31/07/2020

(AU) Fossil Fuel Industry Levy Should Pay For Bushfire Impact, Climate Action Group Report Says

ABC News - Philippa McDonald

An report by experts is out today and aims to improve bushfire responses. (AAP: Dan Peled)

Key Points
  • A group of 150 experts and bushfire survivors came together in June and July to discuss improvements to bushfire preparation

  • There are more than 165 recommendations in the Australian Bushfire and Climate Plan report out today

  • One key recommendation is a climate disaster fund financed by a fossil fuel levy
Former emergency leaders, climate scientists, doctors and community members are calling on the Federal Government to impose a levy on the fossil fuel industry for a climate disaster fund to help pay for the impact of natural disasters.

It comes as part of 165 recommendations by the Emergency Leaders for Climate Action (ELCA), a group of more than 150 experts and affected community members, in a bid to improve bushfire readiness, response and recovery.

It follows the ELCA National Bushfire Summit, which took place in June and July — and it's hoped the findings will be included in the royal commission report, which is due to be handed to the Government next month.

ELCA co-founder and former Fire and Rescue NSW commissioner Greg Mullins told the ABC climate change was behind last summer's catastrophic bushfire season.

Former NSW Fire and Rescue commissioner Greg Mullins is calling for a fossil fuel levy. (ABC News: John Mees)

"The escalation in natural disasters is driven by climate change," he said.

"There should be a levy on the fossil fuel industry, given all their tax breaks.

"We had the hottest, driest year ever — a year that would not have happened without the impact of climate change.

"It drove the worst bushfires in Australia's history — they were bigger, hotter, faster and more destructive [than] what we've ever experienced before."
"The fires were weather driven and the weather was driven by a warming climate," Mr Mullins said.
'Rapidly escalating threat'

The report, the Australian Bushfire and Climate Plan, to be released later today, describes a "new bushfire era where we must fundamentally rethink how we prepare for and manage this growing threat".

"There is no doubt that bushfires in Australia have become more frequent, ferocious and unpredictable," the report states.

Anatomy of a 'mega-blaze'
As the first Black Summer inquiry prepares to report, we reveal the inside story of Australia's biggest bushfire. Read more ›

The coalition of experts includes ELCA members and the Climate Council of Australia, who more than a year ago warned of a catastrophic bushfire season.

"Sadly, those warnings fell on deaf ears and, as the world watched on in horror, those same warnings became a harsh reality."

The ELCA, which includes former emergency services commissioners from all over Australia, has accused the Federal Government of underestimating and ignoring "the rapidly escalating threat of climate change".

"Consequently, our land management, fire and emergency services are under-resourced, disaster recovery is under-resourced and communities are underprepared for the worsening bushfire threat," the report said.

"Communities and ecosystems were already being pushed beyond their ability to adapt."

Luke Wright takes a rest after putting out spot-fires at his brother's home in Oakdale, in Sydney's south-west, in December. (ABC News: Selby Stewart)

The group said its recommendations would cost billions of dollars to implement.

It is calling for greater funding for firefighting and land management to ensure faster identification and dousing of new fires.

Mr Mullins stressed Australia could no longer rely on assistance from overseas aerial firefighting resources due to "overlapping bushfire seasons".

The report identifies a gap in aerial firefighting resources, specifically CL-415s — so-called "Super Scoopers" — that can drop 6,000 litres of water or firefighting foam at a time.

"We need a large number of these," Mr Mullins told the ABC.

Mr Mullins says more aerial firefighting resources are needed. (Reuters: Mike Blake)

The group is also advocating for an Indigenous-led National Cultural Fire Strategy, and greater action to address the health effects of bushfires.

Smoke from the recent bushfires resulted in more than 400 deaths and another 4,000 people being treated in hospital, the ELCA said.

The Federal Minister for Emergency Management has been contacted for comment.


Anatomy of a mega-blaze

Links
at No comments:

(AU) Wamberal Beach Erosion: Seawall Would Deliver No Net Benefit, Study Finds

The Guardian - 

Report raises concerns around seawalls’ cost and effectiveness as low pressure system to batter NSW coastline with high tides and huge waves

Coastal beach erosion and home damage at Wamberal on the NSW Central Coast. A report says a trade-off of protecting about 60 beachfront properties with a seawall would be a potential drop in visitors due to loss of the beach. Photograph: Carly Earl/The Guardian

A cost-benefit analysis of options for a seawall at Wamberal beach commissioned by the New South Wales government in 2017 found that none of the six engineering options considered would deliver a net public benefit and that erosion would only increase with rising sea levels.

