I recently watched an interview with David Attenborough, in
which he was asked whether there is hope that things can get better for
our planet. He replied that we can only slow down the rate at which
things get worse. It seems to me that this is the first time in history
we have known things will get worse for the foreseeable future. How do
you live in the shadow of such rapid and inevitable decline? And how can
you cope with the guilt? Paul, 42, London.
Neil Levy
Neil Levy is Professor of Philosophy at Macquarie University, Sydney, and Senior Research Fellow, Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, at the University of Oxford. He is the author of six books and over one hundred papers on free will, moral philosophy and philosophy of psychology and mind.
I agree that we live in a unique moment in history. This isn’t like a
war or an economic recession, where you know things will be bad for a
few years but eventually improve. Never before have we known that the
deterioration of not just our countries, but our entire planet, will
continue for the foreseeable future – no matter what we do. As
Attenborough says, we can (and should) fight to slow the rate at which
things get worse, even though we can’t realistically hope for
improvement.
We can’t hide from the fact that Attenborough’s opinion reflects mainstream science.
Even if we halted carbon emissions tomorrow, a significant degree of
future warming is already baked in. Under the most likely scenarios,
we’re set for warming of 1.5℃ or much more.
The consequences are dire. If we succeed in limiting warming to 1.5
degrees, we will still have sea level rises of around half a metre,
killer heatwaves and drought in many parts of the world – leading to a
decrease in agricultural productivity. We can expect mass migrations,
death and destruction as a result, with many parts of the world becoming
uninhabitable.
English broadcaster and natural historian David Attenborough at Great Barrier Reef. wikipedia, CC BY-SA
So how do you cope with this knowledge? The question is all the more
difficult when we confront the inevitable guilt: we are all complicit
with the sclerotic political system that has failed to address the
crisis, and we all contribute to carbon emissions. Few of us can say
that we have risen to these challenges.
The Conversation’s new series, co-published with BBC Future, seeks to answer our readers’ nagging questions about life, love, death and the universe. We work with professional researchers who have dedicated their lives to uncovering new perspectives on the questions that shape our lives.
From doomism to altruism
Weirdly, the knowledge of decline may help some people to cope with
the guilt. If things will get worse no matter what we do, then why do anything?
This “doomism” may be promoted by fossil fuel interests, to limit real
action. Given that what we do today can make a difference to what
happens in 2100 or later, though, we shouldn’t give in to this
temptation.
Another source of resignation might be that many people who try to
fight climate change have rather selfish reasons for caring. Some may
only care for their own children, or how the problems will affect their
own country. But the climate crisis requires true altruism and real
sacrifices. Are we even capable of that?
It is fashionable in some circles to deny that genuine altruism
exists. Whether based on the perception that selfless behaviour is
selected against by evolution, or merely cynicism, many thinkers have argued that all our actions are motivated by self-interest. Perhaps we give to charity because it makes us feel better about ourselves. Perhaps we recycle for social status.
But your question shows the problem with such arguments. Like you,
many of us feel desolate about the inevitable harms the world will face
when we are gone – suggesting that we care for future generations for
their sake and not just for our own.
I have no personal stake in the world after my death. I don’t have
children and I don’t have hopes of leaving a legacy. If I’m lucky, I may
live out my life in middle-class comfort, relatively untouched by the
upheavals that are guaranteed already to be underway elsewhere. When
they hit closer to home, I may already be dead. So why should I care?
But I do care, and so do you.
The philosopher Samuel Scheffler has argued
that if we were told that humanity would become extinct immediately
after our own deaths – but without affecting the quality or duration of
our life – we would be devastated and our lives would lose meaning.
For example, imagine living in the world of PD James’ dystopian novel, The Children of Men.
Here, mass infertility means the last children have been born and the
human race faces extinction as the population gradually ages and
diminishes. It’s a thought experiment, considering what society would
look like if there were no generations to follow us and no future – and
it’s a vision of despair.
Long-term thinking
Contemplating inevitable decline reveals that we care not only that
humanity continues to exist long after we are gone, but that we care
about whether it flourishes – even in the far future.
We need cathedral thinking to deal with climate change.Gary Campbell-Hall/Flickr, CC BY-SA
Consider those behind the construction of the towering cathedrals of
the medieval age. They were often built over more than a generation, so
many of those who began work on them never survived to see their project
completed. But that didn’t stop them drawing the plans, laying the
foundations or labouring over their walls. The cathedrals were for the
future, not just the now. Dealing with the climate crisis may require
similar long-term thinking.
So while the knowledge of climate destruction may sap motivation and
induce anxiety, a long-term perspective could also turn out to be
motivating. With a firmer grasp of what’s at stake, it is possible that
we will be energised to do what we can to ensure that life a century –
or more – from now is better than it might otherwise have been.
Because one thing is given. If you are locked in a state of guilt,
shame and depression, you may be incapable of mustering motivation.
Sure, the Antarctic ice sheets won’t melt any slower because you
recycle. But consider this: if you can inspire just a few people to lead
greener lives, they may, in turn, inspire others – and so forth.
