(AU) Scott Morrison Says No Evidence Links Australia's Carbon Emissions To Bushfires

The Guardian - Paul Karp

PM suggests Australia could increase emissions without worsening current fire season, and says government finalising plans to crack down on environmental protests

Former fire chiefs have accused Scott Morrison’s government of avoiding the issue of climate change. On Thursday the PM said there was no ‘credible scientific evidence’ that cutting Australia’s emissions could reduce the severity of bushfires. Photograph: Steven Saphore/AAP

Scott Morrison has argued there is no direct link between Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and the severity of fires ravaging the continent, even suggesting Australia could increase its emissions without making the current fire season worse.

Under pressure due to a record season of early bushfires and the accusation by a coalition of former fire chiefs that the government has avoided the issue of climate change, Morrison said on Thursday there was no “credible scientific evidence” that cutting Australia’s emissions could reduce the severity of bushfires.
On Thursday Morrison defended the government’s handling of the bushfire season, telling ABC’s AM it had put additional resources into emergency services and praising the “outstanding” response and coordination of state governments.

Morrison said he “took issue” with the suggestion by Greg Mullins, the former chief of NSW Fire and Rescue, and 23 other fire chiefs that the government was not adequately prepared.
Explaining why he didn’t meet Mullins, Morrison said the government already had the same advice about the impact of climate change from “existing fire chiefs doing the existing job”.

At first, Morrison appeared to accept that climate change was affecting the severity and frequency of bushfires.
“These are things that are very well known to the government – the contribution of these issues to global weather conditions and to conditions here in Australia are known and acknowledged,” he said.
“In February I acknowledged the contribution of those factors to what was happening in Australia – amongst many other issues.”
Morrison then said “the suggestion that any way shape or form that Australia, accountable for 1.3% of the world’s emissions, that the individual actions of Australia are impacting directly on specific fire events, whether it’s here or anywhere else in the world, that doesn’t bear up to credible scientific evidence either”.
“Climate change is a global phenomenon and we’re doing our bit as part of the response to climate change – we’re taking action on climate change,” he said.
“But I think to suggest that at just 1.3% of emissions, that Australia doing something more or less would change the fire outcome this season – I don’t think that stands up to any credible scientific evidence at all.”
The comments follow a controversy in September when the minister responsible for drought and natural disasters, David Littleproud, said he doesn’t “know if climate change is manmade”, before a total about-face.
The link between rising greenhouse gas emissions and increased bushfire risk is complex but, according to major science agencies, clear. Warmer weather increases the number of days each year on which there is high or extreme bushfire risk.
Australia’s response to climate change has been ranked one of the worst in the G20, with rising greenhouse gas emissions since the Abbott government abolished the carbon price in 2014.
Australia’s target of 26%-28% emissions reduction by 2030 will require it to cut emissions by 695m tonnes cumulatively across the next decade.
The Morrison government said more than half of that cut, 367m tonnes, would come from carryover credits from overperformance of earlier targets and not from practical emissions reduction.
The centrepiece of federal climate policy is the $2.55bn emissions reduction fund, now rebadged as the climate solutions fund, a reverse auction processes that pays landowners and businesses to cut pollution.
The most recent auction bought emissions cuts equivalent to only 0.01% of Australia’s annual greenhouse gas pollution after officials found just three projects worth backing.
The government has been quietly pursuing an overhaul of the emissions reduction fund, appointing a panel of four business leaders and policy experts to suggest options to expand it, and will consider the issue with the states at a meeting of energy ministers on Friday.
On Thursday Morrison refused to give further details of his proposed crackdown on environmental protests and secondary boycotts, saying the government would make announcements when it had “finalised those arrangements”.
The attorney general, Christian Porter, has suggested measures could include extending the prohibition on secondary boycotts to environmental campaigns, and a crackdown on environmental litigation and use of litigation funders for class actions against mining companies.
In a speech to the Business Council on Wednesday, Morrison flagged an overhaul of environmental approvals for major projects to reduce the length of time it takes for businesses to navigate environmental approvals.