“A seawall will provide benefits to beachfront properties by reducing the impacts of coastal processes,” the report by Marsden Jacobs found.

“However, in the longer term, more properties in this area are likely to experience greater damage and loss of property values from the increased flooding of Terrigal lagoon associated with sea level rise.

“Higher sea levels will result in the increasingly frequent inundation of hundreds of properties surrounding the Terrigal lagoon, the loss of the beach, and impacts on council assets such as water, electricity, sewerage and roads,” it found.

“The key beneficiaries from construction of a seawall are the approximately 60 owners of beachfront properties at Wamberal.”

As the Central Coast of NSW braces for another lashing today, the state government is still sitting on another report by the NSW coastal council, commissioned by the local government minister, Shelley Hancock, which looks at the vexed problems of seawalls and coastal erosion in the state.

Councils up and down the coast face a dilemma: should they require their entire ratepayer base, which often includes many retirees, to support costly seawall projects that often involve ongoing requirements for beach replenishment?

Or should councils be looking at adaption strategies that accept that coasts are dynamic – some areas such as Wamberal, Collaroy, Byron Bay and Port Stephens more so than others – and that the battle to protect inappropriately located development will become even more difficult due to sea level rise?

Letting properties slide into the sea is politically unpalatable and the cost of buying up the waterfront properties far more expensive than it was 50 years ago when the first problems emerged.

Former coastal council member and engineer Angus Gordon says the answer lies in changing the Local Government Act to allow councils to recoup the costs of the seawall from waterfront property owners over time, though a long-term levy on the affected properties.

Other schemes, at Collaroy, have involved subsidies from state and local government, with waterfront home owners still facing $400,000 bills to build the wall.

Yet there remains concerns about both the environmental impact of seawalls and how they will perform in the future.

The Marsden Jacobs study on Wamberal was informed by a detailed study by the then-NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, which found that the coastal processes acting on the dune that separates Terrigal lagoon from Wamberal beach – and where the most vulnerable houses are located – are complex and will get worse with sea level rise.

It found that without a wall, 82 properties in the study area are likely to be affected by coastal processes over a 20-year timeframe, and 92 properties over 50 years.

In May this year, Central Coast council commissioned Manly Hydraulic Laboratory to design a concept plan for a seawall solution. The $400,000 study is being funded by both the state government and council. Another company, Royal Haskoning DHV, looked at short-term measures.

But as the Marden Jacobs report detailed, the trade-off from protecting about 60 beachfront properties with a seawall would be the potential loss of visits due to the loss of the beach.

“This loss of visitors may create some concern in the wider Central Coast local government area, especially as 32% of the beachfront properties that would potentially be protected by a seawall (at the expense of the beach) are only occupied occasionally,” Mardsen Jacobs said.

The report considered a range of structural engineering approaches to protect beachfront properties and other infrastructure at Wamberal beach and the surrounding lagoon properties from the effects of coastal processes.

It found that none of the engineering options considered provided a net public benefit for the local community. This is because all of the seawall options would result in the loss of beach areas, and without sand replenishment the beach would quickly disappear, with significant costs to the local tourism industry.

Marsden Jacobs said it was not clear which seawall option would lead to the fastest loss of the beach but all would result in an unusable beach by 2064, without a major sand replenishment program.

“The cost of sand replenishment is very high and outweighs the benefits of retaining a beach in front of a seawall,” it said. “Only a Planned Retreat option (Option 8) -retreat by managing the duration, type and intensity of future development within the coastal hazard area – provided greater benefits than a continuation of the current approach.”

The beach at Wamberal was vulnerable to erosion long before the first homes were built. Terrigal lagoon sits directly behind Wamberal beach and currently drains into the sea just to the south of the slipping houses, but locals says the lagoon used to drain to the beach at a different spot, suggesting active coastal processes.