People are capable of caring and billions of caring people together
can make a difference, as we have seen with the huge climate strikes all
over the world. Together, we can force governments and corporations to
make the changes needed to slow the rate at which things get worse.
Whether we are going to be able to shed as many selfish desires as
necessary to even just slow global warming remains to be seen. Perhaps
it takes a unique moment in history just as this to work out how far
humans are capable of going for the greater good. The answer may
surprise us.
One of history’s most famous thinkers had a solution for natural disasters
Actress and activist Jane Fonda and others protest during a “Fire Drill Fridays” demonstration at the Capitol on Dec. 20, her 82nd birthday, calling on Congress to take action to address climate change. (Jose Luis Magana/AP)
Our
experiences with climate-related extreme weather are reminders that
even as we invest in long-term solutions looking forward, we should also
look to the past for information about how human societies attempted to
mitigate the disastrous immediate effects of climate change in their
own times.
One place to look is the age of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel,
Borgia and Medici popes and Niccolò Machiavelli’s “The Prince.” The
Italian Renaissance, often seen as the dawn of our own modern age,
occurred during one of the greatest periods of climatic instability,
known as the Little Ice Age, which lasted from 1300 to 1850. As
historian Brian Fagan argues,
heightened volcanic and seismic activity, a decrease in solar radiation
and shifts in ocean current patterns caused a general global cooling.
The Little Ice Age brought with it cooler and wetter summers, longer and
colder winters, and violent storms that caused widespread and intense
flooding.
Few places were hit by the floods of the Little Ice Age quite
like Renaissance Italy. Many of its cultural centers, including Rome and
Florence, are on major rivers. Rome’s Tiber River was especially prone
to flooding. A January 1310 flood that struck Rome, for example, was an
astounding 50 feet above sea level. Monuments such as the Colosseum and
the Roman Forum were inundated.
When the father of the Renaissance,
Francesco Petrarch, arrived in Rome in 1337, he found a city that had
been ravaged by floods directly resulting from the Little Ice Age.
Petrarch lamented that the city’s dire state was the result of the
papacy’s relocation to Avignon, a small city in southern France. The
popes moved there in 1305 after Pope Clement V, a Frenchman, refused to
return to Rome because of his allegiance to King Philip IV and because
of the lawlessness of Rome’s nobles.
The ensuing political vacuum only
exacerbated the Roman response to climate-related disasters. The
combination of climate change and poor government response often left
the Eternal City without basic civil services. After floods and
earthquakes, some structures were left to nature rather than repaired or
restored. St. John Lateran, one of the city’s most important ancient
churches, was all but destroyed by a fire in 1307, and rebuilding it was
anything but efficient. Dilapidated ancient monuments such as the
Colosseum were either vandalized for stone or turned into fortified
family compounds.
Petrarch couldn’t believe that the papacy had succumbed
to French pressures to relocate to Avignon and allowed Rome’s nobles to
embrace factionalism. He believed that the popes should reside in Rome
to protect or restore its treasures after natural disasters. Papal
absenteeism and the nobles’ ignorance caused Petrarch to believe that
“nowhere is Rome less known than at Rome itself.”
But it didn’t have to
be that way. The popes could have returned home and opted not to be
puppets of a foreign regime. The nobles could have set aside their
differences. And perhaps something could have been done to ensure that,
even if natural disasters could not be prevented or predicted, their
impact could be lessened. “Indeed,” Petrarch asked, “who can doubt that
Rome will rise up again once she begins to recognize herself?”
Petrarch
wasn’t alone. In the 1440s, Flavio Biondo, a historian in Rome writing
after the papacy finally did return from France, looked back on the fall
of ancient Rome in the 470s and saw parallels to Renaissance Rome’s
struggles. As Rome fell in the last decades of the fifth century,
foreign invaders and earthquakes had damaged the aqueducts that brought
drinking water into the city. But rather than repair the aqueducts,
ancient Rome’s elites used their tattered fragments to construct
fortified palaces. Just as ancient leaders scrambled to hoard the scraps
of empire, Biondo believed that popes in his own time were not doing
enough to prevent Rome’s elite from destroying ancient monuments for
their own gain.
As successive popes such as Eugenius IV and Nicholas V
aimed to restore Rome after their return from France in 1420, monumental
building projects multiplied. But Biondo was furious to see his
contemporaries quarrying precious marble and travertine from ancient
structures that had been damaged by repeated floods and earthquakes to
build private palaces rather than build a city that worked for everyday
Romans.
Machiavelli, perhaps the most famous voice of the Italian
Renaissance, agreed. In his “Prince,” written in 1513 while he was in
exile for his opposition to the powerful Medici family, Machiavelli
argued that human affairs came down to a 50-50 struggle between fortune
and human ingenuity. Machiavelli likened fortune to torrential rivers
that overflow their banks, destroy fields and ravage cities. But
societies can “take precautions,” Machiavelli explained, “constructing
dykes or embankments.” Had his contemporaries confronted dangers,
natural or man-made, “this flood would not have caused the great changes
it has, or it would not have swept in at all.” Machiavelli wasn’t just
speaking metaphorically about the deviousness of popes and princes. He
knew there was always a great risk that Florence’s Arno River, like the
Tiber, would flood, both during the Little Ice Age and after.
For
Italians writing during the Little Ice Age, floods were not
abstractions. They and other natural disasters were real-life threats
that required immediate intervention to mitigate their destructive
forces. Petrarch, Biondo and Machiavelli all understood that disaster
can strike when it’s least expected. Earthquakes, fires and floods
cannot always be predicted. Such is the whim of fortune.
But Renaissance
thinkers knew that the struggle between nature and society calls for
immediate intervention as well as long-term solutions focused on the
common good. If they were alive today, they would tell us that we must
continue to demand that our leaders address climate-related natural
disasters rather than ignore them or use them as pretenses for
self-aggrandizement. Rebuilding after disasters must include work to
prevent future ones through the construction of sustainable
infrastructure and the provision of immediate relief and long-term
support for disaster victims. They would tell us that disasters
shouldn’t be opportunities for speculation and exploitation of built
environments.
The great writers of the Italian Renaissance knew that
nature was a force to be reckoned with. But they also saw political
leaders fail to act when disaster struck. Leaders did little to help the
weakest and most vulnerable. To make matters worse, Renaissance princes
and nobles opted to exploit disasters for their own gain. While
Petrarch, Biondo and Machiavelli didn’t know what caused climate change —
they attributed it to fortune or God — they had the foresight to see
that human institutions needed to find real solutions. And if we don’t
raise our voices as the Renaissance humanists did, who will confront
inevitable natural disasters and the greed that accompanies them?
Britain's Court of Appeal has ruled a proposed third runway at Heathrow Airport to be illegal because ministers failed to take into account the government’s commitments to tackle climate change.
Environmental campaigners celebrate outside the High Court in London, Britain, 27 February 2020 Source: EPA
Britain's Court of Appeal on Thursday ruled in
favour of environmental campaigners who oppose the building of a third
runway at London's Heathrow Airport, Europe's busiest.
The court
said the UK government - which approved the Heathrow extension in 2018
after years of delays - had failed to take into account commitments to
the Paris Agreement on limiting global warming.
In reaction,
triumphant campaigners called on Prime Minister Boris Johnson - who in
2015 pledged to lie in front of bulldozers to stop Heathrow's third
runway for both environmental and aesthetic reasons - to finally cancel
the project.
The legal action against the approval was brought by various
London councils, environmental groups including Greenpeace and Friends
of the Earth, and London Mayor Sadiq Khan.
They lost at an original hearing in May.
File photo of a Heathrow Airport sign. AP
'No account of Paris'
Presenting
a summary of the appeal ruling, judge Keith Lindblom said that two
years ago, the government of prime minister Theresa May had given no
explanation of how it took into account the 2015 Paris accord - which
seeks to cap global warming to less than two degrees Celsius from
pre-industrial levels - on building the new runway.
"The Paris
Agreement ought to have been taken into account... and an explanation
given as to how it was taken into account, but it was not," Lord Justice
Lindblom said.
The current Conservative government has decided not to appeal the ruling at London's Supreme Court.
However,
Mr Johnson, who has in recent times appeared ambiguous over his
once-staunch opposition to the project, may still have to make an
official decision on scrapping it.
Notably, Heathrow airport -
which is owned by a consortium led by Spanish construction giant
Ferrovial - said it would appeal Thursday's ruling.
Heathrow, west
of London, wants to increase its total capacity to 130 million
passengers per day, compared with about 78 million currently.
"Expanding
Heathrow, Britain’s biggest port and only hub, is essential to
achieving the prime minister's vision of Global Britain," the airport
said Thursday.
Mr
Johnson, who wants big infrastructure projects to help drive Britain's
post-Brexit economy, earlier this month gave his backing to HS2
high-speed railway line that will link London with major cities in
central and northern England - even though construction will ravage
ancient woodlands and wildlife.
While HS2 is projected to have a
total bill greater than £100 billion - almost all of it at UK taxpayers'
expense - the Heathrow runway expansion was forecast to cost around £30
billion, funded almost entirely by the private sector.
Following Thursday's ruling, Mr Khan called on Johnson's government "to abandon plans for Runway Three".
"I'm delighted by the decision handed out by the court of appeal," the London mayor told reporters outside the court.
"I've
always said that we've got serious consequences about the government's
plan to have a new runway at Heathrow because of the impact in the
climate emergency, on the air quality, on noise pollution (and) on the
quality of life of Londoners."
Airplanes on the tarmac at Heathrow Airport. AP
'Powerful message'
John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, called on Johnson to formally axe the plans.
"Really
good news - it's a fantastic victory - we've been waiting for this day
for many, many years," Mr Sauven said outside the court.
"As part
of the global campaign against climate change, this is really important
... Cancelling the third runway would send a really powerful message out
to the rest of the world."
He added: "Boris Johnson should now
put Heathrow out of its misery and cancel the third runway once and for
all. No ifs, no buts, no lies, no U-turns."
Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Jenny Bates said that "it was basically a win on climate grounds."
"They knew they had to take climate into account and they didn't take the Paris accord into account," she said.
Building of the third runway had been expected to start in 2022 and take four years.
Australia needs at least half of all new cars in 10 years time to be electric vehicles to remain within 2C warming, new analysis shows
New analysis shows Australia can transition to net zero emissions by 2050 with accelerated rollout of electric vehicles and an electricity market of 100% renewables. Photograph: Calla Wahlquist/The Guardian
Australia can achieve a transition to net zero emissions by 2050 with
known technologies, but the deployment of low emissions options will
need to be accelerated significantly, according to new analysis by
ClimateWorks Australia.
The yet-to-be released analysis, which was previewed at a workshop at the Australian National University amid a resumption of the climate wars in federal politics,
suggests transitioning to net zero will require Australia’s electricity
market to be 100% renewables by 2035, as well as achieving deep energy
efficiency and electrification in buildings, and an accelerated rollout
of electric vehicles.
The analysis says to remain within 2C
warming, Australia would need at least half of all new cars in 10 years
time to be electric vehicles. On a trajectory of staying within 1.5C, it
would be three in four cars. Current government projections point to
one in five cars sold.
Staying within those pathways would also
require renewables to make up more than 70% of energy generation by
2030, rather than a 50% share. Anna Skarbek,
the chief executive of ClimateWorks, which is a non-profit advisory
body that works within the Monash Sustainable Development Institute,
told an ANU forum reaching net zero in Australia was entirely possible.
“We know the technology is available, it is about how to accelerate the
uptake,” she said.
“Looking just at the domestic economy, not the export economy, the
technology mix is available for Australia to achieve net zero emissions
within the carbon budget the science requires for 2C and for 1.5C.”
Skarbek – who is a former investment banker and a founding director of the Clean Energy
Finance Corporation – said achieving net zero would require dialling up
progress on the known technologies and “vastly scaling up carbon
sequestration through forestry to buy us time to also scale up the
research and development for the residual emissions”.
“If we want to achieve 1.5C instead of 2C warming, which we know from
the science, 2C is exponentially worse than 1.5C, to do that, we can’t
afford any of these areas to be going slower than they could,” Skarbek
said.
“It’s all in.”
The work updates research the organisation did five years ago on
pathways to decarbonisation, and Skarbek said the outlook had improved
because of rapid improvements in technology. The new analysis updates
modelling for Australia and it develops three Paris agreement-aligned
scenarios.
The imminent release of the new analysis comes as Labor’s decision to sign on to a net zero target for 2050
– the opposition’s first major climate policy decision post-election –
has prompted the Morrison government to blast Labor for proposing a
long-term target in advance of a roadmap to get there.
While the
Coalition has been attacking Labor, the government has not ruled out
adopting its own 2050 target, and Scott Morrison this week declined to criticise the New South Wales government for adopting a net zero position for 2050.
Morrison told parliament he was happy to work with NSW on its
ambition to hit net zero emissions by 2050 because the premier, Gladys
Berejiklian, “ha[d] a plan” – although the specific plan the prime
minister referenced on Tuesday ends in 2030.
The government will shortly release its own technology roadmap, work
that forms part of its deliberations on driving the transition to low
emissions. Morrison has said repeatedly he will not commit to any target
beyond 2030 without understanding the costs, and the impact on jobs. More than 70 countries and 398 cities
say they have adopted a net zero position. Every Australian state has
also signed up to net zero emissions by 2050, and these commitments are
expressed either as targets or aspirational goals. The Business Council
of Australia, which represents Australia’s biggest companies, also
argues Australia should legislate a target of net zero emissions by 2050. Rio Tinto announced on Wednesday
its globe-spanning operations will reach net zero emissions by 2050 and
it will spend US$1bn over the next five years to reduce its carbon
footprint.
The climate of a region is its average or typical weather
over a period of time. While we may get a cool day in summer, or a warm
day in winter, the climate is the long-term picture of conditions.
Earth’s
climate has changed throughout the planet’s 4.5-billion-year history.
During this time, conditions have become warmer or cooler at various
periods.
Scientific observations show that Earth’s climate has rapidly changed in
the last 100 years. The average Australian temperature has climbed to
around 1 °C higher. While it might not seem like much, even a slight
change can have major impacts on Earth’s delicate balance of ecosystems.
With such a rapid change, it doesn’t leave enough time for plants,
animals and humans to adapt.
Human activities, like burning fossil fuels, deforestation and
agricultural production are the major cause of climate change. The
burning of fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal release carbon dioxide
(CO2) which accumulates in the Earth’s atmosphere. Deforestation also
releases CO2 as well as reduces the number of trees that are able to
absorb excess CO2.
The increase in CO2 and other greenhouse
gases make it more difficult for the solar radiation that hits Earth to
escape, trapping the heat and raising the overall temperature of the
planet’s surface. While the greenhouse effect at natural levels keeps
Earth warm and habitable, too much of the greenhouse effect,
intensified by human activity, causes the Earth to overheat. This is
known as the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Impacts of a warming climate
Drought impact.
The planet’s various regions are not all experiencing the same
effects of Earth’s temperature rise at the same time. Many regions are
experiencing extreme and unpredictable weather, with some becoming
hotter and others becoming colder, wetter or drier.
Scientists
have projected that our climate could heat up to as much as 6 °C by the
end of the century if carbon emissions aren’t cut back. This increase
can break down fragile ecosystems and crucial food chains, and result in
widespread rainforest destruction, dramatic sea level rises and greatly
increased melting of ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic.
This would mean severe suffering for humans and other life on the planet.
Wildlife: Our
Earth’s unique wildlife depend on intricate and complex ecosystems to
survive. That’s why even a small change to the planet’s climate can
disturb nature’s balance and threaten their existence.
People:
Humans rely heavily on the natural environment. It provides us life -
from the food we harvest and eat, the air we breathe, the water we drink
and the everyday products that we consume. Sadly, climate change will
impact the poorest and most vulnerable people that contribute the least
to global warming.
Ecosystems:
Even the smallest change to temperature and rainfall can be damaging
for our delicate ecosystems. It can impact the pollination of flowers,
change the hibernation and migration patterns of animals and disrupt
entire food chains.
Food and Farming:
Increasing droughts, longer and more frequent heatwaves, flooding and
extreme weather events due to climate change will make it more difficult
for farmers to grow crops and graze livestock. This means that the
supply of produce will become limited and prices will rise at
supermarkets.
Water: With severe droughts and reduced rainfall, we may see shortages to freshwater supplies.
Coastal Erosion: As
the Earth continues to warm, ice sheets will melt, causing sea levels
to rise dramatically. This will affect coastlines across the globe,
causing erosion and residential damage.
Health: The
severity of heatwaves may lead to illness and death, especially among
the elderly and vulnerable communities. It can also lead to more
mosquito-borne diseases due to higher temperatures and increased
humidity.
Coral bleaching:
Higher ocean temperatures will impact coral reefs and can cause major
coral bleaching events like the ones in 2016 and 2017 that destroyed
more than one-third of the Great Barrier Reef.
WWF understands that climate change poses a fundamental threat to
species and people’s livelihoods. We advocate solutions to reduce our
carbon emissions and slow down climate change – like switching to
renewable energy including solar and wind.
WWF-Australia is committed to:
Limiting global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century
Achieving a net-zero carbon economy in Australia before 2050
Achieving 100% renewable energy in Australia before 2050, including 100% renewable electricity before 2035.
A huge spike in renewables has put the electricity grid under
critical pressure at a time when mounting weather crises threaten to
undermine the resiliency of the energy system.
The Energy Security
Board's annual Health of the National Electricity Market report
released on Monday stressed the importance of a resilient electricity
system following the bushfire tragedy that ravaged the east coast over
summer and warned intense weather will become more common.
Kerry Schott is the head of the Energy Security Board. Its future hangs in the balance. Credit: Louie Douvis
"This
needs serious attention in the years ahead as further extreme events
including fire, flood and high temperatures can be expected ... The
particular specifications and cost of equipment able to withstand these
conditions must be re-examined," the report says.
"The increased
severity of weather events, especially over summer, coincides with an
ageing, and hence less dependable, coal generator fleet."
The
report also flagged fears that a bigger take-up of variable renewable
and distributed energy resources, such as solar and wind, will make it
more difficult to maintain the security of the system. Wind and solar is
forecast to make up 40 per cent of national electricity by 2030, up
from 16 per cent in 2018-19.
Voltage control is a particular
concern for cities where more than 20 per cent of homes have rooftop
solar, such as the majority of Perth, Brisbane and Adelaide, where the
demand for grid power can drop almost to zero in the middle of the day
as solar fills demand. This can change suddenly with changes in weather,
the report said.
Melbourne residents face the threat of major blackouts as a heatwave makes its way across the eastern parts of the country.
"Networks
must have more visibility of the security of their operations and
flexible sources of supply and demand response when it may be quickly
needed to maintain both frequency and voltage stability."
The
Australian Energy Market Operator had to intervene to maintain system
security 75 times in 2018-19 compared to 32 times the year before.
Reliability was a particular concern during the height of summer in
Victoria, NSW and South Australia.
Total emissions across the
national electricity market, which includes Queensland, NSW, ACT,
Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, had fallen 15 per cent since
2005.
There will be a further fall by 2030 under forecasts
presented by the council, to 41 per cent below 2005 levels, following
the expected closure of older coal and gas plants.
In January the government's leading energy security adviser Kerry Schott, who is chair of the Energy Security Board, said national leadership was needed on emissions as renewables put pressure on the grid. She called for more hydroelectricity, battery storage and gas.
The
council expects the Snowy 2.0 project that will complete in the
mid-2020s to help reliability in the long-term, as will funds provided
by the government to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
The report
also found that retail prices were declining with affordability
improvements largely due to more solar use and energy efficiency.
Energy
Minister Angus Taylor said there were ongoing challenges for the sector
when it came to maintaining the safety and reliability of electricity
supply when wind and solar was not available, noting the report
advocated for the development of hydrogen as a commercial industry.