Links

• Australia fires: Victoria issues code red bushfire warning amid thunderstorm asthma threat
• What are the links between climate change and bushfires? – explainer
• Former Australian fire chiefs say Coalition ignored their advice because of climate change politics
• Australia's east coast threatened by blazes ahead of catastrophic danger day – as it happened
• Coalition grilled on regional jobs package – as it happened
• Stripped bare: Australia's hidden climate crisis
• Scott Morrison ducks questions on Australia's emissions strategy for 2050
• Littleproud's confusion and PM's reluctance only reinforce Australia's climate reputation
• 'Like nothing we've seen': Queensland bushfires tear through rainforest

Global GDP Will Suffer At Least A 3% Hit By 2050 From Unchecked Climate Change, Say Economists

MarketWatch - Rachel Koning Beals

North America and Western Europe have more breathing room

2°C of warming expected by 2050 in a high-emissions scenario might shave between 2.5%-7.5% from global GDP, with the worst affected countries being in Africa and Asia: Oxford Economics. Getty Images

The global economy will be at least 3% smaller by 2050 owed solely to the effects of unchecked climate change, including severe weather and rising sea levels.
That’s a figure laid out in a framework from data experts at The Economist Intelligence Unit released Wednesday. Its findings track with select other climate-linked economic warnings sounded recently, including in the long view from central bankers.
Africa is the least resilient region to the impact of climate change and its economy will likely contract by at least 4.7% by 2050 based on environmental factors alone, while not taking into account other cyclical economic tendencies. Next comes Latin America (with an expected 3.8% hit), the Middle East (3.7%), Eastern Europe (3%) and Asia-Pacific (2.6%).
More-resilient North America’s economy is pegged to be 1.1% smaller because of climate change by 2050, while Western Europe should prepare for a climate-related contraction of 1.7%. Both regions are wealthier and more prepared to tackle climate change from an institutional standpoint than other parts of the globe, EIU said.
“The impacts of climate change are already being felt — we are already seeing the effects of more extreme weather events — but the economic impacts will only grow over time,” said John Ferguson, the group’s country analysis director. “It’s important to remember that a 3% loss of real GDP in 2050 is highly significant for the global economy, and that there will be economic losses in every year of the coming three decades.”
The EIU also admitted there’s uncertainty in forecasting the impacts of climate change. For example, the researchers have assumed that countries will make a modest effort to meet their goals as stated in their own contributions to the Paris Climate Agreement. However, the progress in this space and the implementation of these policies could easily disappoint, the EIU said. In fact, the economic impacts could be much worse than those highlighted in the model. President Donald Trump has started the process to pull the U.S. out of the Paris pact, mainly citing what he argues is noncompliance from China and other big emitters.
Oxford Economics offers a more alarming estimate, though one stretched over a longer time frame.
In the absence of efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth is currently on course to warm by around 4°C by 2100, these researchers emphasized. If so, this could strip 30% off the level of global GDP by that date, based on the top end of an estimate range.
More immediately, according to the Oxford Economics study, 2°C of warming expected by 2050 in a high-emissions scenario might shave between 2.5%-7.5% from global GDP, with the worst affected countries being in Africa and Asia.
“So, while over a 10-year horizon the costs seem unlikely to be significant enough to affect our forecasts, the window of indiscernibility looks to be closing rapidly,” the researchers said in a white paper available to its clients.
Many of the world’s top central banks want to move the global financial system away from a reliance on industries — including fossil-fuel giants Exxon XOM, +0.31%   and Chevron CVX, +0.76%   — that scientists largely have cited as posing increased risk for contributing to extreme changes in weather, large fires, rising sea levels and flooding.
The U.S. Fed has been the laggard among is central-bank peers in this regard. However, a rapidly changing climate may present just the kind of “shock” to the economic system that she and colleagues believe can no longer be ignored, Fed Gov. Lael Brainard said in prepared remarks to a recent first-of-its-kind Fed summit.
“There has been an increased willingness to engage on climate-change issues,” New York Fed President John Williams said in remarks earlier this month. “As the Fed, we are careful not to tell Congress what to do, but we can inform the debate.”
Bank of England Gov. Mark Carney said in an October speech in Tokyo that central banks will have to consider the physical risks of climate change when weighing monetary policy. That ranges from the impact on mortgages from flooding to severe weather’s toll on the pricing of government bonds.

Links

• Economist Intelligence Unit: Resilience to climate change?
• Economist Intelligence Unit: Australia
• Economies In Asia Pacific Forecast To Shrink By Over 2 Per Cent Due To Climate Change: Study
• How climate change is ‘creating a dilemma’ for the world’s central bankers
• Banks increasingly unload flooded-out mortgages at taxpayer expense
• (AU) Climate Change And The Economy Are Linked — It's Time The Morrison Government Accepts That
• A Globalised Solar-Powered Future Is Wholly Unrealistic – And Our Economy Is The Reason Why
• Scientists And Economists Are Warning The World's Governments That Climate Change Will Destroy Capitalism As We Know It
• Climate Change Could Cost The U.S. Up To 10.5 Percent Of Its GDP By 2100, Study Finds
• Green Growth Is Trusted To Fix Climate Change – Here’s The Problem With That
• Moody’s Analytics Says Climate Change Could Cost US$69 Trillion By 2100
• Norway's $US1 Trillion Sovereign Wealth Fund To Dump Billions In Coal Investments