Two storms in the 1970s – in May 74 and June 78 – saw several houses on the strip claimed by the sea. Boulders rubbish, car bodies and the remains of houses were dumped as a makeshift wall and the sand eventually returned.

At that stage the council could have bought back properties. Instead it continued to approve development, requiring new homes to have deep piles into the sand.

Comment has been sought from Central Coast council.

 Links

at No comments:

‘Unequivocal Link’ Between Extreme Bushfires And Climate Crisis

NEWS.com.au - Erin Lyons

There is an “unequivocal” link between climate change and the worst bushfire season on record, leading scientists have told a Senate inquiry.

Fire threatens homes along the Bells Line of Road in Bilpin in the NSW Blue Mountains. Picture: Jeremy Piper Source: News Corp Australia

Leading Australian scientists say there was an “unequivocal” link between last summer’s catastrophic bushfire season and climate change.

Speaking at Wednesday’s Senate inquiry into the 2019-2020 bushfire season, Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) chief executive officer Dr Andrew Johnson said “there’s no doubt” the planet was warming.

“There’s no doubt the causes of that warming have significant human footprint. That’s well established and scientific evidence is unequivocal,” he said. He said average temperatures had risen 1.4C since the turn of the century while parts of the country had experienced a rapid decline in rainfall.

“How that (global warming) translates to a severe weather event is a broad field, (but) there are certain dimensions of the warming planet and what we’re experiencing today that’s becoming clear,” he said.

In January Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor suggested the country did not need to cut emissions more aggressively in a bid to stem global warming despite a three-year drought and raging fires.

Average temperatures have risen 1.4C since the turn of the century. Picture: Jeremy Piper Source: News Corp Australia

Australia contributes about 1.3 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions but remains one of the largest carbon emitters per capita.

Dr Johnson said a rise in global emissions was driving up temperatures, which was likely to increase the risk of bushfires.

“Bushfires are starting earlier and ending later. There’s a climate signal in that,” he told the panel.

“How that plays out in the future will very much depend on how humanity responds.”

He said the bureau had provided extensive advice to government about the link between climate change, bushfires and emissions.

“We’ve been very clear and consistent in our advice to government across all three levels for many years,” Dr Johnson said.

“That advice is freely available to the general community.

Noting the BOM’s submission, Queensland Senator Murray Watt said it had provided more than 100 briefings about the bushfire risk to federal and state governments in the months leading up to what would be the most catastrophic bushfire season on record.

That included briefings about the risk associated with areas that were the hardest hit.

In January Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor suggested the country did not need to cut emissions more aggressively. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Gary Ramage Source: News Corp Australia

Dr Johnson said the bureau provided “extensive briefings to all levels of government leading into the summer”, spanning from daily updates to forward briefings.

Committee chair Senator Tim Ayres questioned several of the country’s most well-regarded scientists and scientific bodies about one of the nation’s most “catastrophic events”.

Professor Mark Howden, of the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University, said drought, high temperatures, low humidity and strong winds all contributed to the development of extreme bushfires.

This is on top of the lowest rainfall and highest temperatures experienced on record.

“There’s a long and strong link to reduced humidity due to climate change which is projected to get worse in the future,” Prof Howden said.

“Each of these four major drivers will get worse … and the risks associated with climate change are growing.”

Leading Australian scientists say there is an ‘unequivocal’ link between last summer’s catastrophic bushfire season and climate change. Picture: WWF Source: Supplied

Professor Jason Sharples, of UNSW’s School of Science, echoed those comments, saying “what drives bushfires will increase due to global warming”.

“It’s hard to put an exact number on whether that will double or triple,” he said.

Prof Howden argued that Australia, along with the rest of the world, must reduce greenhouses gases.

“The question is whether we can extend that action (from the Paris Agreement),” he said.

Although, this summer could look a little different.

Dr Karl Braganza, the BOM’s head of climate change, said there was a potential for a La Niña event – the cooling of the Pacific Ocean – to occur this year.

He explained this could increase the risk of tropical cyclones and flooding.

Bureau of Meteorology chief executive officer Dr Andrew Johnson says ‘there’s no doubt’ the planet is warming. Picture: Nikki Davis-Jones Source: News Corp Australia

“We would have to increase provisions for those things,” he told the inquiry.

