16/09/2019

Fear Of Drought, Flood And Fires Leads Farmers To Plea For Urgent Action On Climate Change

ABC Rural - Tim Fookes

Farmer Robert Lee wants to see more action taken about the impact climate change is having on agriculture. (ABC Rural: Tim Fookes)

Key points
  • A group of farmers concerned about the future has formed a lobby group, Farmers for Climate Action
  • About 200 farmers from around NSW attended a conference this week to lobby for more action on climate change
  • A climate scientist says farmers bring new perspectives that people may not have considered
Extreme weather variabilities have farmers like Robert Lee, who has just watched more of his cattle leave for greener pastures, on edge.
The farmer from Larras Lee, in central west New South Wales, has lived through drought before, but not like this.
"The cattle I had were about to start calving, and I just haven't got enough to feed them," he said.
"I was proud of those cows that have gone this week; I bred them, and I regret I have to sell them."
Having already destocked, Mr Lee knows of other farmers destocking because there is a better opportunity for them in southern NSW and Victoria where they have had rain.
"The agents tell me how embarrassed they are with the amount of rain they've had in Victoria," Mr Lee said.
"But it's great to hear that some people have had [rain] and have got some grass to take on stock that we can't handle.
"With the way the climate is, with warmer-than-average temperatures and lower rainfall, I have to be much more nimble with how much stock I have."
Drought conditions in NSW is pushing farmers to demand urgent action on climate change. (ABC News: Caitlyn Gribbin)
Farmers for climate activism
Mr Lee is not alone in his concerns over the climate and has become a member of the lobby group, Farmers for Climate Action.
It involves people from rural Australia pushing for more action on the effects that climate change is having on agriculture.
A conference this week in Orange attracted nearly 200 people to discuss ways of lobbying for more action on the effects a warming, dryer climate is having on those who make a living on the land.
Two thirds of those at the conference were farmers who had travelled from around NSW to attend.
Cootamundra farmer John Angus is urging farmers to pressure for more climate change action. (ABC Rural: Tim Fookes)
Among those who made the trip was John Angus, an agronomist with the CSIRO for 40 years who now farms near Cootamundra.
"It's bloody inspiring to see so many farmers concerned about what is going on," he said.
"We can make a difference [and] if we can suppress the methane emissions from grazing animals, it will make a big improvement.
"Due to climate change, the production of crops will become more difficult, because cropping leads to a reduction of soil carbon of two to three percent a year, and that can't be avoided."

Urgent action needed
The drought affecting much of Queensland and New South Wales has added to the concern some farmers have that not enough is being done to prevent extreme weather conditions.
While the issue of climate change can still be a tough sell for some, for those who say the science is irrefutable, there needs to be a more concerted effort to focus on doing what is possible to combat the risk of drought and floods.
Farmers are being encouraged to put up signs showing their support for climate change action. (ABC Rural: Tim Fookes)
"In the last five years there has been a general sway in terms of the view of climate change," said Steven Crimp, a climate applications scientist at the Australian National University.
"When farmers talk about the impact of climate change, it's particularly valuable.
"They bring in new ideas and new points of discussion on the ways of farmers that people may not have thought of before."

Impact on farming
With rising average temperatures and more variable rainfall, those on the land will bear the brunt of more frequent drought.
In the past 100 years of records, the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has found a one degree Celsius rise in temperature, leading to more extreme weather events.
Australian farmers need to be given climate information to enable them to make good decisions says one expert. (ABC Wide Bay: Brad Marsellos, file photo)
"We've seen an increase in heat events and while we have seen drought events in the past, this one is severe," Lynette Bettio, a senior BOM climatologist said.
"We are seeing these record high temperatures with the drought, so that's increasing its intensity.
"Our farmers are at the forefront of dealing with this [and] are already some of the most adaptable in the world, given Australia's variable climate.
"But they need to be given the information about the climate so they can make the decisions they need to."

Getting heads around science
Harden farmer Peter Holding was among those to organise the Farmers for Climate Action conference.
"I've farmed for 40 years and the last 20, it's just been getting drier and drier," he said.
"I live in an area of southern NSW that supposedly got one drought every 10 years, but we rarely have a good year anymore; it's just not normal.
"I don't know why some people continue to put out fallacious arguments about the effect of climate change because they do enormous damage to the farming community by being wrong."
As Mr Holding looked across the room full of farmers concerned about the current situation and future, he was of the belief they could make a difference at a national and individual level.
"It gives us confidence and hope that the discussion around climate change is becoming more logical as people get their head around the science," he said.

Links
at No comments:

Green With Rage: Women Climate Change Leaders Face Online Attacks

The Conversation - Tracey Raney | Mackenzie Gregory
Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna has had to hire security due to sexist vitriol aimed at her in public. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick
Women leaders who support climate action are being attacked online with increasing regularity. These attacks should be viewed as a problem not only for the planet, but also to the goals of achieving gender equality and more inclusive, democratic politics.
Catherine McKenna, Canada’s environment and climate change minister, recently announced that she’s had to hire security to protect herself and her family while in public. With an election now on, it’s likely she’ll face further abuse in the weeks to come.
McKenna hired security after she was out with her children and a driver rolled down his window and shouted: “F-k you, Climate Barbie.” This sexist taunt was popularized by Conservative MP Gerry Ritz, who once used the slur in reference to McKenna on Twitter.
It resulted in a tsunami of #Climatebarbie hashtags and variations of the slur ever since. Ritz has since apologized and deleted the original tweet.

A worldwide problem
Unfortunately, vitriol directed at women leaders who support climate action is becoming more frequent in Canada and beyond.
Maxime Bernier, leader of the Peoples’ Party of Canada, recently tweeted at 16-year-old activist Greta Thunberg, calling her:
“…clearly mentally unstable. Not only autistic, but obsessive-compulsive, eating disorder, depression and lethargy, and she lives in a constant state of fear.”
Other “green” women leaders have spoken out about the sexism they have experienced, including Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, Tzeporah Berman from Stand.Earth and Catherine Abreu from the Climate Action Network.
Following the proposal of the New Green Deal by U.S. congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, critics attacked her intelligence and her personal and professional background. National Review writer Charles Cooke referred to her as an “unmarried, childless bartender” who “somehow has the temerity to fancy herself a congressional representative.” He claimed the New Green Deal she supports is:
“ …an untrammeled Dear Santa letter without form, purpose, borders, or basis in reality.”
When New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern spoke about climate change, an Australian “shock jock” broadcaster said someone should “shove a sock down [her] throat.”

Nothing new
Violence and threats of violence against women leaders are certainly not new. According to research by Rutgers University professor Mona Lena Krook and University of Florida professor Juliana Restrepo Sanỉn, women in politics experience violence, sexism and sexual harassment because of the threat they pose working in a male-dominated field.
Sexist attacks and threats of violence therefore serve to discredit women’s ideas and delegitimize their power, with the ultimate goal of excluding them from the public sphere.
Other research shows that the higher their position of power, the more threatening women become.
Although male politicians are also attacked online, recent research in the United Kingdom reveals that the effects of online attacks are particularly difficult for women politicians to deal with. That’s because women MPs are more likely to fear for their safety compared to their male colleagues.
Attacks against women climate leaders specifically can be further explained by the relationship between misogyny and climate denialism.

Misogyny at work
Unlike sexism, an ideology that promotes patriarchal social relations, misogyny is an enforcement mechanism that seeks to punish women who challenge the traditional patriarchal order, according to Cornell University professor Kate Manne.
Climate denialism has also been linked to traditional assumptions of masculinity. Research shows that climate deniers are more likely to adhere to older forms of industrial modern masculinity that helped to push society towards “industrialization, mechanism and capitalism.”
Accordingly, some climate deniers prefer this older form of masculinity over a newer “eco-modern masculinity” of care and compassion for the environment.
A 2019 study found that some men will avoid certain environmental actions, such as recycling or using reusable shopping bags, in order to maintain “an outward-facing heterosexual identity.”
These versions of heterosexual masculinity appear to be predicated upon the domination and exploitation, rather than the preservation, of the environment.

A double threat
Women leaders who promote climate policies are therefore doubly threatening to those who hold misogynistic attitudes. First, simply by being women in a powerful position and, second, by espousing policies that directly challenge traditional norms of masculinity.
“Green rage” directed at women climate leaders thus serves the function of safeguarding male dominance by punishing women who challenge the patriarchal social order. The result is a toxic brew of masculinity directed at women climate leaders by way of sexist attacks and threats of violence.
Even Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, 16, has faced misogynistic online abuse, including from Canada’s Maxime Bernier. (AP Photo/Jeenah Moon)
Social media reactions to McKenna’s announcement that she now requires security for her and her family reveal how deeply embedded misogynistic attitudes are about women today.
After she tweeted about how difficult it is for women working on climate issues, some tweeters expressed support and sympathy. But many others denied that gender played a role in the attacks against her. Others continued to degrade her with sexist language, using hashtags #hypocriteBarbie and, once again, #climateBarbie.
Canadians go to the polls soon and the climate crisis is bound to be a heated campaign issue in the weeks to come.
Understanding the complex and challenging terrain women leaders must navigate is an important requirement of an informed electorate.
While some women politicians like McKenna have attempted to tackle head on the problem of online attacks against them, it should not be left to women alone to combat this issue. Dismantling patriarchal assumptions about gender is not just good for women, it is also good for men — and for the planet.

Links
at No comments:

Littleproud's Gaffe And PM's Reluctance Only Reinforce Australia's Climate Reputation

The Guardian - 

Most major players, including China, remain committed to the Paris process in a way Australia apparently is not

David Littleproud's flip flop on climate science

On one level it appeared just another week in Australian climate politics. A ridiculous statement by a government minister made headlines; the crossbench pushed for stronger action; the prime minister’s office quietly suggested he may not fulfil the next step of the Paris agreement, a deal he has repeatedly promised voters he would honour.
Meanwhile, much of the media coverage of climate policy focused on what the opposition might do if it wins power in three years’ time.
But the repercussions from decisions made public this week may reverberate longer than was immediately obvious.
First, the ridiculous. David Littleproud, the minister responsible for drought and natural disasters, made international news after telling Guardian Australia he did not know if climate change was manmade. By Thursday, he was saying he had always accepted the science on the role humans play in the climate changing. He blamed his initial statement on a TV interview being cut short, neglecting to acknowledge it first appeared in an email responding to questions from this publication.
The minister’s position was backed to varying degrees by cabinet colleagues who played down the need to focus on the link between the climate crisis and bushfires ravaging Queensland and New South Wales or, in the case of the resources minister, Matt Canavan, volunteered that the government supported “sensible responses” to the issue that included supporting coal and gas developments.
If this all sounds wearyingly familiar and anti-science, it is worth noting Littleproud’s past comments back his claim that he more or less accepts mainstream science and the need to respond, if not the urgency scientists say is necessary. Beyond reinforcing Australia’s reputation as a global laggard on the climate emergency, his misstep was extraordinary mostly for illustrating the extent to which relative centrists within the Coalition are tying themselves in knots to avoid the wrath of the hard right.
But put Littleproud’s gaffe aside. Confirmation by my colleague Katharine Murphy that Scott Morrison will not attend a climate summit convened by the UN secretary general later this month, despite landing in the US that week to meet Donald Trump, is more significant – and not just for surface-level appearance reasons.
Morrison was not offered a speaking slot at the summit because he turned down António Guterres’ call for leaders to come to New York armed with concrete plans to boost national climate commitments next year. The foreign minister, Marise Payne, will attend in his place. While it has received relatively little attention beyond the Guardian, international observers are interpreting it as a sign Australia is backing away from its pledge under the Paris agreement.
It’s worth looking at what Australia signed up to in France in 2015. The overarching goal agreement is to limit global heating to well below 2C and as close to 1.5C as possible. To get there, countries included a “ratchet-up” mechanism. Every five years, they would update their commitments (known, in the UN’s typically alienating language, as “nationally determined contributions”) informed by the latest science.
Everyone in Paris knew the initial targets set for 2030 were nothing like enough. Everyone knew the success of the pact would depend on countries lifting their commitments sooner rather than later. The point was reinforced last year when the world’s climate scientists, under the banner of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released a major report examining what would be necessary to limit heating to 1.5C.The report, which was requested by leaders in Paris, was stark. As Guterres has noted, it suggests a global 45% cut in emissions is needed by 2030 to keep the 1.5C goal within reach – a significant ask, but one in which analysts have found Australia could play its part.
Armed with that information, leaders are now supposed to be doing their part: ramping up commitments for the first five-yearly update of the Paris agreement next year.
As one of the world’s 15 biggest emitters and a wealthy developed country, what Australia does is noticed. But in a comment to the Guardian this week, Morrison’s office offered nothing to suggest a change was on the cards as promised. “Australia has already outlined our policies to tackle climate change including cutting our emissions by 26-28% and investing directly into climate resilience projects through our regional partners,” a spokesman said.
Australia has an infamous history of fudging on its climate targets, dating back to the first stage of the Kyoto Protocol, when it demanded a target that allowed it to increase pollution by 8%. It also pushed for the inclusion of land-use changes in its baseline year of 1990, an historically high year for Australian carbon pollution from rampant land clearing in Queensland.
As land clearing had already reduced in the years that followed, it meant Australia could meet its goal while it continued to dramatically expand fossil fuel operations. It set up a situation where it could claim to be playing its part while doing no such thing.
That approach has continued. Australia has changed baseline years to make cuts appear deeper than they are and set targets that ignore scientific advice. Its has set low emissions reduction targets and then wants to claim extra credit towards its next target for beating the first goal. The credits go to Australia, not the atmosphere.
As has been well documented, Australia’s national emissions have risen four years straight. Multiple analyses have found existing climate change policies are not enough to meet the current 2030 target.
It would be foolish to be Pollyannaish about the state of international action to combat climate change. Global emissions increased last year after plateauing for a couple of years in the middle of the decade. The national governments of the biggest emitters, China and the US, either give mixed messages or are actively opposed to taking action.
But most major players, China included, remain committed to the Paris process in a way Australia is not. High-level discussions between China and the European Union about increasing their emissions commitments are ongoing. India is watching those talks closely ahead of announcing its position next year. More than 60 countries have signed up to give a presentation at the NYC climate summit, according to an early list seen by the Guardian.
Amid this, Australia’s plans are unclear at best. It has committed to develop a long-term strategy, but not explained what this will mean. It is possible it could still take an increased 2030 target to the UN climate conference in Glasgow next year. But it has said nothing to indicate this is likely.
Why does this matter? Beyond it going against Australia’s pledge in 2015, it makes deeper cuts in the future that much harder. Bill Hare, the chief executive and senior scientist with Climate Analytics, says it is well established scientifically that inadequate emissions reductions by 2030 leaves little to no chance of reaching zero emissions by 2050, the underlying goal implied by the Paris deal.
Visiting bushfire-damaged Queensland on Friday, Morrison followed a familiar formula: he accepted that climate change was a factor in what he was witnessing and claimed Australia was acting. “We have already responded and we will continue to respond, to take action on climate change. I do not accept any suggestion that we do not,” he said.
It is a proven technique: straight denial despite all the evidence running the other way. But talk to international observers of climate efforts and the view is different. Australia is seen as a roadblock, more focused on expanding its coal and gas exports than supporting a global solution. As efforts build ahead of Glasgow next year, Morrison may find it is not just the Pacific pushing back.

Links
at No comments: