08/04/2020

(AU) Great Barrier Reef Found To Be Coral Bleached From North To South For First Time

ABC News - Michael Slezak | Penny Timms

This summer bleaching affected all three regions of the Great Barrier Reef. (Supplied: Morgan Pratchett/ARC Centre for Excellence for Coral Reef Studies)

Key points
  • Warmer sea temperatures have led to coral bleaching along the length of the Great Barrier Reef
  • More coral reefs were bleached in 2016, although the damage was concentrated in the north
  • Marine biologist Terry Hughes says the reef is rapidly adapting to climate change
The Great Barrier Reef is currently experiencing the most widespread bleaching ever recorded, with 60 per cent of reefs across all three regions affected, according to a detailed survey of the system.

It is the third mass bleaching event on the reef in five years — a phenomenon primarily caused by greenhouse gas emissions, and one that had never been recorded before 1997.

"We were hoping that this year would be a relatively mild bleaching event, but unfortunately that's not the case," said Professor Terry Hughes, head of the ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies.
"We were really shocked. No scientist expected to see three severe bleaching events in just five years."
Professor Hughes spent nine days in an aeroplane surveying the damage to the reef.

In that time, he covered more than 10,000 kilometres to visually inspect more than 1,000 reefs, retracing surveys he did after previous bleaching events.

Coral bleaches when the water is too warm for too long.

The coral becomes stressed and expels the algae that live inside it.

That algae gives coral its colour, and also provides it with most of the energy it needs to survive.

If temperatures do not recover quickly, the coral starves and dies.

It is too early to know yet how much coral will die as a result of this bleaching, but Professor Hughes said he feared the worst, particularly in the southern part of the reef.

"The southern bleaching was very severe and we were most concerned about the south because of the naivete of the corals that are there," he said.

Terry Hughes spent nine days surveying 10,000 kilometres of the reef. (Supplied: Ed Roberts/ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies)



"They hadn't bleached before, which means there are more corals and more of the corals that are particularly susceptible to heat stress," he said.

Great Barrier Reef's 'huge transformation' to adapt

In the last two bleaching events in 2016 and 2017, about half the coral on the Great Barrier Reef was estimated to have died.

Bleaching in 2016 was more severe than 2020, but was concentrated in the north of the Great Barrier Reef. (Supplied: ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies)

In those events, the areas hit hardest were in the remote northern stretches of the reef, around Lizard Island and beyond.

The southern and central reef had mostly been spared.

This time those parts were not so lucky.

Coral bleaching at Magnetic Island, around the centre of the Great Barrier Reef. (Supplied: Victor Huertas)

"For the first time, the [Great] Barrier Reef has bleached in all three major regions: in the north, in the central region and in the southern regions," Professor Hughes said.

He said this time we might see coral die in the southern stretches in a similar way to what happened in the northern region a few years ago.

Professor Hughes said one reason the north did not bleach so badly was because global warming was rapidly transforming its makeup.

"Quite frankly, [I'm] astonished by the speed of these changes," he said.

This year's bleaching event was the second worst on record. (Supplied: ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies)
"What we're seeing on the Great Barrier Reef now is a huge transformation in the mix of species.

"We're seeing less and less of the heat-sensitive, susceptible species — the so-called losers — compared to the tougher corals, which are persisting.
"The Great Barrier Reef is transitioning to a new mix of species that are tougher.
"Optimistically, we think it will take more heat in the future to cause the same level of bleaching and the same level of mortality as it does today."

But he said the species of coral that did not recover well after that previous bleaching — known as branching coral — provided important habitat for many fish species.

"Branching corals make all of the nooks and crannies that the rest of the biodiversity — the fish and so on — depend on," he said.

"So having fewer and fewer corals is having a much broader effect, not just on the corals themselves, but in the broader ecosystem."

Scientists are hopeful some of the coral will recover from the bleaching. (Supplied: Kristen Brown/ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies)

The big problem for any coral, he said, was repeated bleaching events in quick succession.

"As these bleachings occur more and more frequently, the damage from them accumulates," he said.

"There's less and less opportunity for a proper recovery between them — there isn't enough time," he said.

'Really, really hot' summer in the south

Dr Selina Ward leads the University of Queensland's research station on Heron Island in the southern section of the reef, offshore from Gladstone.

The reefs directly around Heron Island were spared in 2016 and 2017 and she is hopeful they will recover from the limited bleaching that did occur this year.

"The station manager told me it was great that they had 11 straight days of rainy, cloudy, windy weather," she said.

"That might just mean that it won't be as severe or last as long. It's hard to tell until you see the recovery — when the colour starts to come back."

Twenty kilometres east sits One Tree Island — the tiny coral cay lies within a scientific zone of the World Heritage Site.

One Tree Island is shaped like a boomerang and surrounded by a lagoon , which is home to colonies of coral. (ABC News: Elena de Bruijne)

It is shaped like a boomerang, surrounded by a lagoon, and is home to a research station for the University of Sydney.

The island's only inhabitants are the station managers, Ruby Holmes and her partner.

"We have this emotional connection to this place because we live here, and we see the ocean; it's like our playground," Ms Holmes said.
"We know lots of the colonies and corals and spots really well. So when it started to change like that, I definitely felt emotional."
Coral within the surrounding lagoon started bleaching in early February when Ms Holmes said water temperatures were around 30 degrees Celsius.

Since then, she estimates around 80 per cent of coral in the lagoon has been bleached.

It is estimated 80 per cent of coral in the One Tree Island lagoon was bleached in this summer's warmer temperatures. (Supplied: Ruby Holmes, One Tree Island Sydney University Research Station)

She too hopes cooler, overcast, weather in March will help the coral recover, rather than die, but she fears this mass bleaching event is a sign of things to come.
"With global climate change, unfortunately, this is the kind of stuff that we're seeing in areas that were kind of 'safe havens'," she said.
"Because we're further down south and we have a lot of tidal movement and water rushing in and out of the lagoon system and around them … it helped keep the coral cooler and the water moving [in 2016 and 2017].

"But it's just been really, really, hot over summer. Unfortunately, this is what happens."

Lone scientists remain to study coral

The coronavirus pandemic is also creating some problems for research on both Heron Island and One Tree Island, because scientists can no longer travel to the island to carry out their research.

Coral near One Tree Island was not affected by previous mass bleaching events. (ABC News: Elena de Bruijne)
On One Tree Island, Ms Holmes has had to try to fill some of those gaps.

"It puts us in that unique position where we can provide updates of what's happening out here for all the researchers and for the director of the station," Ms Holmes said.

One observational experiment set up in the nearby waters, by a scientist from the University of Wollongong, is to study if certain coral colonies are more resistant to bleaching than others.

This event could provide crucial insights, and the pair will monitor the coral, take photographs and collect data from sites within the lagoon.

"It's nice to be able to keep that research going for them or at least provide them with some insight into what's happening," Ms Holmes said.

Scientists hope to return to the Great Barrier Reef later this year to determine if any coral has died as a result of this year's mass bleaching event.

One Tree Island coral started bleaching in February, when water temperatures were around 30 degrees Celsius. (Supplied: Ruby Holmes, One Tree Island Sydney University Research Station)



Links

at No comments:

Climate Responsibility

NewClimate Institute

To address the climate crisis, rapid decarbonisation is urgently needed across all sectors. Existing climate pledges and policies fall far short of what is needed to transition to sustainable, low-carbon economies (Climate Action Tracker, 2020).

 Organisations increasingly recognise that their activities are drivers of this problem and feel compelled to step up and take responsibility for their impact on the climate. Common approaches to address this responsibility – such as shadow carbon pricing or the concept of offsetting – are challenging to implement in a way that ensures transparency and effective climate impact in-line with the Paris Agreement objectives.

 Our climate responsibility approach addresses our own climate footprint in a transparent and constructive way. We set out to do the following:
 
LARGE IMAGE


We do not intend to offset our emissions and do not strive for carbon neutrality, based on offsets. We aim to create a transparent mechanism that reduces our direct climate impact and channels resources to initiatives that currently deliver real impact in addressing climate change or have great potential to do so in the future. In this document we hope to outline a transparent mechanism that can be followed by others.