“All going well, (it) would mean more rain and reduce the risk of bushfires this summer. Having said that we haven’t seen the rain we expected to fall in the recent months.

“We are watching conditions as they unfold.”

He said the bureau would now focus on its long-range forecasts.

“There’s still some very parched areas of the country so the next few months is crucial,” Dr Braganza said.

The inquiry continues.

Links
at No comments:

30/07/2020

Climate Explained: Are We Doomed If We Don’t Manage To Curb Emissions By 2030?

The Conversation - 

Is humanity doomed? If in 2030 we have not reduced emissions in a way that means we stay under say 2℃ (I’ve frankly given up on 1.5℃), are we doomed then?

Thongden Studio/Shutterstock

Author
 is Professor in Applied Mathematics, Massey University.

Climate Explained
Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre.
Humanity is not doomed, not now or even in a worst-case scenario in 2030.

But avoiding doom — either the end or widespread collapse of civilisation — is setting a pretty low bar.

We can aim much higher than that without shying away from reality.It’s right to focus on global warming of 1.5℃ and 2℃ in the first instance.

The many manifestations of climate change — including heat waves, droughts, water stress, more intense storms, wildfires, mass extinction and warming oceans — all get progressively worse as the temperature rises.

Climate scientist Michael Mann uses the metaphor of walking into an increasingly dense minefield.
Good reasons not to give up just yet

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change described the effects of a 1.5℃ increase in average temperatures in a special report last year. They are also nicely summarised in an article about why global temperatures matter, produced by NASA.

The global average temperature is currently about 1.2℃ higher than what it was at the time of the Industrial Revolution, some 250 years ago. We are already witnessing localised impacts, including the widespread coral bleaching on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.

This graph shows different emission pathways and when the world is expected to reach global average temperatures of 1.5℃ or 2℃ above pre-industrial levels. Global Carbon Project, Author provided

Limiting warming to 1.5℃ requires cutting global emissions by 7.6% each year this decade. This does sound difficult, but there are reasons for optimism.

First, it’s possible technically and economically. For example, the use of wind and solar power has grown exponentially in the past decade, and their prices have plummeted to the point where they are now among the cheapest sources of electricity. Some areas, including energy storage and industrial processes such as steel and cement manufacture, still need further research and a drop in price (or higher carbon prices).

Second, it’s possible politically. Partly in response to the Paris Agreement, a growing number of countries have adopted stronger targets. Twenty countries and regions (including New Zealand and the European Union) are now targeting net zero emissions by 2050 or earlier.

A recent example of striking progress comes from Ireland – a country with a similar emissions profile to New Zealand. The incoming coalition’s “programme for government” includes emission cuts of 7% per year and a reduction by half by 2030.

Third, it’s possible socially. Since 2019, we have seen the massive growth of the School Strike 4 Climate movement and an increase in fossil fuel divestment. Several media organisations, including The Conversation, have made a commitment to evidence-based coverage of climate change and calls for a Green New Deal are coming from a range of political parties, especially in the US and Europe.

There is also a growing understanding that to ensure a safe future we need to consume less overall. If these trends continue, then I believe we can still stay below 1.5℃.

The pessimist perspective

Now suppose we don’t manage that. It’s 2030 and emissions have only fallen a little bit. We’re staring at 2℃ in the second half of the century.

At 2℃ of warming, we could expect to lose more than 90% of our coral reefs. Insects and plants would be at higher risk of extinction, and the number of dangerously hot days would increase rapidly.

The challenges would be exacerbated and we would have new issues to consider. First, under the “shifting baseline” phenomenon — essentially a failure to notice slow change and to value what is already lost — people might discount the damage already done. Continuously worsening conditions might become the new normal.

Second, climate impacts such as mass migration could lead to a rise of nationalism and make international cooperation harder. And third, we could begin to pass unpredictable “tipping points” in the Earth system. For example, warming of more than 2°C could set off widespread melting in Antarctica, which in turn would contribute to sea level rise.

But true doom-mongers tend to assume a worst-case scenario on virtually every area of uncertainty. It is important to remember that such scenarios are not very likely.

While bad, this 2030 scenario doesn’t add up to doom — and it certainly doesn’t change the need to move away from fossil fuels to low-carbon options.