"This recognises the significant opportunities presented by hydrogen," Mr Taylor said.
The NSW and federal governments recently struck a $3 billion deal to increase gas supplies,
reduce carbon missions and upgrade the energy grid in an effort to help
bridge the gap while the investments in hydrogen, batteries and energy
storage increase.
The government has further invested $4 million into a feasibility study
for a 1GW "high efficiency, low emissions" coal-fired power station in
Collinsville saying it would help meet the power needs of northern
Queenslanders. Labor has criticised the decision, saying the private
sector have no interest in these expensive projects and taxpayers money
shouldn't be used.
The devastating losses our nation has
endured throughout the catastrophic bushfire season in Australia, have
helped illustrate the scale, speed and intensity of the climate crisis.
But if anything, this has only galvanised public support for action on climate change.
Even the Federal Government is starting to feel the heat, and is showing possible signs of movement – Scott Morrison even said the words ‘climate action now’.
But we need to make sure his words are matched with real action.
So how do we do that? What are the next steps? And how can you
help us transform this social tipping point into real policies and
tangible change?
We’re glad you asked.
Here’s how you can use your time, money and resources to effectively fight for climate action in Australia.
STEP 1 – Grow awareness of the urgency of the problem and educate people on the solutions
One of the major roadblocks to climate action in Australia is that people still don’t connect the issue to their daily lives. Most Australians are genuinely concerned about climate change, but too many see it as a future or faraway threat – only affecting polar bears and low-lying islands in the Pacific.
So the first step in combating the climate change problem is to help people understand it. We need to grow awareness of what climate change is, why it’s happening, and how it affects us – personally, as well as it’s larger impacts on society, the economy and our environment.
And critically, we need to educate people on how we can fix it.
You see, stating that climate change will cause catastrophic extreme weather or mass extinction often scares people into ignoring the problem,
and has the opposite effect on motivating people to act. Understanding
the urgency of the problem is important, but we also need to communicate
the path forward. We need people to know that, as scary and daunting as climate change seems, it is solvable.
And to do that, we need to work together.
What can I do?
Share our content – The Climate Council creates blockbuster research reports, web articles, fact sheets, videos and social media content for exactly this purpose – getting accurate, scientific information to as many people as possible. We decode and decipher key facts and figures, explode myths and aim to ensure anyone and everyone can make informed decisions when it comes to climate change. Click here to find us on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.
Have conversations –
In addition to sharing content and resources digitally, one of the best ways to raise awareness and educate others, is by having face-to-face conversations. Talking to people let’s you find common ground and understand where their perspective might stem from. And ideally, they’ll begin to understand why you think the way you do too. Check out our range of conversation guides here to help you spread the word.
Join, or invite people to join our mailing list – The Climate Council regularly updates our community on the amazing solutions that local communities, businesses, and local and state/territory governments are up to. Like the fact that Australia *technically* has a net zero emissions reduction target (because all the States and Territories do!) or that through the Cities Power Partnership program, more than 120 local councils across Australia are implementing solutions like large-scale renewable energy projects. Join now!
Why does this help?
Every conversation, real or virtual, that you have about climate
change and climate science is strengthening our movement – because it
brings diverse ideas, opinions and perspectives on board. We must create a chorus of different communities, united in asking for urgent action.
Through a platform like Facebook, the Climate Council can communicate climate change information, solutions and the need for action, to several million people a month – people we would otherwise be unable to reach.
This is critical, because some people
haven’t seen much information on climate change before, or very rarely
talk about it. If people don’t know enough about the issue, they can
often feel locked out of the conversation, or be confused by false or
misleading information.
Through our regular email updates, we empower you with the facts and connect you with the resources to help you communicate the science in your day-to-day life.
We often mobilise our community to share ideas and solutions, and
regularly ask for your help with spreading our fact-checking guides and
myth-busting articles. This is critical when it comes to pushing back
against misinformation.
So whether it’s in the pub, supermarket, classroom, newsfeed or overcrowded train, keep sharing and talking about the science!
Let’s educate people on the solutions, and the urgency with which we need to act and build a stronger, more powerful and united consensus around the push for climate action in Australia. Why not invite 5 of your friends to follow our social media or sign up to our mailing list today?
Just remember, it’s not about telling people that they are wrong. It’s about growing awareness, and making climate science accessible to everyone.
STEP 2 – Make sustainable choices in your personal lives about things like diet, transport and money.
Below are some simple swaps you can start implementing today to help reduce your own carbon footprint.
Divest your super – Have you checked whether or not your super contributions are actively funding the fossil fuel industry? What about your bank? Click here to check! Some financial institutions essentially use your money to bankroll fossil fuel projects, but some are making a conscious effort to avoid them. You have power over where your money goes, and can choose to put it into ethical banks and super funds that will take your dollars out of the fossil fuel industry and invest them in renewable energy projects instead. Super!
Travel sustainably –Travelling uses energy and that energy has to come from somewhere, but transport produces around 19% of our annual national greenhouse gas emissions, (the equal-second-largest source of greenhouse gas pollution after electricity – in year to June 2019). By making smart travel choices where you can (like using public transport, walking, cycling or carpooling), or switching to an electric vehicle, you can significantly reduce the amount of energy you use to get around.
Eat less meat, shop locally, reduce waste – Did you know that if the greenhouse gases emitted from livestock were their own nation, they would be the world’s third-largest emitter? Everyone has different dietary and cultural needs and we recognise that a plant-based diet isn’t for everyone. But even small actions can have a big impact, like incorporating just a bit more plant-based foods and less meat into your diet, or shopping locally to reduce food transport emissions.
Invest in solar panels – The biggest solution to the climate crisis is to meet our energy needs with renewable energy. You can contribute to this by either purchasing accredited green-power, or by investing in solar panels on your roof. Already, 2 million Australian households are powered by the sun, and this number is expected to continue going up. Not only do solar panels slash your carbon footprint, they’ll also slash your electricity bill – with some houses generating more energy than they consume. It’s a win-win.
What difference can one person make?
You’re more powerful than you think. Your voice, and the opinions you share, can carry real influence.
Greta
Thunberg is the perfect example of the power of one. She started
striking alone on the steps of the Swedish Parliament, and in less than
12 months, up to 7 million people took to the streets in more than 150
countries, as part of the global climate strike movement.
While the
individual choices you make daily add up to make a big difference, we
also desperately need strong, national climate policy reform. But you
can help influence this.
STEP 3 – exert political and social pressure everywhere you can.
Email your MP –
We’ve got the solutions we need to address climate change. But in many
areas, the political will is missing. Contacting your local, state and
federal representatives about the importance of climate action is one of
the best ways to force their hand. After all, we voted them in, and
they have a duty to represent their constituents, so make sure your voice is heard.
Vote– We
know sometimes it’s hard to see through the political spin, and that
there are lots of other factors that can determine how you vote. But
more than ever, we need strong political leadership, with the guts and
determination to make the policy changes required. Under the Federal
Coalition Government, Australia’s action on climate change has gone
backwards, and wIthin its ranks, climate deniers still hold power. The next time you get a chance, exercise your democratic right with the climate and future generations in mind.
Attend rallies and marches –We
need to harness our collective power and show our leaders in Government
that there is a strong consensus for climate action. The more people
who attend, the stronger the message – inaction is not an option.
How does emailing a politician or voting achieve climate action?
Our MPs are there to listen to the views of the public, understand your perspective, and represent you in Parliament. As one of their constituents, your opinion holds a lot of weight, because based on your vote, they could win or lose elections. The more people who contact their local MP on a given topic (e.g. climate change), the more likely they are to raise this matter in the Parliament and their party room.
Politicians also respond to public pressure, so getting involved with your local climate action group is a great way to use your voice and make sure your opinions are heard. Use this tool to send our pre-written email to your local Federal MP right now, or click here to download our Climate Action Toolkit for more tips on writing your own letter to your MP.
STEP 4 – Help us unite your efforts and scale them up to a national level. We need our community alongside us.
Tackling the climate crisis requires leadership, strong advocacy and strategic intervention. The Climate Council is Australia’s leading climate change communications organisation. Raising awareness, educating the public, exerting political pressure – we achieve this day in, day out, but on a national scale.
We’ve been working to foster a political, economic and cultural shift in the way Australia views and acts on climate change, but there’s so much more to do.
Become a regular giver to the Climate Council –Through our team of researchers and climate scientists, media experts and communications specialists – we keep the public informed and our governments under pressure. We
had a big impact connecting climate change and the bushfire crisis,
through the work of Greg Mullins and the Emergency Leaders for Climate
Action. But our work is powered by our community, and less time fundraising means more time putting climate change at the top of the national conversation. With your regular support, we can:
Support replicable solutions that can be scaled up quickly to demonstrate that a clean, renewable-powered future is not only possible, but already underway.
Shape the national conversation and ensure more evidence-based information in the media.
Fact check myths and misleading information.
Communicate accurate information to the public and make climate science accessible to everyone.
Fundraise for us. If you can’t make a financial contribution on your own, why not try and crowdsource a donation from your friends and family? You can host bake sales, compete in fun runs or marathons, or set yourself a unique challenge (one person cycled across Australia!) to fundraise on behalf of the Climate Council. By getting involved, you can help us raise both money and awareness about climate change impacts and solutions amongst your friends, family and colleagues – as well as inspire them to get involved themselves! We’ve put together a range of resources to get you started, including a Fundraising Toolkit, and a Social Media Pack.
Tackling the climate crisis requires
leadership, strong advocacy and strategic intervention. The Climate
Council is Australia’s leading climate change communications
organisation. Raising awareness, educating the public, exerting
political pressure – we achieve this day in, day out, but on a national scale.
We’ve been working to foster a political, economic and
cultural shift in the way Australia views and acts on climate change,
but there’s so much more to do.
But our work is powered by our community, and less time
fundraising means more time putting climate change at the top of the
national conversation.
Former United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres at the U.N Climate Conference in Le Bourget, outside Paris, France in 2015. AP Photo/Laurent Cipriani
Christiana Figueres once credited
the Buddhist teacher Thich Nhat Hanh with helping her shepherd 192
countries from blaming to collaborating, from paralysis to empowerment
in the Paris Agreement.
Now Figueres and her strategic advisor, former Buddhist monk Tom
Rivett-Carnac, have penned a book that shepherds climate activism from
changing mental states to changing the world.
“Throughout our lives we have found that what we do and how we do it
is largely determined by how we think,” Figueres told me via email.
“While there is never a guarantee of success at any challenge, the
chances of success are predicated on our attitude toward that very
challenge....
“It is a lesson we learned as we prepared the Paris Agreement, and is
a valuable guide for the urgent challenge we are facing this decade."
In “The Future We Choose: Surviving the Climate Crisis,”
published today by Alfred A. Knopf, the authors recommend a mindset for
climate activism that rests on three attitudes: radical optimism,
endless abundance and radical regeneration.
Radical optimism echoes an organization the authors formed, Global Optimism, to combat pessimism and denialism. Endless abundance is the sense that there are resources enough for all, to combat competitiveness and tribalism. Radical regeneration means caring for both nature and oneself, to combat exploitation and burnout.
Then the authors get to action.
“We have discussed the mindset everyone needs to cultivate in order
to meet the global challenge of the climate crisis, but on its own, this
is not enough,” they write. “For change to become transformational, our
change in mindset must manifest in our actions.”
Many of the
recommended actions also occur in the mind, at least initially,
constituting a transformation in priorities. In a chapter titled “Doing
What Is Necessary,” Figueres and Rivett-Carnac propose these ten
actions:
1 Let Go Of The Old World
First, the authors propose that we honor the past—for example, it’s
okay to acknowledge that fossil fuels have improved quality of life, for
some—and then let the past go. Let the change come that is necessary to
transform the world. That means not only pragmatic change like allowing
offshore wind development but, they say, psychological change like
resisting the urge to engage in tribalism and the illusion of certainty.
2 Face Your Grief... but hold a vision of the future. The world under climate
change will not resemble the world many us knew in our youth. “We cannot
hide from the grief that flows from the loss of biodiversity and the
impoverished lives of future generations,” the authors write. They
advise readers to face this grief, rather than turn away from it—an
approach that borrows from their Buddhist influences—and then to embrace
an optimist vision of the future. “A compelling vision is like a hook
in the future. It connects you to the pockets of possibility that are
emerging and helps you pull them into the present.”
3 Defend The Truth
Here the authors defend objective science and warn readers not to
give in to pseudoscience. But they also urge readers not to vilify those
who embrace denialism. “If you reach them, it will be because you
sincerely listened to them and strove to understand their concerns. By
giving care, love, and attention to every individual, we can counter the
forces pulling us apart.”
4 See Yourself As A Citizen... not as a consumer. Here the authors depart from the usual
approach of urging people to stop buying stuff. Instead, they focus on
the psychology behind consumption. “Much of what we buy,” they say, “is
designed to enhance our sense of identity.” Instead, they say, envision a
good life that does not depend on material goods.
5 Move Beyond Fossil Fuels
As pragmatic as this action sounds, the authors depict fossil-fuel
reliance as an attachment—an attachment to the past. “Only when this
mindset is challenged can we migrate our thinking, finances, and
infrastructure to the new energies.”
6 Reforest The Earth
Here the authors urge the most pragmatic actions: plant trees, let
natural areas go wild, eat less meat and dairy, boycott products that
contribute to deforestation. They mention palm oil in an example but not
pork, beef or chicken—major
products that drive deforestation. Instead they stay positive,
emphasizing the benefits of a plant-based diet. “The future we must
choose will require us to pay more attention to our bond with nature.”
7 Invest In A Clean Economy
Here the authors mean much more than putting money into wind and
solar. They mean moving beyond a model of economic growth that rewards
extraction and pollution, toward “a clean economy that operates in
harmony with nature, repurposes used resources as much as possible,
minimizes waste, and actively replenishes depleted resources.”
8 Use Technology Responsibly
Artificial intelligence has the potential to solve problems that have
so far remained intractable, the authors argue, such as any attempt to
shift from an extractive economy to a circular one. But that will happen
only—they say—if AI is used responsibly. “If we make it through the
climate crisis and arrive on the other side with humanity and the planet
intact, it will be largely because we have learned to live well with
technology.”
9 Build Gender Equality
When women lead, good things happen, the authors say, citing a wealth
of studies. “Women often have a leadership style that makes them more
open and sensitive to a wide range of views, and they are better at
working collaboratively, with a longer-term perspective. These traits
are essential to responding to the climate crisis.”
10 Engage In Politics
The authors are not just talking about voting. Mentioning Greta
Thunberg, Extinction Rebellion, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and
Nelson Mandela, Figuera and Rivett-Carnac urge civil disobedience.
“Civil disobedience is not only a moral choice, it is also the most powerful way of shaping world politics.”