Economies In Asia Pacific Forecast To Shrink By Over 2 Per Cent Due To Climate Change: Study

TODAY - Navene Elangovan

The economies of developing countries tend to depend on agriculture, which is vulnerable to climate change, a study found. Malay Mail Online

SINGAPORE — The Asia-Pacific economy will shrink by 2.6 per cent by 2050 due to its inability to withstand climate change, a study found.
This is slightly lower than the global average shrinkage of 3 per cent.
The study assessed 82 countries to determine their Climate Change Resilience Index, or how their economies will be affected based on their capacity to withstand climate change.
A summary of the findings were released on Wednesday (Nov 20) by research and analysis company The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), which is the research arm of newspaper The Economist.
Mr John Ferguson, the EIU’s country analysis director, told TODAY that climate change will have a limited impact on Singapore’s economy even though developing countries within Asia Pacific will be affected.
“High levels of income per head, a lack of dependence on agricultural commodity exports for growth, and the Government's strong ability and willingness to intervene to mitigate the impact of climate change will alleviate related risks for Singapore to a significant extent.”
However, he said that as a small island nation, Singapore will be vulnerable to increasing floods and weather-related disasters such as changes to climate patterns and rising sea levels.
“Some supply-chain risks also exist, particularly if Singapore's imported food supplies are affected by increasing climatic volatility,” he added.

How countries were assessed
The ability and willingness of countries to confront climate change were examined in line with eight indicators:

• The loss of land or physical capital due to extreme weather
• The impact on public services, basic needs and government spending
• The impact on agriculture
• Loss of labour productivity
• Tourism losses
• Trade losses
• Cost of adaptation to climate change
• Cost to mitigate climate change

Where the different regions stand
Among the seven regions assessed, researchers expect North America to suffer the least amount of real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) loss (of 1.1 per cent) by 2050.
Conversely, it found that the region which is least resilient to climate change is Africa (loss of 4.7 per cent).
The level of real GDP loss forecasted for all regions:

• North America – 1.1 per cent
• Western Europe – 1.7 per cent
• Asia Pacific – 2.6 per cent
• Eastern Europe – 3 per cent
• Middle East – 3.7 per cent
• Latin America – 3.8 per cent
• Africa – 4.7 per cent

North America and Western Europe took the top spots because both regions are richer and more prepared to tackle climate change. They are thus likely to see the least impact economically.
Africa took the bottom spot because it faces higher average temperatures and lower levels of economic development. Policymakers there will also face challenges meeting their objectives for policies related to climate change.

Why poorer countries would be hit hardest

Countries which are poorer and have higher average temperatures will be the most affected.

Nearly all low-income countries are tropical, increasing their exposure to global warming, the report said.
Poor quality of infrastructure and housing also make these countries less resilient to extreme weather.
Another reason: The economies of developing countries tend to depend on agriculture, which is vulnerable to climate change. A rise in temperature could lead to more competition over dwindling fertile land and deteriorating food security, increasing the possibility of social unrest.
Within Asia Pacific, developing countries such as Bangladesh will be affected by climate change the most.

What else is needed for climate resilience
While a rich country is better prepared to confront its challenges and so has an advantage in withstanding climate change, the institutional quality of a country matters as well, the report stated. This refers to attributes such as the level of corruption, the quality of the bureaucracy and the protection of property rights in a country.
Institutional quality is thus tied to a country’s initiatives to adapt to climate change, such as building flood defences. Institutional quality can also affect policies which aim to reduce carbon emissions, such as carbon taxes.
The United States is an example of a North American economy that is well-prepared to confront economic and social challenges related to climate change, the study found.
It has a well-funded research and development sector as well as strong national institutions.
It is also less exposed to geographic risks related to climate change as compared to developing countries.
The report noted that US President Donald Trump may have negative polices on climate change such as withdrawing from the Paris Climate Change Agreement, showing that strong institutions do not always facilitate climate-friendly policies, but policies can still be formed and implemented quickly when there is political will.

Links

• Global GDP Will Suffer At Least A 3% Hit By 2050 From Unchecked Climate Change, Say Economists
• Climate change an urgent problem with ‘very major consequences’, says PM Lee
• Why climate change should matter to Singaporeans and what the Govt is doing about it
• More S’poreans aware of climate change but not doing enough to slow crisis, say activists
• How the food that Singaporeans eat contributes to climate change
• Why we need to use nature in the fight against climate change
• Economist Intelligence Unit: Resilience to climate change?
• How climate change is ‘creating a dilemma’ for the world’s central bankers
• Banks increasingly unload flooded-out mortgages at taxpayer expense
• Economist Intelligence Unit: Australia