Links
at No comments:

(AU) Heavy Industry Co-Operates To Take On Climate Change Challenge

Sydney Morning Herald - Nick O'Malley

A group of Australia’s largest industrial companies has joined a new initiative designed to help them co-operate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from operations and supply chains.

Companies including BHP, Woodside, BlueScope Steel, BP Australia, Orica, APA Group and Australia Gas Infrastructure Group — which together represent 13.6 per cent of Australian industrial greenhouse gas emissions — have signed on to the Australian Industry Energy Transitions Initiative, which hopes more will soon join.

Simon McKeon: "This [initiative] is not about corporate window dressing." Credit: Jesse Marlow

The initiative is to be chaired by Simon McKeon, Chancellor of Monash University, former CSIRO Chairman and 2011 Australian of the Year.

He said that the Australian business and industry community was deeply concerned about climate change and over the years had at times felt constrained rather than supported by governments in its efforts to address it.

“This [initiative] is not about corporate window dressing; it is about growth and success and in some cases even survival,” he said.

He said industry leaders were aware that public scrutiny of every aspect of business operations and their impact on climate change was high and would rapidly increase, leaving those who could not demonstrate how they were rapidly pursuing net zero emissions at significant risk.

Professor McKeon said that the group’s members had already decided that in its decision-making and public positions it would pursue a majority-rules principle and would not be constrained by interests of individual members.

The group aims to help its members decarbonise crucial industrial processes that provide high-export earnings for Australia but remain stubbornly carbon intensive, such as the manufacture of products such as steel, aluminium and other metals such as lithium, copper and nickel, and chemicals including explosives and fertiliser.

The group has also been joined by financial and services sector representatives such as NAB and Australian Super, and has research ties with the CSIRO and The Rocky Mountain Institute, a leading United States research group specialising in resource and energy efficiency.

It is convened by the not-for-profit bodies ClimateWorks Australia and Climate-KIC Australia in collaboration with the Energy Transitions Commission.

ClimateWorks chief executive Anna Skarbek, one of the driving forces of Initiative’s creation, said such initiatives were crucial because emissions were a threat that did not observe national boundaries and because there were commercial advantages in addressing the problem.

“That’s why a supply chain approach is vital,” she said. “Globally, many countries and businesses are already moving to decarbonise supply chains in heavy industry sectors. There are huge opportunities for Australian businesses if they take a proactive approach to getting into this race.”

Links
at No comments:

(AU) Almost 3 Billion Animals Affected By Australian Bushfires, Report Shows

The Guardian -  |


Almost 3 billion animals affected by Australian bushfires – video report

Nearly 3 billion animals were killed or displaced by Australia’s devastating bushfire season of 2019 and 2020, according to scientists who have revealed for the first time the scale of the impact on the country’s native wildlife.

The Guardian has learned that an estimated 143 million mammals, 180 million birds, 51 million frogs and a staggering 2.5 billion reptiles were affected by the fires that burned across the continent. Not all the animals would have been killed by the flames or heat, but scientists say the prospects of survival for those that had withstood the initial impact was “probably not that great” due to the starvation, dehydration and predation by feral animals – mostly cats – that followed.

An interim report based on work by 10 scientists from five institutions, commissioned by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), suggests the toll from the fires goes much further than an earlier estimate of more than 1 billion animals killed.

Scientists from the University of Sydney, University of New South Wales, University of Newcastle, Charles Sturt University and Birdlife Australia contributed to the study.

Dermot O’Gorman, WWF-Australia’s chief executive, said: “It’s hard to think of another event anywhere in the world in living memory that has killed or displaced that many animals. This ranks as one of the worst wildlife disasters in modern history.”

Chris Dickman, a professor in ecology at the University of Sydney and fellow of the Australian Academy of Science who oversaw the project, said its central finding was a shock even to the researchers. “Three thousand million native vertebrates is just huge. It’s a number so big that you can’t comprehend it,” he said. “It’s almost half the human population of the planet.”

Dickman said the project showed the impact of the fires was much greater than the devastating loss of koalas, which became the public face of the disaster to international audiences. Many of the reptiles affected were smaller species, such as skinks, that can live in densities of more than 1,500 individuals per hectare.


'We're helpless': thousands of koalas probably dead after wildfires – video

Lead researcher Lily van Eeden, of the University of Sydney, said the study was the first to attempt a continent-wide assessment of the impact of bushfires on animals. The analysis is based on a burned zone of 11.46m hectares (28.31m acres), an area nearly the size of England. It includes about 8.5m hectares of forest, mostly in the southeast and southwest but including 120,000 hectares of northern rainforest.

The study showed the extent to which megafires were reducing the country’s biodiversity, and underlined the need to address the climate crisis and stop the clearing of land for agriculture and development, said Dickman.

“We really need to start thinking about how we can rein in this demonic genie that’s out of the bottle,” he said, referring to climate change. “We need to be looking at how quickly can we decarbonise, how quickly can we stop our manic land-clearing.”

A dead native bird washed up among ash and fire debris on Boydtown Beach, Eden. Photograph: Tracey Nearmy/Reuters 

Since the late 1980s Australian scientists have been warning that adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere would increase bushfire risk.

An analysis in March found the risk of the kind of hot and dry conditions that helped drive Australia’s catastrophic fires had increased by a factor of more than four since 1900, and would be eight times more likely if global heating above pre-industrial levels reached 2C.

In evidence to a royal commission into the bushfires in May, the Australian meteorology bureau presented data showing dangerous fire weather in southeast New South Wales and Victoria was now starting in August, three months earlier than in the 1950s.

An endangered Rosenberg’s monitor after being rescued from the fires. Photograph: David Mariuz/EPA

The WWF-backed analysis is the latest of several papers to map the devastating impact of the bushfires.

A peer-reviewed study by three ecology professors in June concluded that the fires had caused “the most dramatic loss of habitat for threatened species and devastation of ecological communities in postcolonial history”.

This month a separate paper drawing on the work of more than 20 leading Australian scientists found that 49 native species not currently listed as threatened could now be at risk, while government data suggested 471 plant and 191 invertebrate species needed urgent attention.

The WWF report says several techniques were used to estimate animal numbers. Mammal numbers were based on published data on the densities of each species in different areas; bird numbers were derived from BirdLife Australia data based on nearly 104,000 standardised surveys; reptile estimates were modelled using knowledge of environmental conditions, body size and a global database of reptile densities.

The scientists said their estimates were conservative due to limitations in the methodologies used. The number of invertebrates, fish and turtles affected was not estimated due to a lack of relevant data. A final report is due next month.

Several scientists have called for an overhaul of threatened species protection in the wake of the bushfires, including better monitoring of biodiversity. Conservationists have linked Australia’s limited monitoring of its wildlife to a funding for environment programmes being cut by more than a third since the conservative Coalition government was elected in 2013.

O’Gorman said the report should be considered as part of an ongoing independent review of Australia’s national environment laws. “Following such a heavy toll on Australia’s wildlife, strengthening this law has never been more important,” he said.

An injured koala rests in a washing basket at the Kangaroo Island wildlife park. Photograph: Lisa Maree Williams/Getty Images

An interim report from the review released last week said the country was losing biodiversity at an alarming rate and had one of the highest rates of extinction in the world. It said existing laws were not fit to address current or future environmental challenges.

Scott Morrison’s government responded by announcing it would introduce new national environmental standards against which major development approvals would be judged.

But the government has been criticised for pushing to change the laws to allow it to devolve approval decisions to state and territory governments before completion of the review and before the new standards were ready to improve biodiversity protection.

Links
at No comments:

29/07/2020

(AU) ‘A Wake-Up Call’: Why This Student Is Suing The Government Over The Financial Risks Of Climate Change

The Conversation -  | 

Shutterstock

Authors
As the world warms, the value of “safe” investments might be at risk from inadequate climate change policies.

This prospect is raised by a world-first climate change case, filed in the federal court last week.

Katta O’Donnell – a 23-year-old law student from Melbourne – is suing the Australian government for failing to disclose climate change risks to investors in Australia’s sovereign bonds.

Sovereign bonds involve loans of money from investors to governments for a set period at a fixed interest rate. They’re usually thought to be the safest form of investment. For example, many Australians are invested in sovereign bonds through their superannuation funds.

But as climate change presents major risks to our economy as well as the environment, O'Donnell’s claim is a wake-up call to the government that it can no longer bury its head in the sand when it comes to this vulnerability.

Katta O'Donnell is bringing the class action lawsuit against the Australian government. Molly Townsend
O'Donnell’s arguments

O’Donnell argues Australia’s poor climate policies – ranked among the lowest in the industrialised world – put the economy at risk from climate change.

She says climate-related risks should be properly disclosed in information documents to sovereign bond investors.

O'Donnell’s claim alleges that by failing to disclose this information, the federal government breaches its legal duty.

It alleges the government has engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, and government officials breached their duty of care and diligence.

This is a standard similar to that owed by Australian company directors.

Analysis from leading barristers indicates that directors who fail to consider climate risks could be found liable for breaching their duty of care and diligence.

O'Donnell argues government officials providing information to investors in sovereign bonds should meet the same benchmark.

Climate change as a financial risk

Under climate change, the world is already experiencing physical impacts, such as intense droughts and unprecedented bushfires. But we’re also experiencing “transition impacts” from steps countries take to prevent further warming, such as transitioning away from coal.
Combined, these impacts of climate change create financial risks. For example, by damaging property, assets and operations, or by reducing demand for fossil fuels with the risk coal mines and reserves become stranded assets.

This thinking is becoming mainstream among Australian economists. As the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority’s Geoff Summerhayes put it:
When a central bank, a prudential regulator and a conduct regulator, with barely a hipster beard or hemp shirt between them, start warning that climate change is a financial risk, it’s clear that position is now orthodox economic thinking.
Why safe investments are under threat

Sovereign bonds are a long-term investment. Katta O’Donnell’s bonds, for example, will mature in 2050. These time-frames dovetail with scientific projections about when the world will see severe impacts and costs from climate change.

And climate change is likely to hit Australia particularly hard. We’ve seen the beginning of this in the summer’s ferocious bushfires, which cost the economy more than A$100 billion.

Over time, climate risks may impact sovereign bonds and affect Australia’s financial position in a number of ways. For example, by impacting GDP when the productive capacity of the economy is reduced by severe fires or floods.

Frequent climate-related disasters could also hit foreign exchange rates, causing fluctuations of the Australian dollar, as well as putting Australia’s AAA credit rating at risk. These risks would reduce if the government took climate change more seriously.

Already, some investors are voting with their feet. Last November, Sweden’s central bank announced it had sold Western Australian and Queensland bonds, stating Australia is “not known for good climate work”.

Unprecedented, but not novel

O’Donnell’s case against the federal government is an unprecedented climate case, even if its arguments are not novel.

Australia has been a “hotspot” for climate litigation in recent years, but the O'Donnell case is the first to sue the Australian government in an Australian court.

Previous cases suing governments have often raised human rights, such as the high-profile Urgenda case in 2015 against the Dutch government – the first case in the world establishing governments owe their citizens a legal duty to prevent climate change.

A Dutch court ordered the government to cut the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25 percent by 2020. AP Photo/Peter Dejong

The O'Donnell case is also unique in its focus on sovereign bonds. But cases alleging misleading climate-related disclosures are themselves not new.

In Australia, shareholders sued the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in 2017 for failing to disclose climate change-related risks in its 2016 annual report. The case was settled after the bank agreed to improve disclosures in subsequent reports.

In another headline-making case, 23-year-old council worker Mark McVeigh is taking his superannuation fund, Retail Employees Superannuation Trust, to court seeking similar disclosures.

The O'Donnell case builds on this line of precedent, extending it to disclosures in bond information documents. As such, courts will likely take it seriously.

What precedent might it set?

If the O'Donnell case is successful it could establish the need for disclosure of climate-related financial risks for a range of investments.

At a minimum, a ruling in O'Donnell’s favour may compel the Australian government to disclose climate-related risks in its information documents for investors. This might make people think twice about how they choose to invest their money, especially as investors seek to “green” their portfolios.

It could also give rise to litigation using the same legal theory in sovereign bond disclosure claims against other governments, much in the way that the Urgenda case has spawned copycat proceedings from Belgium to Canada.

Whether the case provides the impetus for further government action to improve the effectiveness of Australia’s climate policies remains to be seen.

Still, it’s clear climate-related financial risks have entered the corporate boardroom. With this case, they’ve now come knocking at the government’s door.

Links
at No comments: