal mine adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef.
During COP24 discussions held last year in Fiji, both countries reiterated their commitments to coal and explained that they had no plans to phase out their coal-fired power-plants despite calls from China and Fiji for greater accountability from developed nations and a marked reduction in coal power generation.
With an economy heavily invested in the mining industry, Australia has found itself at odds with a world looking to mitigate climate change. In recent years, the Australian government has found itself blurring the lines in the media as it attempts to protect its economic interests.
From holding back emissions data to censorship of international reports, the government has struggled to admit their own responsibility in causing environmental damage.

Controversial Policy Decisions
Australia’s policy decisions have indicated that the nation’s leaders are still in denial as to their non-compliance to the Paris Agreement and the effects of fossil fuels on the environment. In 2017, then Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenburg announced changes to the country’s Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), a $10 billion AUD tax-funded loan facility which promoted investment in green technology.
Under new regulations, the CEFC would be allowed to invest in ventures that previously did not meet its emissions targets, allowing the fund to be used to research carbon-capture and clean coal technology as well as help finance the construction of new coal power-plants. Many expressed outrage over what was seen as a blatant attempt to prop up the coal and natural gas industries at the expense of more sustainable energy sources.
Open cut black coal min in Emu creek of Liddell part in Hunter Valley region, NSW, Australia. Huge fossil fuel extraction operation in NSW. Getty
The Renewable Energy Target (RET) has been a bright spot for the nation’s energy sector. By providing financial benefits for households and companies that installed renewable energy, the RET was created to promote investment in renewables and help reduce overall emissions.
A successful nationwide implementation led to noticeable drops in emissions and prices, with the Renewable Energy Target now being seen as the catalyst for a renewable energy transition.
However, with the RET’s end date looming, politicians looked to find it a suitable replacement that would ensure Australia continues to build upon renewables and cutting emissions at a rate compatible with the Paris Agreement.
The Morrison government revealed they have no plans to implement a new renewable energy policy and when queried about it, current Energy Minister and renewable energy and climate change skeptic Angus Taylor told Parliament: “The truth of the matter is the renewable energy target is going to wind down from 2020, it reaches its peak in 2020, and we won’t be replacing that with anything.”
The previous administration had already discussed implementing a National Energy Guarantee (NEG), to replace the Renewable Energy Target.
The NEG would merge energy reliability and a reduction in carbon emissions and could be used to help transition the nation away from fossil fuels and towards renewables. However, it was criticized for not being ambitious enough by energy experts and was seen as a government ploy to protect coal-fired power stations whilst flaunting an eco-friendly tag.
A study commissioned by Greenpeace Australia illustrated the issues with the NEG, showing that wholesale power prices would increase over time despite an initial drop and ensure no change in the share of renewable energy in the country’s energy portfolio.
In an interview with The Guardian, Oliver Yates, the former head of the CEFC expressed his disappointment: “It’s absolutely of no benefit to the national transition away from emissions. [The NEG] doesn’t do anything other than create a stable emissions profile for existing coal-fired power stations.”
Mr. Yates also pointed out the fact that under the NEG, polluting utility companies had a decade to reduce their emissions and that there was no mention of additional implementation of renewable energy projects.
Amidst criticism from all sides, the NEG was abandoned, leaving many worried that a transition away from fossil fuels may not happen. In August last year, the Energy Security Board warned that without the RET or the NEG, Australia was set to fall short of its emissions target.
Sheep drink imported water from a trough at a farm in Wandandian, New South Wales. In the world's driest inhabited continent, enduring a devastating drought that arrived in mid-winter, private action to prepare for climate change contrasts with years of division on energy and environmental policies. Australia's latest climate casualties are its farmers, who are being forced to slaughter livestock and watch crops wither amid one of the worst droughts on record. © 2018 Bloomberg Finance LP
An Inconvenient Truth
Despite successive governments assuring the Australian public that the country was doing its best to reduce emissions, the numbers have revealed an inconvenient truth.
A 2018 report by the Climate Action Tracker concluded that: “Australia’s emissions from fossil fuels and industry continue to rise and, based on the most recent quarterly inventory, are now 6% above 2005 levels and increasing at around 1% since 2014.
Under current policies, these emissions are headed for an increase of 9% above 2005 levels by 2030, rather than the 15–17% decrease in these emissions required to meet Australia’s Paris Agreement target. This means Australia’s emissions are set to far outpace its 'Insufficient' 2030 target.”
The “Climate Change Election” was meant to change Australia’s environmental future - and it certainly has.
Since being re-elected Prime Minister Scott Morrison has retained Angus Taylor as the nation’s Energy Minister, suggesting that his government does not intend to put forth any new strong environmental policies. A country itself already experiencing the worst impacts of climate change, suffering from drought, coral bleaching of an unprecedented scale, loss of biodiversity as well as poor environmental management, Australia has positioned itself at odds with global trends.
Where nations are cutting emissions and investing in cleaner futures, Australia has reduced funding for climate change solutions and refused to commit to additional emissions cutbacks.
Whilst politicians can continue to posture and engage in doublespeak, the impacts of climate change will continue to be felt.
The Australian government’s lack of interest in being part of a global solution regarding climate change should not be seen as a new development, but rather one of its many examples of hubris.

Links
at No comments:

Climate Change Is Already Affecting Global Food Production—Unequally

University of Minnesota

Global map of changes in wheat yield on average annually. Units are measured by tons per hectare per year. Credit: Deepak Ray.

The world's top 10 crops— barley, cassava, maize, oil palm, rapeseed, rice, sorghum, soybean, sugarcane and wheat—supply a combined 83 percent of all calories produced on cropland.
Yields have long been projected to decrease in future climate conditions.
Now, new research shows climate change has already affected production of these key energy sources—and some regions and countries are faring far worse than others.
Published in PLOS ONE, the University of Minnesota-led study, conducted with researchers from the University of Oxford and the University of Copenhagen, used weather and reported crop data to evaluate the potential impact of observed change.
The researchers found that:
  • observed climate change causes a significant yield variation in the world's top 10 crops, ranging from a decrease of 13.4 percent for oil palm to an increase of 3.5 percent for soybean, and resulting in an average reduction of approximately one percent (-3.5 X 10e13 kcal/year) of consumable food calories from these top 10 crops;
  • impacts of climate change on are mostly negative in Europe, Southern Africa, and Australia, generally positive in Latin America, and mixed in Asia and Northern and Central America;
  • half of all food-insecure countries are experiencing decreases in crop production—and so are some affluent industrialized countries in Western Europe;
  • contrastingly, recent climate change has increased the yields of certain crops in some areas of the upper Midwest United States.
"There are winners and losers, and some countries that are already food insecure fare worse," says lead author Deepak Ray of the University of Minnesota's Institute on the Environment, whose high-resolution global crop statistics databases have also been used to help to identify how global changes over time.
These findings indicate which geographical areas and are most at risk, making them relevant to those working to achieve the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals of ending hunger and limiting the effects of .
Insights like these lead to new questions and crucial next steps.
"This is a very complex system, so a careful statistical and data science modeling component is crucial to understand the dependencies and cascading effects of small or large changes," says co-author Snigdhansu Chatterjee of the University of Minnesota's School of Statistics.
The Institute's Global Landscapes Initiative, whose contributors to this study included Ray, Paul West and James Gerber, has previously produced global scale findings that have been put to use by international organizations such as the U.N., World Bank and Brookings in evaluation of global food security and environmental challenges.
The scholars say this report has implications for major food companies, commodity traders and the countries in which they operate, as well as for citizens worldwide.
"The research documents how change is already happening, not just in some future time," says Ray.

Links
at No comments:

Kids Suing The US Over Climate Change Are Getting Global Support

Quartz - Ephrat Livni

“Fridays for Future” school strike in Vienna, Austria on May 31, 2019.
In 2015, when a group of 21 children and teens first sued the US government over climate change, their claim in Juliana v. US was not totally new—youth in Uganda and the Netherlands had filed somewhat similar environmental suits—but it seemed a little strange.
Shouldn’t these kids be playing video games or something, doing pretty much anything but litigating to save the planet?
Now, the plaintiffs in Juliana v. US are part of an increasingly vocal global movement of young environmental activists leading the fight against climate catastrophe, most visible among them Swedish teen Greta Thunberg, who has chided world leaders for failing to take action. And they are banding together.
In March, Thunberg inspired a worldwide protest, with kids skipping school to make the point that their future is on the line because of climate change. On June 1, youth activists will host nearly 100 coordinated press conferences across the US and worldwide announcing new local actions to fight the climate crisis in a show of solidarity with the American plaintiffs who have a hearing before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 4.
The young Americans, some of whom are now adults, argue that they have a constitutional right to a stable climate that sustains life on Earth. While this right is obviously not enumerated in the US Constitution, they say that it is implied by the document.
By adopting policies that promote fossil fuel use, leading to the emission of carbon dioxide at rates that change the climate, despite knowing these energy sources are warming the planet, the federal government violates “the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property,” they wrote in their 2015 complaint (pdf). The plaintiffs also contend that the government is failing to protect essential resources held in trust for the public.
Their case—which originated in Oregon district court—has been surprisingly successful so far, though the government has fought the kids hard.
The matter has survived efforts to dismiss it by two presidential administrations, that of Barack Obama and now of Donald Trump. The fossil fuel industry briefly intervened in the case, joining the government as defendants before asking the courts to release them from the matter, a motion which was granted in 2017.
The case was set for trial twice in 2018, but the Trump administration repeatedly moved for delay and dismissal.
The kids have used social media to get out their message, naturally. When their trial was delayed in February 2017, for example, they posted using the hashtag #RatherBeInCourt.
Last July, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, denying the administration’s application for a stay and calling a request to review the case before the district court hears all of the facts at trial “premature.” The high court again denied a Trump administration request for a stay in November.
But the feds fought on and the Department of Justice immediately filed more motions to quash the case at the district and circuit court level. The government has gone to great lengths to avoid a trial that will no doubt highlight the science behind climate change and reveal the extent to which representatives failed to act on information about environmental dangers.
The hearing next week before the appeals court will determine whether the plaintiffs can finally take the case to trial and, if so, whether various federal agencies will be subject to an injunction while the trial takes place, halting the production of new fossil fuel extractions while the matter is heard.
If they succeed, these young plaintiffs will be setting a dramatic precedent in the US. As they say on their website, ”Like Brown v. Board of Education did for civil rights, Juliana v. United States has the potential to become the landmark climate change case of our country’s history.”
This bold claim has merit. If the kids succeed in the US, they create a basis for other cases like theirs in municipalities and states across the nation.
Though the litigation is complicated, Juliana v. US has already gone much further than the US government would have liked. A win would mean that American states and municipalities would have to rethink their obligations as trustees of public resources or risk facing similarly complex litigation, and it could change the way business is done.
Certainly, the plaintiffs have convinced many that their case matters.
Ahead of the June 4 hearing, environmental groups, businesses, members of Congress, the League of Women Voters, public health experts, history professors, and of course lawyers all argued the validity of their claims in amicus briefs (32,340 young people (pdf) were also represented in such a brief). A filing on behalf of law professors (pdf) supporting the plaintiffs argues that the constitutional claim in the case is indeed valid.
They write, “The District Court was correct to find that a stable climate is essential to ordered liberty…Indeed, as the District Court found, a stable climate system is quite literally the foundation of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Links
Children Climate Change Legal Action:
Other legal links:
at No comments: