Lethal Heating: October 2020

31/10/2020

(AU) Australia Must Prepare For Future Shaped By Extreme Climate, Bushfire Royal Commission Report Warns

The Guardian - Graham Readfearn

Report into the apocalyptic 2019-20 bushfires says Australia must radically change its approach to fighting fires under new climate conditions

The summer bushfires around the Victorian town of Mallacoota. The royal commission report has found Australian must change its disaster management practices to deal with climate extremes caused by global heating. Photograph: Darrian Traynor/Getty Images

Australia’s bushfire disaster last summer was just a glimpse of what global heating will deliver to the country in the future, with major changes needed to the way the nation responds, according to the final report of the royal commission.

The royal commission has made 80 recommendations, including calls for a more co-ordinated approach and new legislation to allow the prime minister to declare a national state of emergency.

The wide-reaching recommendations cut across national and state-based responses, and say there needs to be standardised and consistent approaches. A national cabinet approach is also recommended.

Global heating that was driving more catastrophic fire weather could compromise traditional firefighting techniques and make models used to predict bushfires less effective, the report says.

The chair of the commission, retired air chief marshal Mark Binskin, wrote in the report’s foreword: “Every state and territory suffered fire to some extent. The fires did not respect state borders or local government boundaries. On some days, extreme conditions drove a fire behaviour that was impossible to control.”

The remains of burnt-out buildings along the main street of Cobargo on 31 December.

The commission’s 80 sweeping recommendations include:

Formation of a new disaster resilience and recovery agency to champion resilience across the nation
Review of Commonwealth’s Fair Work Act to make sure employers don’t discriminate against volunteer firefighters
Speed-up development of a nationally consistent fire danger rating system
Create nationally consistent air quality advice and develop forecasting capabilities
More support for people suffering mental health impacts from disasters
Better engagement with Traditional Owners that leverages indigenous knowledge of fire management
Create a single national scheme to regulate charitable fundraising
Improvements to the way data on Australia’s flora and fauna is collected and integrated into disaster responses

Natural disasters would become “more complex, more unpredictable, and more difficult to manage,” the report says.

Australia was likely to see national-scale “compounding disasters” where impacts such as fire, flood and storms hit simultaneously.

These disasters had cascading effects, the report says, threatening lives and homes “but also the nation’s economy, critical infrastructure and essential services, such as our electricity, telecommunications and water supply, and our roads, railways and airports.”

“The summer of 2019-2020 – in which some communities experienced drought, heatwaves, bushfires, hailstorms, and flooding – provided only a glimpse of the types of events that Australia may face in the future,” the report said.

Australia’s bushfire disaster broke out during the country’s hottest and driest year on record, with the fire danger levels at their highest on record.

The royal commission was formally requested by the government in February after fires that started in July 2019 spread across much of the east coast and parts of South Australia, burning between 30m and 40m hectares for more than six months.

The commission was chaired by Binskin, with former federal court judge Annabelle Bennett and climate policy expert Prof Andrew Macintosh making up the panel of three.

The federal emergency management minister, David Littleproud, said 14 of the recommendations were for the commonwealth, 23 related to the states and 41 covered areas of responsibility shared.

He said the government was “committed to responding to and actioning many of the recommendations as soon as possible.”

He said the report contained lessons for governments, essential service providers, insurers, charities, communities and individuals. All the recommendations were “pragmatic” he said, and he could see no issues with any of those that related to the federal government.

There needed to be a “single source of truth” for data on bushfires, he said, and work on this had started.

Some 270 witnesses gave evidence and more than 2,000 documents were provided in evidence, as well as more than 1,700 submissions.

During the fires at least 33 people died, more than 3,000 homes were destroyed and major cities, including Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra, were choked with smoke.

It has been estimated at least 400 people died from the effects of the smoke, with about 4,500 needing hospital treatment.

A tree burns in the Gondwana rainforest in November 2019. Photograph: Darcy Grant/The Guardian

Conservationists estimated that 3bn animals were killed or displaced, with fears the fires across a range of different landscapes could send some species to extinction.

Some 119 animals, 486 plants and 191 invertebrates were identified by a government-appointed science panel as being severely impacted by the fires, which also affected 37 already-threatened ecosystems.

The commission was given a wide brief and was asked to look at how Australia was prepared for bushfires, how responses were coordinated and how communities were recovering.

Bushfires are annual events across Australia, but the scale, length, and severity was on the rise, the report said.

The commission also looked at how resilient the country was to the increasing risk from global heating and how impacts could be reduced.

The commission did not make any recommendations relating to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, but said the level of risk would rise as global emissions continued to climb.

Links

(AU) Japan's Net Zero By 2050 Pledge Another Warning To Australia On Fossil Fuels, Analysts Say

The Guardian - Adam Morton

The Morrison government is urged to prepare for a shift in the global economy as major trading partners move to cut emissions

Coal waiting to be loaded on to ships in Gladstone. Japan’s net zero announcement is further evidence that demand for fossil fuels will fall, climate analysts say. Photograph: Dave Hunt/AAP

A pledge by Japan to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 underscores the risk facing Australia if it fails to prepare for the inevitable shift in the global economy and falling demand for fossil fuels, analysts say.

The new Japanese prime minister, Yoshihide Suga announced the target in his first policy speech to national parliament since taking office last month. He said responding to the climate crisis was no longer a constraint on growth, and proactive measures to change the country’s industrial structure would expand the economy.

Japan is the biggest market for Australia’s thermal coal and gas exports, buying more than 40% of each. Suga’s announcement follows China saying it would reach “carbon neutrality” no later than 2060.

He did not provide details of how net zero would be reached, but said he would promote renewable energy, prioritise safety while seeking a bigger role for nuclear power and “fundamentally change Japan’s long-term reliance on coal-fired energy”.

Its national energy plan is due to be revised next year. Scientists with Climate Action Tracker have previously found the country’s climate plans, including its short-term commitments over the next decade, were “highly insufficient”.

Australian climate analysts said it was further evidence a shift was under way and the Morrison government – which has resisted calls to set a mid-century target and prepare fossil fuel communities for life after coal – should take notice.

Howard Bamsey, Australia’s former special envoy on climate change, said Japan’s pledge illustrated major trading partners were changing their industrial profiles.

“It’s another signal to Australia that we need to get our act together and have a real strategy, not another of these roadmaps that don’t offer direction,” he said. “What matters here is the economic pressure. The world is changing and we need to be part of that change.”

Erwin Jackson, the director of policy with the Investor Group on Climate Change, said Japan’s announcement confirmed what “we’ve known for some time” – that the transition to net zero emissions would happen. He said the 2050 goal had been backed by business groups, investors and the community.

“The core reason Australia isn’t prepared for that is the toxic politics around climate change over the past decade,” he said.

Jackson said major investors were already “running an aggressive carbon-risk ruler” over investment decisions, and the announcements by east Asia’s largest economies would only accelerate that.

More than 60% of Australia’s two-way trade was now with countries pushing for net zero emissions by or near mid-century. That would rise to more than 70% if Joe Biden became US president, he said.

“It’s a really great opportunity for Australia that we should be grabbing,” Jackson said.

The US’s direction on the climate crisis hinges on next week’s elections. Biden has promised $2tn over four years for clean programs and to set the country on a course of net zero emissions by 2050. A Donald Trump victory would lock in his abolition of climate programs and the US’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement for at least another four years.

Europe, Australia’s other major trading partner, signalled earlier this month that it would escalate its climate commitments when the EU parliament supported a goal of a 60% cut below 1990 levels by 2030 on the way to net zero by mid-century.

The Morrison government’s central commitment under the global climate pact is a minimum 26% cut in emissions below 2005 levels by 2030 – less than the 45-60% reduction recommended by scientists. A government forecast last year suggested it was not on track to meet its goal without using controversial carbon accounting measures.

Labor’s climate spokesman, Mark Butler, said Japan’s commitment was “hugely significant” and “great news for global action on climate change.

“The list of groups who don’t support net zero by 2050 gets smaller and smaller and at the top of the list is Scott Morrison’s government,” he said. “It’s up to Scott Morrison to explain why he won’t commit to a climate target that every state and territory government in Australia, over 73 other nations and now Japan have adopted.”

A spokesperson for the emissions reduction minister, Angus Taylor, said the government’s policy was to achieve net zero emissions in the second half of the century. They said this was consistent with the Paris agreement.

Many climate experts, and a growing number of national governments, disagree on the basis the agreement also says countries will pursue efforts to limiting global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, and that commitments should be informed by the latest science.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change subsequently found, in a report commissioned in Paris, that global emissions needed to be 45% below 2010 levels by 2030 and to reach net zero by 2050 to limit warming to 1.5C. It found staying within 2C heating would require net zero by 2070, but the impact of that would be far worse.

Taylor’s spokesperson did not directly answer a question about what Japan’s shift could mean for Australia’s exports, but said technological progress was the only way to achieve the Paris goals while keeping economies strong.

They said Australia and Japan were taking practical action to accelerate new technologies, such as hydrogen. “Australia’s ambition is to be a global leader in low emissions technology solutions,” they said.

Links

South Korea Vows To Go Carbon Neutral By 2050 To Fight Climate Emergency

The Guardian - Justin McCurry

South Korea relies on coal for about 40% of its electricity generation, with renewables making up less than 6%

South Korea’s Green New Deal will invest in green infrastructure, clean energy and electric vehicles. Photograph: Kim Chul-Soo/EPA

South Korea’s president, Moon Jae-in, has declared that the country will go carbon neutral by 2050, bringing it into line with other major economies.

In a policy speech in the national assembly on Wednesday, Moon said South Korea, one of the world’s most fossil fuel-reliant economies, would “actively respond” to the climate emergency “with the international community and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050”.

He vowed to end its dependence on coal and replace it with renewables as part of its Green New Deal, a multibillion-dollar plan to invest in green infrastructure, clean energy and electric vehicles.

South Korea is the latest major economy to commit to zero emissions. The European Union set itself a similar target last year, with Japan following suit this week. China said in September it would achieve carbon neutrality by 2060.

Moon’s announcement is in line with a proposal made by his ruling party before April’s national assembly elections.

Its Green New Deal calls for an end to financing of overseas coal plants, and the introduction of a carbon tax, creating urban forests, recycling, establishing a foundation for new and renewable energy, and creating low-carbon industrial complexes.

Campaigners welcomed Moon’s announcement, but warned that South Korea – the world’s seventh-biggest emitter of carbon dioxide in 2017, according to the International Energy Agency – would have to transform its energy policy to stand a chance of reaching the zero-emissions milestone.

“South Korea is finally one step closer to aligning itself with the reduction pathway compatible with Paris climate agreement goals,” Joojin Kim, managing director of the Seoul-based NGO Solutions for Our Climate, said in a statement.

“However, there is much to be done to make this declaration actually meaningful. The most urgent tasks are enhancing its 2030 emissions reduction target, presenting a clear roadmap to phase out coal by 2030, and putting a complete stop to coal financing.”

Jude Lee of Greenpeace East Asia said Moon’s pledge was “another important step forward. We expect that this important pledge leads the Korean industry to swiftly shift from fossil fuels to a 100% renewables-based system.”

South Korea relies on coal for about 40% of its electricity generation, with renewables making up less than 6%. It still has seven coal power units under construction. It is also one of the top three public financiers of overseas coal power projects, mostly in Asia, Solutions for Our Climate said.

The country will struggle to achieve net-zero emissions “without fundamental changes in energy policy”, Kim said. “South Korea must immediately stop the construction of new coal power plants, and begin replacing the existing coal fleet with renewables.”

Links

30/10/2020

Greta Thunberg Reflects On Living Through Multiple Crises In A 'Post-Truth Society'

National Geographic - Oliver Whang

In an exclusive interview with National Geographic, the teen climate activist considers the successes of the youth climate movement and the challenges it will face.

This portrait is titled “Greta.” Photograph by Shane Balkowitsch, Nostalgic Glass Wet Plate Studio

Since her first sit-in outside the Swedish parliament building more than two years ago, Greta Thunberg’s fundamental message has been clear and unchanging: The climate crisis is humanity’s greatest existential threat and we need to treat it as such. That message inspired millions of young activists to protest for change and led to a series of viral speeches that have defined Thunberg’s global fame. She was Time’s 2019 Person of the Year and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize two years in a row.

Now, though, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic—a global crisis of a much different nature—and the looming threat of the U.S. backing out of the Paris Agreement, the 17-year-old activist is back at school in Sweden. National Geographic spoke with Thunberg via Zoom about how her activism has changed over the past year, and how her message might survive an increasingly complex world. (This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity).

Oliver Whang: A lot has happened in the past half year or so. How has your work changed since the coronavirus hit?

Greta Thunberg: Well, we have moved from lots of physical things, meetings and strikes and so on, to doing it digitally. But, I mean, since we are a movement of people who don't fly because of the environmental impact, we haven't had to change that much in the way we work. And then every country, every local group, differs. Because we are a very decentralized movement. We are not run top-down, but every local group decides on their own what they're going to do. So it's been different from city to city, from country to country.

Oliver Whang: Have any of those countries or cities adapted in a way that's been really successful?

Greta Thunberg: Yeah. Some do weekly digital strikes, which have been successful. And many have done symbolic actions. Some have put up signs or shoes outside the parliament buildings to symbolize that we should be here, but we are home. So there are lots of creative ways people have adapted.

Oliver Whang: Do you feel like the climate change crisis has been kind of forgotten in the middle of all this other stuff?

Greta Thunberg: Well, that's a very poignant narrative because, yes, of course, as have all other issues. In an emergency like this, you have to expect that other things are going to be put on hold, as they have been.

Oliver Whang: One thing that's been striking to me about the worldwide response to the coronavirus pandemic is that a lot of countries and companies have made really big moves. Stimulus bills were passed and companies are developing vaccines quickly. Do you see this kind of response as inspiring some kind of action towards addressing the climate crisis?

Greta Thunberg: Well, we shouldn't be comparing different crises, but it does show that we can treat a crisis like a crisis. And that it will probably change the way we perceive crises and crisis response. And it really proves that the climate crisis has never once been treated as a crisis. It's just being treated as a public and important question, like a political topic. Which it is not, because it's an existential crisis.

Oliver Whang: But has the response to the coronavirus given you more hope? As in, we can have a similar response to the climate crisis?

Greta Thunberg: It confirmed what I already knew. That once we treat the climate crisis like a crisis, we can change things and we can achieve things.

Oliver Whang: Here in the U.S., an election is coming up and our country is scheduled to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on November 4th. Our president has been promising to do this for years—he says that the accord is unfair to America. And there are a lot of people, not most of the people in the U.S., but a lot of them, who agree with the president and agree with that decision to withdraw from the accord. What would you say to those people?

Greta Thunberg: Nothing. Just as I always do, refer to the science. Because people have been trying to impact these people for so long, and they haven't succeeded. So why should I? Why should I be any different? If they don't listen to and understand and accept the science, then there's really nothing that I can do. There's something much deeper that needs to change them.

Oliver Whang: What might that deeper thing be?

Greta Thunberg: That we live in a post-truth society today, and that we don't care that we have lost empathy. We have stopped caring for each other in a way. We have stopped thinking long-term and sustainable. And that's something that goes much deeper than just climate crisis deniers.

Oliver Whang: So do you think in order to address the climate crisis, we might need like a cultural shift or a paradigm shift rather than just passing carbon taxes and legislation, influencing leaders and developing technology?

Greta Thunberg: Well if I say that, then people will take that quote out of context and say that I want a revolution or something. But I mean the climate crisis is not the only problem here. It is just a symptom of a larger crisis. Like the loss of biodiversity, acidification of the oceans, and loss of fertile soil, and so on. And these things will not just be solved by stopping our emissions of greenhouse gases. The earth is a very complex system. If you take one thing and put it out of balance then that will have an impact on things beyond our comprehension. And that goes for equality as well. Humans are part of nature, and if we are not doing well, then nature is not doing well, because we are nature.

There are no arguments left. There are no excuses left. Now, it's just, either you try to minimize the crisis or just completely deny it, or you try to distract.
Greta Thunberg

Thunberg poses for a photo, “Standing For Us All.” Photograph by Shane Balkowitsch, Nostalgic Glass Wet Plate Studio

Oliver Whang: Does it bother you that you might be missing all these people who maybe accept that climate change is a thing and that it's a crisis, but prioritize joblessness or access to food or other domestic issues over the climate crisis? Do you feel like you're missing them?

Greta Thunberg: No, it doesn't bother me. We have not been made aware of the climate crisis—the climate crisis has never been treated as a crisis, so how can we expect people to care about it? Since we are not aware of even the basic facts, how can we expect people to want climate action? And so that is something that needs to change. We need to understand that we are not fighting for separate causes. We are fighting for one and the same cause even though it might not seem like it. It's the fight for climate justice, social justice. Whatever is the issue, it’s the fight for justice.

Oliver Whang: Do you think that we've made any significant progress towards addressing the climate crisis since you started protesting more than two years ago?

Greta Thunberg: It depends on how you see it. In one way, yes. It feels like the debate has shifted and more and more people are starting to slowly understand the climate crisis more and prioritizing it. But on the other hand, it has still never once been treated as a crisis. And the emissions are still rising. So it depends on how you see it.

But I mean we can't expect that this one movement will change the world. If we think that is the case then we have not understood the climate crisis. People are like, ‘Has your movement failed since you have not accomplished your goals?’ But, I mean, what are our goals? We don't have any goals. Our goal is to do as much as we possibly can to be a small part of a very big shift. To be one of countless of activists who push in the same direction from different perspectives. And that is our goal. We can't expect one movement or one initiative, one solution, to change everything, or to put us in the right direction. Because the climate crisis is very complex. It's not just that simple.

Oliver Whang: Was there anything that you did or that other youth climate activists have done that you think has been particularly successful? Or any sort of manifestation of what you've done in policy or in the economy that you think is an example of your success?

Greta Thunberg: Yes, we have many. Especially local examples. But I think the biggest thing that we have accomplished is to put the focus on the science. We just say, ‘We don't want you to listen to us, we want you to listen to the science.’ This not a question about politics, this is not our opinion. We don't want the emissions to reduce, it's what the science says is needed if we are to stay in line with our commitments. We don't want things to be like this. But unfortunately, that's where we are. And we will continue to push for people to listen to the science.

Oliver Whang: Do you ever have any doubts about your work? Do you ever doubt yourself or what you've been doing?

Greta Thunberg: No, because I know it's the right thing to do. We are at a time now where we must step out of our comfort zones. I feel like I have a moral duty to do what I can, since I'm a citizen. And that makes me part of something and it is my duty, my moral duty, my moral responsibility, to do everything I can.

Oliver Whang: And that's never been in question for you?

Greta Thunberg: No. I mean, I don't want to be an activist. I don't think any climate activist does it because they want to. We do this just because no one else is doing anything, and because we need to do something. Someone needs to do something, and we are somebodies.

Oliver Whang: I'm curious if you feel like your moral duties or your responsibility has changed as you’ve become this more recognized name.

Greta Thunberg: Well, yes. Of course everyone has a responsibility, but the bigger your platform, the bigger your responsibility. And the bigger your power, the bigger your responsibility. The bigger your carbon footprint, the bigger your moral duty. So of course, as I've gotten a bigger platform that also comes with a bigger responsibility. I must use these channels, or whatever you would call them, to educate, to spread awareness.

And the things, all the resources I have, they will disappear one day. I mean, I won't be this person for a long time. Soon people will lose interest in me and I won't be so-called “famous” anymore. And then I will have to do something else. So I'm trying to, as long as I have this platform, use it.

Oliver Whang: How do you see yourself proceeding from here? Do you want to go to university? Do you have any plans?

Greta Thunberg: Well, I don't really know. I just do what I want to do at the moment. And right now, I just started gymnasium (Editor’s note: “gymnasium” is the Swedish equivalent of high school). And there I will be for the following three years. And unless I want to do something else, I mean, we will see. The world changes from day to day. So you just have to adapt, I guess.

Oliver Whang: How do you plan on sustaining this movement? Are there specific things we need to do that are different from what needed to be done two years ago or one year ago or eight months ago?

Greta Thunberg: I mean, it's very complex. But right now we have kind of hit the wall. There are no arguments left. There are no excuses left. Now, it's just, either you try to minimize the crisis or just completely deny it, or you try to distract. We just need to start treating the crisis like a crisis and continue to lift up the science, but now everyone's blaming each other and we are stuck in a loop. We won't get anywhere unless someone breaks that chain, so to speak. Someone needs to do something. I mean, of course, many people have to do lots of things, but unless someone with a big platform or big responsibility does something to start treating the crisis like a crisis—for instance, the media—then we won't be able to move from here.

Notes

I am Greta, a documentary about Thunberg’s rise to prominence, begins streaming on Hulu on November 13. The Walt Disney Company is majority owner of National Geographic Partners and Hulu.
Photographer Shane Balkowitsch, based in Bismarck North Dakota, used the wet plate collodion process, invented in 1848, to create these images. More of his work can be found on Instagram @balkowitsch.

Links

Preparing For When Climate Change Drives People From Their Homes

The Interpreter - Jane McAdam | Jonathan Pryke

Combating Covid in the Pacific is hard enough. Add cyclones, droughts and flooding to the mix, the time to act is now.

Tebikenikora, Kiribati (Eskinder Debebe/UN Photo)

While the Pacific has pulled off a miracle by remaining largely Covid-19–free, the economic devastation in the pandemic’s wake is wreaking havoc across the region. Economies are in freefall, thousands of already scarce formal sector jobs are being lost, and families are being displaced and forced back to the village.

Pacific governments and donors are doing everything within their power to fight back and to mitigate this economic fallout. Even with these best efforts, recovery will take years, if not the better part of the decade, as all of the challenges facing the region – including demographic pressures, geopolitical tensions and poverty – worsen.

The Covid-19 emergency is only a taste of the greater crisis on the Pacific’s horizon – climate change. In the Pacific islands, king tides, cyclones, droughts and flooding already displace people on a regular basis. Countries such as Kiribati and Tuvalu are now facing existential questions about their capacity to sustain their populations into the future. As Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum Dame Meg Taylor puts it:

The Covid-19 public health emergency and its ensuing humanitarian and economic fallout offers us a glimpse of what the global climate change emergency can become – if it is left unchecked and if we do not act now.

Australia cannot afford to ignore the fact that in its own region, internal and cross-border displacement within and from the Pacific Islands is likely to increase as disasters intensify and become more frequent, exacerbated by the impacts of climate change. The displacement of peoples in the Pacific will directly affect Australia’s national and strategic interests – undermining stability and security in a region that has been identified through the Pacific Step Up as crucial to Australia.

Of course, most Pacific Islanders want to remain in their homes, and there is much more that Australia can and should be doing domestically and internationally to enable this – not least by mitigating the effects of climate change. But in the absence of a radical reset of the domestic debate on energy policy, Australia must also look to additional ways in which it can help alleviate the risks that climate-related displacement presents in the Pacific.

One method being discussed between Pacific governments, including Australia, is how migration can be used as a mechanism for adaptation to help alleviate pressures on threatened Pacific Island nations. As we outline in a new Kaldor Centre policy brief, it is through migration that Australia can look to play a much larger role.

We need to go further. Australia should create a “Pacific Access Category” visa for the countries in the Pacific that do not have access to other labour markets.

Australia has come a long way with regard to its temporary labour schemes with the Pacific. As recently as 2006, the federal government was allergic to the idea. Since 2008, the Seasonal Workers Program (SWP) has provided more than 33,000 jobs to Pacific and Timorese peoples to pick fruit in Australia for up to nine months.

The benefits of this scheme are immense. Pacific Islanders earn on average four times more in six months than what they otherwise would in a year back home, farmers get a more reliable and productive workforce (which is even more desperately needed while Covid-19 keeps borders shut for other labour sources), and Australia’s interests in the Pacific are advanced at no cost to the taxpayer.

A new program, the Pacific Labour Scheme, builds on the SWP’s success by allowing workers to come to Australia to work in low- and semi-skilled occupations in rural and regional Australia for up to three years.

These are both important schemes for filling critical labour shortages in Australia and helping improve welfare and development outcomes in the Pacific. While issues of exploitation and social welfare issues pertaining to family separation need to be worked on, these schemes should be fully supported to grow.

Tarawa Atoll in Kiribati (European Space Agency/Flickr)

For migration to be a long-term strategy for Pacific Islanders who are at risk from the impacts of disasters and climate change, however, we need to go further. Australia should create a “Pacific Access Category” visa for the countries in the Pacific that do not have access to other labour markets – Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

This is not a radical proposal – New Zealand has been doing it with Kiribati, Fiji, Tonga and Tuvalu for decades, and for Samoa through its special quota scheme. At a minimum, we suggest that Australia should match the 1,750 places annually offered by New Zealand to Pacific islanders – which is a drop in the bucket of Australia’s pre-Covid permanent migration intake in 2018–19 of 160,323.

Like New Zealand’s scheme, appropriate conditions could be put in place, such as health checks, guarantees of employment, minimum education requirements, and commitments to work in rural areas. Basing the scheme on a “ballot” system, rather than the skills-based programs Australia currently runs, will help to alleviate concerns about a “brain drain” from Pacific nations.

By enhancing mobility for Pacific peoples – by offering more opportunities for temporary movement, circular movement, long-term residence and permanent settlement – Australia could simultaneously foster mutually beneficial economic opportunities, provide a release valve for communities facing demographic, environmental and financial challenges, and reduce vulnerability to the impacts of disasters and climate change in Pacific countries.

This would build upon Australia’s longstanding investment in Pacific peoples and represent a significant contribution to the region as a whole, all at minimal cost to the Australian taxpayer.

Links

ABC Flagship Current Affair Programs Didn't Cover Climate Change Adequately, Report Finds

The Guardian - Amanda Meade

A conservation group commissioned ex-ABC journalist Jonathan Holmes to investigate if political pressure was a factor

The ABC’s 7.30 aired only eight segments – out of more than 1,000 – that focused specifically on climate change in the 15 months to the end of 2018. Photograph: Tracey Nearmy/AAP

The ABC’s 7.30 and AM programs did not cover climate change adequately and related reports on drought, bushfire, fossil fuel extraction, and energy policy ignored climate change as a causative factor, a confidential report for the Australian Conservation Foundation has found.

The ACF commissioned the former Media Watch host Jonathan Holmes to study the programs’ output for 15 months, between 1 October 2017 and 31 December 2018, to find out if criticism of the ABC’s coverage was valid and if he could detect a deliberate avoidance of the issues due to political pressure.

Holmes found the coverage lacking but said there was no evidence reporters were under political pressure from management. The report did not assess climate coverage across all the ABC’s radio, TV and digital output but did single out ABC online for its excellent, detailed climate change coverage from a number of specialist science, weather and business reporters.

The survey found that ABC TV’s 7.30 broadcast only eight segments out of more than 1,000 that were focused specifically on climate change and its effects. AM was more extensive but still insufficient with 60 specific segments on the morning radio program out of more than 2,500.

The report concluded that “7.30’s coverage was inadequate, bearing in mind the program’s role as the ABC’s flagship daily television current affairs program and the crucial importance of the issue for all Australians”. AM, the report found, “did better, but its coverage was barely adequate”.

A former executive producer of 7.30, Holmes says he was “occasionally disappointed” when the program allowed politicians “to make misleading statements without challenge” on climate change.

“Remarkably, a major three-part series on the drought by Chris Gillett, aired in July 2018, did not mention climate change or raise any question about whether it is responsible for longer or more severe droughts in Australia,” the report said.

“Nor did Leigh Sales’ interview with the chief executive officer of the National Farmers’ Federation, which followed the series. Similarly, the coverage of the bushfire that devastated the town of Tathra on the NSW south coast in March 2018 made no mention of climate change.”

The two flagship current affairs programs were praised for not including non-scientific views, or so-called climate sceptics, to counter climate scientists, which is known as “false balance”. When the programs covered climate change they did so in a “robust way, featuring reputable climate scientists”, the report said.

There was also praise for stories about the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, which all linked it with climate change and interviewed relevant scientists.

However, when major issues such as the price of electricity, drought, an early bushfire season and two years of severe bleaching on the reef were dominating the headlines, one story in 50 on AM that directly mentioned climate change was barely adequate, the report said.

It found that in more than 30 drought stories dealing with the plight of farmers no mention was made of climate change as a possible causative factor.

The report, which was obtained by Guardian Australia, suggested the reason for the lack of comprehensive global warming coverage was not political pressure. Rather, it was due to climate change being a gradual process which struggled to compete with the daily news agenda. It was also a complex topic for general reporters.

The ABC on Wednesday said it did “more than any other Australian media organisation to inform Australians about the important issues around climate change”.

The broadcaster said the Australian Conservation Foundation itself noted that the report “should not be considered a full quantitative analysis” and that Holmes “did not conduct interviews with ABC personnel or other relevant parties”.

“The ABC rejects these views and the report,” the ABC said in a statement. “It lacks adequate context and analysis.”

The organisation said it had covered climate change “comprehensively and rigorously for many years”.

“The ABC has also been acknowledged for its exhaustive coverage of last summer’s bushfires and the aftermath, including the debate over the contribution of climate change. We are proud of the coverage we provide to audiences in this key area.”

Links

29/10/2020

(AU/UK) Australian PM's Office Omits Net Zero Emissions From Account Of Morrison's Talk With Johnson

The Guardian - Katharine Murphy

UK record of conversation stresses ‘ambitious targets to cut emissions and reach net zero’, but account released by Australian PM’s office does not mention the target

Scott Morrison’s office has put out an account of his conversation with the UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, that leaves out any reference to emissions targets. Composite: Mike Bowers/Matt Dunham/The Guardian/AP

Scott Morrison’s office has put out an account of his conversation with the UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, that leaves out any reference to emissions targets.

Scott Morrison has declared the British government understands that Australia’s mid century emissions reduction targets will not be set by London or by Europe, because Boris Johnson embarked on his own act of “sovereignty” by withdrawing the UK from the European Union.

The Australian PM’s comments followed the release of official readouts – with different emphases – after a conversation about climate change between the two leaders on Tuesday night.

According to the British readout, Johnson “stressed that we need bold action to address climate change, noting that the UK’s experience demonstrates that driving economic growth and reducing emissions can go hand in hand”.

“Looking ahead to the Climate Ambition Summit on 12 December and Cop26 in Glasgow next year, [Johnson] emphasised the importance of setting ambitious targets to cut emissions and reach net zero.”

The British account said the two leaders agreed to intensify the partnership between the UK and Australia on developing and scaling up green technologies.

The Australian record has a different emphasis.

It said Johnson had “welcomed our significant increase in emissions reduction programs announced through the budget, and strongly endorsed our focus on unlocking practical pathways to reducing emissions”.

“Both countries agreed to work closely together to accelerate research and deployment of low-emission technologies ahead of Cop26.”

Australia has thus far declined to adopt a net zero target. Morrison told reporters he was “very aware of the many views held around the world, but I tell you what, our policies will be set here in Australia”.

While implicitly referencing the differences, Australia’s prime minister said “one thing the British prime minister and I agree on is that achieving emissions reductions shouldn’t come at the cost of jobs in Australia or the UK”.

The foreign affairs minister, Marise Payne, also played down the significance of the difference in wording, saying the Morrison statement had been prepared “in response to media requests” and Australia was strongly committed to the Paris agreement.

Under questioning at a Senate estimates committee hearing on Wednesday, Payne said it was not reasonable to expect her to “interpret between the lines” but she understood it was “a very good and positive call”.

Payne said the Morrison readout referred to their discussion about responding to the Covid-19 challenge, whereas the Johnson readout did not – but she was not about to suggest the British readout was inaccurate or misleading.

Labor’s Senate leader, Penny Wong, told Payne that “no amount of words and no amount of adjectives … can hide the fact that your government is increasingly isolated internationally on climate”.

Climate change in Britain is not the divisive issue it is in Australia, and has not created ructions for the Conservative party in the same way it has with the Liberal and National parties in Australia.

The UK has prioritised climate action, and in 2019 became the first G7 country to legislate a target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Since 1990, the UK has reduced emissions by more than 40%, while the economy has grown by around 70%.

The British government has privately appealed to senior Coalition figures – including the energy minister, Angus Taylor, and Payne – to develop a more ambitious climate policy.

The Morrison government is a signatory to the Paris agreement, and has a 2030 emissions reduction target of between 26% and 28% on 2005 levels by the end of the decade.

But the government is continuing to resist pressure to sign up to a target of net zero emissions by 2050 – even though net zero is an increasingly uncontroversial abatement target.

More than 70 countries and 398 cities say they have adopted a net zero position. Every Australian state has signed up to net zero emissions by 2050, and these commitments are expressed either as targets or aspirational goals.

Net zero has also been adopted by business groups in Australia who only a few years ago opposed Labor’s carbon pricing scheme.

The Australian Climate Roundtable, which includes the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia, the ACTU, the National Farmers’ Federation and the Australian Council of Social Service, issued a statement late last year supporting policies requiring “deep global emissions reductions, with most countries including Australia eventually reducing net greenhouse gas emissions to zero or below”.

Morrison says the government’s approach to abatement will be based on technology rather than “taxes” and the government is developing a roadmap to guide the transition. The government has identified “clean” hydrogen, energy storage, “low-carbon” steel and aluminium, carbon capture and storage and soil carbon as priority technologies.

The prime minister said on Wednesday the most important element of the conversation on Tuesday night was a joint agreement with the UK on technology sharing “to ensure that these technologies won’t only work in Australia, and in the United Kingdom, but they can work in India, that they can work in China, that they can work in Vietnam – that they can work in those countries, which will have rapidly rising emissions over the next decade”.

The Australian readout characterised the conversation between the two leaders as “warm” and the British record referred to the “longstanding friendship and partnership between the UK and Australia”.

Apart from the conversation about climate change, the British record said the leaders “agreed on the importance of like-minded states working together to tackle global issues, including building open societies, strengthening democratic values and boosting free and fair trade”.

The Australian record referred to the “critical importance of likeminded countries working much more closely together – bilaterally, in other groupings and multilaterally – in the face of sharper geostrategic competition and a more uncertain strategic environment”, and also contained a reference to discussing “increasing cooperation on multilateral candidacies”.

The outgoing finance minister, Mathias Cormann, is Australia’s candidate to be the next secretary-general of the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The OECD has previously criticised Australia for its performance on climate change. Its membership is dominated by European countries and Australia’s climate change contribution has been queried by those with more ambitious emissions reduction commitments.

Cormann last week talked up the importance of pursuing “a green recovery with an increased reliance on renewables” in remarks to a business conference organised by the German government.

Links