 Detailed overview

 To address the climate crisis, rapid decarbonisation is urgently needed across all sectors. Existing climate pledges and policies fall far short of what is needed to transition to sustainable, low-carbon economies (Climate Action Tracker, 2020).

 Organisations increasingly recognise that their activities are drivers of this problem and feel compelled to step up and take responsibility for their impact on the climate.

 Common approaches to address this responsibility – such as shadow carbon pricing or the concept of offsetting – are challenging to implement in a way that ensures transparency and effective climate impact in-line with the Paris Agreement objectives.

Our “Climate responsibility” approach addresses our own climate footprint in a transparent and constructive way.

 Together with clients and project partners, NewClimate works towards a sustainable zero-GHG emission future. Through our work we help governments, the international community and other stakeholders to identify opportunities and appropriate policies to transition towards zero-GHG emission strategies.

 We advocate for a rapid and deep decarbonisation of societies, in a manner that allows for sustainable development. We are convinced that our work contributes to mitigating climate change. However, in conducting some of our project activities and through our procurement we recognise that we are also, in part, causing GHG emissions. Some of our activities do not come with a feasible zero-emission solution at the moment. This includes, most importantly, air travel, but also some of our office operations and related services.

 The following steps outline our approach to address our Climate Responsibility. We recognise challenges in the approach and the solutions that we identify, and seek to transparently document the full details of our approach on an annual basis, including these uncertainties. We aim to establish a transparent approach that can be adopted by others.

 1 We maintain an overview of our GHG emissions on an annual basis and continuously strive to improve our understanding of the impact that we have.

 NewClimate Institute performs a transparent ongoing analysis of the organisation’s GHG emissions, reporting on an annual basis.

 The scope of the company’s own emissions accounting is reviewed and publicly communicated on an annual basis, with the intention to continuously improve our understanding of our climate impact and measures available to mitigate this.

 The estimation of GHG emissions includes the estimated equivalent climate impact of non-carbon climate forcers from aviation, such as condensation trails, ice clouds and ozone generated by nitrogen oxides.
Details on the scope of our emissions accounting are included in Chapter 1 of our annual implementation report found here.

2 We aim to reduce our own emissions as much as possible, with a vision of zero emissions as soon as possible.

 NewClimate Institute has a vision to operate with zero GHG emissions as soon as possible.

 We regularly assess the options for reducing our own emissions from each emission source, based on the results from step 1 and taking account of the best available knowledge on emission reduction opportunities.

 We derive an action plan for reducing emissions each year. The internal price for carbon applied in Step 3 of this approach also supports driving decision making towards low-carbon solutions.

 For important sources of emissions where we cannot make significant emission reductions in the near future, we transparently communicate the challenges we face in tackling those emission sources, to encourage a dialogue on finding solutions for the future.

 Details on the current action plan for reducing emissions are included in our annual implementation report found here.

3 We impose a price per unit of emissions, based on a price signal aligned with the objectives of the Paris Agreement, for our GHG emissions we cannot yet avoid. Based on this price level, we generate funds which represent the actual costs of this approach. 

 Although our vision is to operate at zero emissions as soon as possible, there are technical and economic reasons why it is not yet feasible for NewClimate Institute to reduce all of our emissions to zero. In particular, alternative technologies do not yet exist commercially to significantly reduce emissions from necessary flight activity.

 Although a useful concept in the era of the Kyoto Protocol, we consider the approach of “offsetting” emissions to have limitations against the objectives of the Paris Agreement, and not ambitious enough for an organisation that understands the need to move towards full decarbonisation in the first half of the century.
As such, we do not seek to offset our emissions or to claim “carbon neutrality”. Rather, we apply a price per unit of GHG emissions estimated in Step 1. We determine the price level based on the best available scientific evidence on the carbon price signal required for alignment with the Paris Agreement objectives. We review this price level each year in the light of new evidence. We communicate our determined price level and rationale in our annual implementation report found here.

 Based on this price level and the emissions from step 1, we annually generate funds which represent the actual costs of this approach.

4 With the funds from step 3, we support initiatives for transformational action to address climate change that advance progress towards the achievement of the Paris Agreement objectives for mitigation and adaptation.

 The funds from our internal pricing of unavoided emissions are used to support high impact projects for action to address climate change, with a particular focus on mitigation and adaptation, through grant donations.

 Since we do not intend to claim carbon neutrality, we do not actively seek to buy certified credits for emission reductions, although we do not rule out providing support to project types that could also potentially be financed in-part or fully through carbon credits.

 We recognise that some of the activities with the highest transformation potential – and therefore with high suitability for supporting the objectives of the Paris Agreement – may be at early stages of development and/or may carry a risk of not delivering attributable emission reductions.

 We engage in dialogue with other stakeholders, including existing platforms within the voluntary carbon markets, to identify and continuously improve the available options to channel our resources in line with our objectives. We believe there is a significant role for existing voluntary carbon market actors, including those that have previously administered crediting programmes, to consider new approaches that can address this current gap in the market.

 We transparently communicate details on the approach pursued for the use of these funds in our annual implementation report found here.

5 We aim to mainstream the pricing of our climate impact through our accounting processes, to raise awareness and integrate these costs into decision making processes both internally, as well as with funders and partners.

 NewClimate pursues the following measures to mainstream the pricing of our GHG emissions and wider climate impacts throughout our accounting and decision-making processes, internally and with our funders and partners:
     
  • Emissions from project-specific activities, such as project-related travel, are attributed as cost items to their respective project cost lines.
  • Staff travel expense reports include the costs of the emissions associated with the travel, alongside the quantification of the climate impact from that travel. This serves to raise awareness and also provide evidence of our costs that can be made available to clients.
  • We aim to communicate GHG emissions that can be attributed to specific projects, and their associated costs, to clients. We also aim to explore options to include these in the costs that we report to the client for the payment of our services or reimbursement of our expenses. We anticipate that some of our clients may not initially agree to cover these costs, but through our communication we attempt to raise awareness and convince them to adopt climate responsible procurement practices.
  • We attempt to foresee costs associated with our climate impact and aim to include them in our proposals for new projects. We aim to raise awareness with our funders of the need to recognise and seek to address climate impacts associated with their service procurement to minimise the risk of eroding our cost competitiveness. Likewise, we will attempt to have the recognition of these costs included in all new contracts with clients and partners.

6 We transparently communicate the details of this approach and its implementation on a regular basis.

 Transparent communication is a key foundation of this approach. Constructive, collaborative dialogue is required to overcome challenges and share lessons learnt in order to identify and address issues that can support enhanced action and accelerated decarbonisation.

 Through our communication, we aim to prompt discussion and encourage replication amongst other organisations. We solicit feedback to continuously improve and ensure the relevance of our approach.

 NewClimate documents and publishes the full details of the approach including the following aspects:
  • Introductory explanation of the Climate Responsibility approach.
  • Annual implementation reports including 6 chapters to communicate progress on the 6 steps:
    • Overview of the organisation’s own emissions, as per Step 1.Details of actions identified for reducing own emissions in the following year, and key challenges faced, as per Step 2.
    • The price level determined per unit of emissions, including explanation for this choice, as per Step 3.
    • Details on how the funds have been used to support climate change action, and the expected impacts, as per Step 4.
    • An update on the extent to which mainstreaming of our emissions’ pricing in our own accounting process has been successful, including information on whether clients have accepted the costs, as per Step 5.
    • A checklist summary of what has been communicated and published to report on implementation of the approach during the past year.

Limitations of claiming carbon neutrality through offsetting in the context of the Paris Agreement

 NewClimate Institute’s Climate Responsibility approach provides an alternative approach to claiming carbon neutrality through offsetting which, although a useful concept historically, has a number of limitations and risks under the global governance framework of the Paris Agreement.

 Claiming carbon neutrality through offsetting may divert attention from the fact that, to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement, we need to reach zero GHG emissions worldwide. A climate responsibility approach needs to first and foremost incentivise and facilitate the reduction of one’s own emissions.

 Carbon neutrality claims that significantly depend on use of offsets are not conducive to the achievement of the Paris Agreement objectives, which require the full decarbonisation of all economies, and transparent dialogue to support that achievement.

 The Paris Agreement highlights the importance of transparency and facilitative dialogue for ambition raising. In this regard, we consider that a transparent communication of an organisation’s own emissions and the plans and challenges faced in reducing emissions further, is more constructive than a subjective claim to carbon neutrality delivered through offsets.

 Industries, organisations and individuals who have built brand recognition on the claim of carbon neutrality may find it an unattractive prospect to divert from this approach. However, consumer awareness on responsible climate action is increasing. Over time, consumers may recognise that carbon neutrality claims do not necessarily represent high ambition for decarbonisation and do not always advance the objectives of the Paris Agreement through transparency and facilitative dialogue.

 The prospect of generating investment through offset credits could present countries with a perverse incentive to limit the extent to which they ratchet-up their own ambition in reducing emissions. The integrity of credited emission reductions for their buyers is now far more uncertain in the context of the Paris Agreement.

 The Paris Agreement requires all countries to set self-determined emission reduction targets (Nationally Determined Contributions – NDCs), which are to be revised at least every five years to reflect each country’s highest possible ambition level.

 Emission reduction credits that are sold for offsetting purposes should not be counted towards the achievement of a host country’s GHG emission reduction target, to avoid that those emission reductions are double counted. As such, the prospect of potential revenues from emission reduction credits associated with offsetting programmes may present countries with a perverse incentive to restrict the extent to which they ratchet-up the ambition of their unilateral action during NDC revision cycles.

 In order to maximise the amount of foreign investment, countries may limit their own national GHG emission reduction targets so that more of their mitigation potential can be tapped by international offsetting mechanisms.

 This situation also entails a risk for buyers of offset credits related to the integrity of those credits. A key condition for determining the integrity of offset credits is the additionality of the emissions reduction project; that is, the guarantee that credited emission reductions are additional to what could be achieved without the offsetting programme.

 In historical mechanisms, additionality could be proven by showing that the activity was not required by local legislation and that offsetting revenues could help overcome barriers that would otherwise prevent implementation.

 Since, under the Paris Agreement, all countries now have their own emission reduction targets and the requirement to regularly ratchet-up their ambition levels, this situation calls for the re-definition of the concept of additionality: additionality should imply complete certainty that the project supported could not realistically have been implemented otherwise, through unilateral ambition enhancements on the part of the host country.

 Stringent safeguards would be needed to avoid or reduce the effects of such perverse incentives and to ensure additionality. Offsetting programmes would need to ensure that they only tap highly ambitious mitigation options, which are beyond the reasonable reach of the host country’s unilateral action and which do not represent a conflict with the country’s own mitigation targets. Such stringent safeguards would be technically and politically difficult to establish. Even then, perverse incentives would remain to push the boundaries of those safeguards and seek loopholes.

 Since emission reduction projects registered under crediting programmes to date have been mostly developed in the context of cost-saving, rather than ambition-raising mechanisms, we understand that there are very few, if any, examples of existing credited projects that represent those high-hanging fruits, and which could be considered truly additional in the context of the Paris Agreement.

 Given the difficulty in objectively determining additionality in line with this definition, we consider that only a niche and ever reducing number of activities could count for this, and that this does therefore not represent a viable option for rapidly increasing demand volume of the market.

 Financial support can have a greater impact for ambition raising in developing countries, if ownership of the emission reduction outcomes remains with the host country.

 Developing countries need more financial support to ramp up their mitigation action, and voluntary action is a vital channel of such support. However, a more constructive environment is required in which this finance positively reinforces ambition raising efforts, rather than providing perverse incentives.

 In contrast to offsetting approaches, if the financial support from voluntary action results in emission reductions that are owned by the host country, this represents no conflict with the host country’s GHG emission reduction target, but rather can provide support for reaching and ratcheting up those targets.

 Offset credits are not necessary for the achievement of the Paris Agreement, but climate finance to support climate change mitigation in developing countries – also from voluntary sources – is critical and must be significantly ramped up.

 Whilst we do not recognise a need for credited projects or carbon neutrality claims to advance the objectives of the Paris Agreement, we do recognise the importance of continued and rapidly increasing volumes of climate finance for many potential emission reduction initiatives in developing countries.

 Through the Climate Responsibility approach in which the determined price per tonne is based on a price signal aligned with the objectives of the Paris Agreement, the volume of climate finance flows from voluntary action could vastly exceed that which would flow under the continuation of credited market approaches.

Links
at No comments:

(AU) Australia’s Path To Net-Zero Emissions Lies In Rapid, Stimulus-Friendly Steps

The Guardian - 

The opportunity to meet the target by 2035 is within our grasp – thanks to much cheaper technology – but we must be ready

ClimateWorks’ report finds progress and fall in cost of clean technology has been more rapid than expected, with renewable energy becoming cheaper than fossil fuels and the cost of batteries plunging 80% in a decade. Photograph: Lisa Maree Williams/Getty Images

Nearly two years ago, ClimateWorks Australia set out to test whether the implied goal agreed by world leaders at the Paris climate conference – cutting greenhouse gas emissions to “net zero” by 2050 – was still possible in Australia. They weren’t certain it would be. They were pleasantly surprised by the result.

“We found not only is it not yet out of reach in Australia, but it can be achieved using technologies that are mostly already mature and available,” says Anna Skarbek, the chief executive of the not-for-profit that was established in 2009 to fill a gap between climate research and action.

Net-zero emissions targets have been adopted by 121 countries responsible for a quarter of CO2, asset owners worth $4tn and an expanding list of major companies. The Morrison government is yet to join them, having promised a long-term strategy later this year, but all Australia’s states and territories have net-zero goals for mid-century.

ClimateWorks spent 18 months examining each part of the Australian economy in detail to consider what would be involved in getting there. The resulting report, Decarbonisation Futures, is an update of similar work in 2014. It found net-zero emissions were possible not just by mid-century but by 2035 – soon enough for Australia to play its part in an effort to limit global heating to 1.5C.

The report lands as the coronavirus crisis has, in a best-case scenario, postponed 2020’s expected focus on climate change. The year-end UN meeting in Glasgow has been delayed until next year. It is considered the most important since Paris in 2015, with countries being exhorted to ramp up commitments as promised in the French capital.

ClimateWorks’ analysis was completed before the pandemic hit, but Skarbek says the need to recover from the economic shock once the survival stage passes will also provide an opportunity to make the sort of investment required to respond to the climate crisis.
It’s a lot of relatively small transactions that get this job done. That’s why it is stimulus-friendly
Anna Skarbek
The former will demand a substantial stimulus program. The latter requires an “all-in” approach from governments, business and individuals in what the report calls “the transformational decade” before 2030. After that, the window for Australia to do its bit towards the Paris targets and prepare for a coming global zero emissions economy may have closed.

Skarbek says it means a “make or break moment” is coming. The good news, she says, is many transformational climate-friendly steps are stimulus-ready.

“If we get this right, we can meet Australia’s international climate change commitments, create jobs in sustainable industries, and set ourselves up for a smoother and speedier shift to a zero-emissions economy,” she says.

“If we miss the moment of the stimulus injection to also accelerate on climate, the downturn will make it even harder to do what is needed over the next decade. I do worry we might miss this chance forever if we don’t seize it now.”

The report finds the progress and fall in cost of clean technology since the last analysis six years ago has been faster than expected, with renewable energy becoming cheaper than fossil fuels and the cost of batteries plunging 80% in a decade. It says much of the shift needed now could be rolled out quickly by rapid and large-scale deployment of familiar technology.

It would include upgrading homes and commercial buildings to boost energy efficiency and run on solar power; building more large-scale clean energy plants and storage; installing electric vehicle charging stations; boosting the use of recycled goods in supply chains; and supporting more carbon forestry by planting and protecting trees to store CO2.

“It’s a lot of relatively small transactions that get this job done,” Skarbek says. “That’s why it is stimulus-friendly.”

To achieve a goal of 1.5C by 2030, three out of four cars in 2030 would have to be electric, the report says. Photograph: Uwe Meinhold/EPA



The analysis found the difference between making cuts consistent with 1.5C and 2C of heating were noteworthy, but not always that great. The lower goal was likely to mean renewable energy providing 79% of power by 2030, compared with 73% for 2C and 48% if we continue on the current path without governments introducing further policies.On electric vehicles, a 1.5C path could require three out of every four new cars sold in 2030 being electric, compared with one out of two on a 2C path. The government has projected EVs will make up one in five new sales by then.

Deployment of available tech to make rapid cuts in electricity, buildings and transport is easier than in heavy industry, agriculture and the land, but Amandine Denis-Ryan, ClimateWorks’ head of national programs, says there are emerging solutions in those areas.

One may be hydrogen, which governments are backing as a potentially plentiful clean energy source for use in transport and industry, and to export. While the report acknowledges green hydrogen is likely to have a part to play, it does not assume how big that role will be, given it is a relatively new industry and there is little data to back it up.

But Skarbek says it is a potential answer to two big questions: what can be done in those parts of the economy, particularly in heavy industry, that cannot easily shift to running on clean electricity? And what industries can fill the gap created by Australia’s reliance on fossil fuel exports?

Denis-Ryan stresses the report reveals both what is possible and the urgency of the task. Achieving the Paris goals will require national emissions being cut in half by 2030 at the latest.

“We now know we have enough technological capacity in the Australian economy to get there,” she says. “But we need to get these technologies out the door at every opportunity.”

▶Electricity
The analysis found electricity is key – getting to 100% clean energy will help clean up other parts of the economy. It suggests no significant increase in storage is needed to get from where we are today, at about 25% clean energy, to 50%. Pumped hydro and batteries are mature and available technologies for when that boost is required.

Hydrogen may play a role, and demand-response programs, microgrids and inertia control technology are all considered at demonstration stage and could be rapidly scaled up to improve grid security. But the key factor determining the pace of the electricity transition is the speed at which coal and gas plants are closed.

The analysis suggests over-building renewable energy to 200% capacity – double what the country needs – could be more cost-effective than building to 100%, and would spark new clean export opportunities.

As with electricity, the technology for zero-emissions building already exists.

It would involve improving energy efficiency through insulation and draught sealing and by installing LED lighting, solar hot water and efficient heating, cooling and appliances. It could mean the introduction of passive house design standards to conserve energy, the use of electrochromic windows that allow owners to control the amount of light and heat that passes through them, and smart systems that optimise when and how power is used. But much of it would be driven by a shift to clean energy, replacing gas-fired heating and cooking with heat pumps and induction stovetops.

▶Transport
Transport is not as easy to tackle as electricity and buildings, but the analysis found it could reach near zero emissions by 2050 through improving travel practices (using more electrified mass public transport and video-conferencing for business), shifting to electric vehicles and replacing fossil fuels with biofuels, and possibly renewable hydrogen and ammonia.

▶Industry
Industrial emissions have been rising rapidly in Australia, effectively cancelling out reductions in electricity generation and drought-affected agriculture before the coronavirus pandemic. They are harder to cut and would leave considerable “residual” emissions by 2050 based on existing technology.

Improved efficiency, fast-tracking a circular economy in which metals, plastics and timber are recycled and reused and 3D printing plays a bigger role, electrifying mines and steel operations where possible, and shifting to renewable fuels are (to varying degrees) available solutions that could lead to deep cuts.

▶Agriculture
Immediate cuts are possible through better use of energy, including onsite renewables at farms, substituting some meat products for plants and better management of waste and fertiliser. Other changes such as using vaccines to limit methane from livestock, and shifting to lab-grown meat, are emerging technologies and need greater support for rapid rollout.

▶Forestry
Reaching net-zero emissions in the medium-term would involve expanding use of forests to store carbon to offset the sector where, based on today’s technology, the complete eradication of CO2 is not yet possible. But the report warns this is a temporary solution. The country cannot reforest land forever, and trees are vulnerable to bushfires, drought and heatwaves, which are exacerbated by climate change.

Links
at No comments: