21/10/2019

Why 'Doomism' Is Part Of The Latest Frontier In The Climate Wars

Sydney Morning HeraldDeborah Snow

Once if you were a climate scientist the chief enemy was denial. Now, says Michael E. Mann, it’s more likely to be “doomism”: the idea that taking action to reduce the threat of runaway climate change is pointless because it’s already too late.
Doomism, argues the internationally renowned climate scientist, is part of the latest frontier in the climate wars - a new tool being exploited by those resisting change in the way the world does business.
It sits alongside what he calls “soft denialism” (climate change is happening but it's OK, we can adapt) and “deflection” (sowing division by making it all about individual lifestyle choices). Such tactics, he says, are in some ways “even more pernicious” than the old arguments flatly rejecting human-induced climate change.
An Extinction Rebellion protest calling for stronger action to reduce climate change. Credit: AAP
“The greatest threat I see to climate action is the paralysis that comes from disengagement, disillusionment, despair,” he told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age on a flying visit from the United States this week. “It would be one thing if we were really doomed … as a scientist it would be disingenuous of me to argue otherwise. But the science tells us we can still make the reductions in carbon emissions necessary to avert the worst impacts of climate change. Yes there is urgency, but we still have agency.”The daily news cycle has served up grim warnings this year: the intensity and scale of wildfires from the Amazon to the Arctic, prolonged drought, hurricanes and storms of ever greater impact, the retreat of glaciers, and evidence of the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and destabilisation of the West Antarctic ice sheet, happening now decades earlier than the predictions made 10 to 15 years ago.
"Dangerous impacts from climate change are with us in real time": Climate scientist Michael E. Mann. Credit: Getty Image
“We don’t have to use our imaginations anymore,” Mann says. “Dangerous impacts from climate change are with us in real time.”
Mann, who is professor of atmospheric sciences at Pennsylvania State University, believes the world has 10 years in which to make the profound systemic changes and cuts to greenhouse gas emissions that might limit warming to around 1.5 degrees centigrade.
Left to business as usual the world will warm 4 to 5 degrees, leaving the generations who follow with a “fundamentally different planet” - one where sea-level rise will wreak havoc on coastal cities and communities, while climate extremes devastate terrestrial and marine environments. The impacts, he says, would be irreversible, even if a way could be found to “magically” cool the planet again.
Mann found himself thrust into the midst of the climate wars after publication of his now-famous “hockey stick” graph of 1999, which depicted a sharp rise in global temperature as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increased. The graph featured heavily in an early report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), making Mann a prime target for attack by climate change deniers.
“Politics came to us – we didn’t come to politics,” he says of the scientific struggle of the past two decades. While in many ways he’d love a return to his old life of research and number-crunching, necessity has forced him to embrace the role of what he calls “scientist advocate”.
That’s the mission that brought him to a roomful of hard-headed finance types in Sydney this week, at a conference organised by the Investor Group on Climate Change.
That Mann should be invited to address such a meeting makes perfect sense to the IGCC’s chief executive, Emma Herd.
Financiers and investors are now becoming ever more alert to the risks posed by climate change, she says. The dollars are starting to follow, even without the policy leadership which business has looked for in vain from the federal government. Collectively the group’s 74 members, based in Australia and New Zealand, have more than two trillion dollars’ worth of assets under management and they want assurances from companies that those investments have a long-term future.
“What I’m increasingly seeing - and investors are a big part of the reason for this - is that the private sector in Australia recognises that climate change is going to cause major economic shifts and are trying to manage it,” she says.
“Government is still fighting the political fight. The private sector is getting on with it and doing the best they can. That doesn’t mean you are not going to get different views from different sectors … but what you are not seeing is fighting the need to do anything about it at all.”
She says the “energy and momentum” at this week’s meeting was “palpable … It really feels like in the last 12 to 18 months investors are stepping up their engagement with companies and pushing companies to have a much better response”.
Icebergs float away as the sun rises near Kulusuk, Greenland. Scientists are trying to understand the alarmingly rapid melting of the ice. Credit: AP
Geoffrey Summerhayes, an executive board member of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and chair of the Sustainable Insurance Forum, also sees investors becoming increasingly focused on climate change risk. “As I heard someone say recently, you can’t do business on a dead planet. These organisations understand the link between environmental sustainability and economic sustainability.”
“What is underway is a transition to a low-carbon future. That direction is irreversible and the smart money has worked that out and can see globally the trillions of dollars of infrastructure required to transition the world over the decades to come.”
The shift in the energy system is already playing out much faster than many predicted, Summerhayes adds. “The world went from no smart phones to saturation in 10 years. The economics will drive the shift to renewables in a similar way.”
As I heard someone say recently, you can’t do business on a dead planet.
Geoffrey Summerhayes, chair of the Sustainable Insurance Forum
London-based Georg Kell, chair of influential Anglo-German asset management firm Arabesque Partners, was another panellist at the conference who, like Summerhayes, flags technological change as a key driver of change.
But he also takes heart from the growing impact of the case for intergenerational fairness, now being made more powerfully than ever by young activists like Sweden’s Greta Thunberg. (Mann joked this week that OPEC had zeroed in on her like the malevolent “Eye of Sauron” in fantasy novel The Lord of the Rings).
“We have to ask ourselves, honestly, when we pass away, are our children in a position to enjoy the world as we have done?” Kell says. “Will they be able to go camping, scuba diving, will they have the same beauties, or will they live in a different world that will be far more confronting?”
Climate change, he says, is not about “red, or blue, or green” politics. “In Europe, new alliances are coming into being … CEOs of leading companies are now teaming up with green parties, unheard of years ago, teaming up to win over mainstream parties and help re-shape the political landscape.”
Any business leader that played the denial card was guilty of “stupidity at best, and gross negligence, I would argue, almost criminal behaviour, at worst,” he says. “The evidence has been compelling for years already.”
A striking theme at the investor conference was frustration over the inability of Australia’s political parties to resolve the climate wars after a decade of bickering and stalemate. Government actions were seen as piecemeal and sometimes a direct obstacle to private sector investment. “If electric vehicles had been cast as a cost-of-living issue we would have them by now … instead it was cast as a climate-change initiative so it became a political football,” one speaker pointed out.
The Australian Industry Group’s Innes Willox complained that the energy wars had become “Australia’s Brexit”.
“Industry finds it increasingly difficult to make reasoned, calculated investment in the energy space … so it is going its own way,” he told the conference. Others worried that various state governments – including NSW and Victoria – have declared goals of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 but with no clarity for business about how to get there.
(The Morrison government’s insistence that it is on track to meet its modest Kyoto and Paris carbon emission reduction targets were dealt a blow by the International Monetary Fund earlier this month, which said Australia on current trajectories would fail to meet those targets even with a steep carbon tax).
Tony Maher of the CFMEU, representing mine workers, appealed to investors to prioritise the social and political dimensions of tackling climate change as well as the financial risks. “So far Germany is the only country that can say there has been a just transition [out of coal],” he told the conference. “Workers always get screwed, communities get broken … we have to prove to them that [that won’t happen].”
Mann warned his business audience this week that there are uncertainties in the climate modelling but that was not a reason for inaction. “If anything, it's the opposite ... things are happening faster and with greater magnitude than we predicted a decade or so ago. There are things missing from the models that are causing them in some sense to be overly conservative.”
One example is the massive undulations in the northern hemisphere jet stream that locked in both extreme low- and extreme high-pressure weather systems in different parts of the US this year. That, he said, was “not captured in the modelling”.
Mann, who will take up a visiting professorship at the University of New South Wales in 2020, insists the world doesn’t need “a miracle” to avert the most devastating climate change scenarios. “We have the solution in our hands. We simply need to find the political will to provide the incentives necessary to transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy.”
Not all sections of the business community are alive to the need for urgent action, but building alliances with those that are is, he says, “a huge opportunity”.
“It’s one thing when environmental groups are leading the communication effort. But when you have the business community, the finance community, the insurance and reinsurance communities talking about climate change as an existential threat, it potentially … really broadens the constituency for climate action.”

Links

An Audacious Plan To Stop Climate Change: Remake The Entire Economy

Washington PostDavid Grinspoon

Naomi Klein makes a passionate case that market capitalism can’t avert disaster.
Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg
Climate disruption looms, and we are dithering. We are in need of a vision. You can be forgiven the occasional moment of paralyzing despair. But then snap out of it, because we’ve got work to do. But what exactly? We’d all love to see the plan.
Some say technical wizardry and unleashed market forces can come to our rescue, as green entrepreneurs chase the gold of alternative energy.
But in “On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal,” Naomi Klein makes a keenly argued, well-researched and impassioned case for why market capitalism cannot get us out of this mess and the only way to avert a climate breakdown is to undertake a radical reset of our entire economy.
This will require a vast expansion of public investment, including sectors far beyond those directly associated with energy and climate resilience, such as health care, education and labor rights. Given that Klein was promoting a similar program before she explicitly tied it to climate action, one has to ask whether this truth is a little too convenient. In “The Shock Doctrine” (2007), she described “disaster capitalism,” in which corporations and the politicians they control never let a good crisis go to waste, using the pretext of emergencies to achieve neoliberal goals of privatization and erosion of the public sphere.
Here it’s fair to ask if Klein and her colleagues in the Green New Deal movement are practicing “disaster socialism,” seeking to use the climate threat to vastly expand the role of government and quash corporate influence. Klein enthuses that “battling climate change is a once-in-a-century chance to build a fairer and more democratic economy,” and she doesn’t mince words about her belief that “climate change supercharges the preexisting case for virtually every progressive demand on the books, binding them into a coherent agenda based on a clear scientific imperative.”
The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal
Naomi Klein
Simon & Schuster
308 pp
Is the Green New Deal a plot to use the climate emergency as a pretense for socialism? Klein is well aware of this accusation.
She makes her best case for why an effective societal response to the climate crisis must include a rejuvenation of genuine democracy that wrests power from the petrochemical and extractive industries; forces a more equitable distribution of resources; subsidizes massive new investments in energy, transit and housing infrastructure; and protects those whose lives are upended by the rapid economic transition.
Parts of the argument are somewhat strained. Yes, we need comprehensive health-care reform, but does it absolutely have to be part of a climate package? Klein insists it does because an improved and fairer health system will help Americans weather the necessary economic dislocations and the expected increase in natural disasters.
Is the only plausible way to avert a climate breakdown a full transformation of our society from corporate to social democracy? Can’t we put out the climate fire first and then get the rest of our house in order? I don’t think this book will convince anyone who is not already fairly open to these ideas. Klein is not subtle about applying her ideological lens to the problem.
However, if you are sympathetic to the goals of the Green New Deal but are as yet unconvinced, as I was before reading “On Fire,” you need to read this book. Klein marshals the most powerful arguments for why climate change cannot be effectively addressed without a simultaneous deep reckoning with our society’s other ills of wealth and income inequality, racial discrimination, and crumbling infrastructure.
As a scientist I was on the lookout for misrepresentations. It is, of course, not strictly true that “science says that political revolution is our only hope.” (Wouldn’t it be great if science could give us a blueprint for how to organize ourselves as a society?)
But science does tell us that our current course, absent a radical and rapid change in our energy supplies, will lead to disaster. I am bothered by the fetishization of somewhat arbitrary deadlines, as in: “We are fighting for our lives. And we don’t have twelve years anymore; now we have only eleven. And soon it will be just ten.” But we are facing an existential threat, and perhaps the repetition of these numbers will help people appreciate the urgency, which is real.
Basic quantitative reasoning confirms one of Klein’s central arguments — that the survival of a healthy biosphere on this finite planet is inconsistent with an economic system dependent on continuous growth. Whether or not one accepts every detail of the Green New Deal as currently conceived, it is hard to deny that a successful fix to the climate crisis will involve a radical reduction in corporations’ influence over our political process.
Klein’s tone is urgent but hopeful. She reminds us that looming disaster can sometimes bring out the best in people, awakening transformative impulses in the nick of time. She highlights the work of inspiring young activists to show us that no future is written in stone and that we have the choice, and the obligation, to change course.
She sketches an alternative future, possibly within our grasp, which is imaginative and inspiring, a world where “day-to-day life for working people has been improved in countless ways, with more time for leisure and art, truly accessible and affordable public transit and housing, yawning racial and gender wealth gaps closed at last, and city life that is not an unending battle against traffic, noise and pollution.” The Green New Deal draws upon Roosevelt’s New Deal as historical analogy and proof-of-concept that we are capable of responding to crisis with creative transformation.
Klein proposes that once again, government-supported artists should play a vital role, helping us imagine and realize our societal renovation as Works Progress Administration artists did in the 1930s.
Although Klein and the Green New Deal will be accused of building a Trojan horse for socialism, in the vision laid out in “On Fire,” capitalism is not discarded, just somewhat tamed. Klein talks about “democratic eco-socialism,” but the examples she holds up are Sweden and Denmark, places where capitalism is alive and well.
The future United States she describes is not Venezuela. The pursuit of wealth is not eliminated, but obscene excess is constrained, with resources channeled back into supporting infrastructure for a cleaner, fairer economy and safety nets for those displaced in the transition.
The market is alive but defanged. There’s still room in this picture for entrepreneurship and competition, with riches coming to those who can invent an efficient carbon-sucking widget. They would just have to pay their workers a decent wage and give back a fair share. Maybe it will really be all of the above: green capitalism chasing a new alternative gold rush within the sturdy guardrails provided by a strengthened public sector.
It’s not enough to lament the world we would have had if we had acted sooner or to picture the future we want to avoid. We need something to aspire to, to work toward. Dwight Eisenhower famously said that plans are useless but planning is indispensable.
But here the plan is essential. It is lacking in detail, grandiose and surely flawed in some respects. But the people need a vision, and “On Fire” challenges us to choose the Green New Deal or try to find a better one — in a hurry.
At present it is still a vague outline, not a detailed policy proposal. But this plan, or some version of it, is going to be part of our urgent national and international conversation on this most pressing of issues.
Reading this book will equip you to enter into that dialogue with a rich understanding of the rationale.
Klein lays it out vehemently and clearly for us to debate, adapt and improve upon if necessary. Time is of the essence, and we’d better choose right.

Links

John Hewson Slams Coalition On Climate Change While Business Takes Lead Reducing Emissions

ABC Country HourJoshua Becker

John Hewson addresses the Australian Farm Institute Round Table in Canberra. (Supplied: Edgars Greste)
Key points
  • John Hewson takes aim at the Government's policies and its "entrenched anti-climate sentiment'
  • The former Liberal leaders argues that regenerative agriculture can offset a large amount of future emissions
  • Academics say government policy might be less influential than market forces as companies move faster to reduce emissions
Former Liberal leader and treasury economist John Hewson has delivered a scathing rebuke of the Federal Government's climate change policy during an address to farmers and industry leaders.
"We don't have a sense of urgency to achieve these emission [reduction] targets," he told the Australian Farm Institute Roundtable in Canberra.
"There's an entrenched anti-climate sentiment in the Government at the moment, and indeed government ministers are not turning up at events if they have the word 'climate' in the title.
"The comments made by the Prime Minister at the UN, that we are going to meet our emissions targets, was a gross misrepresentation and was staggering for someone in his position."
Dr Hewson, who is now the chair of the Business Council for Sustainable Development, said he would like to see regenerative agriculture form part of the solution.
"Regenerative agriculture can offset a very significant portion of our future emissions, and I'm staggered that is not being recognised by the National Party," he said.
"It would have a lot of benefits for regional Australia; a farmer could earn carbon credits or a stream of income for sequestering carbon on their farm."

Is agriculture prepared to be part of the solution?
Large multinational food companies are moving to adopt new targets to reduce emissions in line with the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Analysis: Morrison's UN speech
RMIT ABC Fact Check looks at some of the key claims made by the Prime Minister at the United Nations to see if they stack up.

The Sustainable Food Policy Alliance, which represents companies like Nestle, Unilever, Mars and Danone, has backed calls for companies to use their political influence to push governments to implement a science-based policy agenda.
Some academics believe this marks a shift in the global effort to combat climate change, when companies are moving faster than governments to reduce emissions.
Richard Eckard, a professor of agricultural sciences at the University of Melbourne, said government policy might be less influential than market forces.
"In the past six months, I've been back and relooked at all these companies' sustainability statements and noticed that they've all switched to absolute emission reduction targets in line with the Paris Agreement," he said.
"Some of them have interim steps to get there, but all of them are aiming for carbon-neutral food production by 2050."

Paris 2030: Will we make it?
To achieve this goal, some companies agreed to use 100 per cent renewable energy, while others committed to reducing their emissions.
Industries that cannot reduce their emissions will have to explore using carbon offsets to meet these targets, which is creating a lot of demand.
"I think it's quite notable that of the 100 largest economies in the world, 69 are companies, not countries," he said.
"And we've been looking to government for leadership — in actual fact, maybe it's these companies that are sending us the signals that need to be responded."
While there are possibilities for agriculture to form part of the solution, with its ability to sequester carbon, the current carbon market in Australia is fragmented and immature.
Dr Hewson supported plans for a HECS-style scheme that would see farmers receive a baseline carbon reading to help remove barriers for those looking to explore carbon farming initiatives as the market developed.
James Madden has created what is believed to be the first carbon-neutral meat brand in the world. (Supplied: Flinders and Co)
Can meat industry reach carbon-neutral goal?
Meat and Livestock Australia is moving towards a goal that would see the industry become carbon neutral by 2030.
However, experts believe it will fall short due to a lack of research and funding.
"Achieving that target will be a very tall order," Professor Eckard said.
"As an industry, they don't have the funding to allocate to create a low-methane cow — that's a long way off."
Professor Eckard said the industry had only 10 to 20 per cent of the funding needed to develop low-emissions solutions for livestock.
It will require partnerships with multinational companies to fund that gap in research and require academics to collaborate across countries with long-term projects.
"One problem is the short-termism that we have towards research with one-, two- and and three-year contracts — these are 10 to 20-year problems," he said.
"And we're not alone, we're not the only country with this problem, Brazil and New Zealand have a bigger problem than us.
"There is no one organisation that can fund this solution, we need a coordinated long-term effort."

Links