14/07/2020

Five Must-Read Novels On The Environment And Climate Crisis

The Conversation - Ti-han Chang

Pexels

Ti-han Chang is Lecturer in Asia-Pacific Studies, University of Central Lancashire
Since the start of lockdown, more of us have taken to our bicycles, grown our own vegetables and baked our own bread. So it’s not surprising it has been suggested we should use this experience to rethink our approach to the climate crisis.

Reading some environmental literature – sometimes called “eco-literature” – can also give us the opportunity to think about the world around us in different ways.

Eco-literature, has a long literary tradition that dates back to the writings of 19th-century English romantic poets and US authors. And the growing awareness of climate change has accelerated the development of environmental writings.




Animal’s People
by Indra Sinha

Indra Sinha’s Animal’s People, looks at the Bhopal gas explosion in India – one of the most horrific environmental disasters of the 20th-century.

A poisonous gas leak from a US-owned pesticide plant killed several thousand people and injured more than half a million.

The main character in the novel, Animal, is a 19-year-old orphaned boy who survives the explosion with a deformed body.

This means he must “crawl like a dog on all fours”. Animal does not hate his body, but embraces his animistic identity – offering an unconventional non-human perspective.

With this wounded “human-animal” figure, Sinha puts forward his critique of India’s postcolonial conditions and demonstrates how Western capitalist domination continues to damage people and the environment in contemporary postcolonial society.





My Year of Meats
by Ruth Ozeki

Ruth Ozeki’s novel intermingles themes such as motherhood, environmental justice and ecological practice to explore the appalling use of growth hormones in the US meat industry from a feminist ecocritical perspective.

The novel employs a “documentary” narrative mode and begins with a TV cooking show – sponsored by a meat company.

While filming the show, Jane Takagi-Little, the director, encounters a vegetarian lesbian couple who reveal the ugly truth about the use of growth hormones within the livestock industry.

The encounter motivates Jane to undertake a documentary project to uncover how growth hormones poison women’s bodies.

Through a deliberate choice to make all her main characters female, Ozeki draws her readers’ attention to nonconforming, atypical female figures who rebel against social or cultural norms inherent in patriarchal capitalist society.




Disgrace
by J.M. Coetzee

In Disgrace, J.M. Coetzee, a celebrated Noble Prize laureate, who is also known for his outspoken defence of animal rights, interweaves a brutal dog-killing scene with the gang-rape of a white South African woman by three black men.

Praised as one of the South African postcolonial canons, the novel explores complex issues of white supremacy and anticolonial resistance as well as racial and gender violence.

It ties these issues with humans’ domination and exploitation of the animals and further challenges our ethical position.

The combination of these two acts – the killing of dogs and the rape of a woman – can be read as Coetzee’s ecocritique of the colonial violence against nonhuman beings and the natural environment.







The Man with the Compound Eyes
by Wu Ming-yi


Climate fiction or the so-called “cli-fi” takes on genuine scientific discovery or phenomenon and combines this with a dystopian or over the top twist.
This approach underlines the agency of non-human beings, environments or even phenomena – such as trees, the ocean, or a tsunami.

Wu Ming-yi’s novel is composed of four different narratives: a Taiwanese university professor, a boy from the mythical Wayo Wayo island and two other city-dwelling indigenous characters.

Their stories are viewed in fragments from the multiple perspectives of the “compound eyes”.

At the backdrop is a tsunami which causes the Great Pacific garbage patch to crash on to the eastern coast of Taiwan and the fictionalised Pacific island of Wayo Wayo that brings together all their stories.

Wu blends this unrealistic event with the real-life trash vortex to draw our attention to the severe environmental problems of waste dumping and our unsustainable lifestyles.




The Overstory
by Richard Powers

The Overstory is praised by critics for its ambition to bring awareness to the life of trees and its advocacy to an ecocentric way of life. Powers’ novel sets out with nine distinctive characters - which represent the “roots” of trees.

Gradually their stories and lives intertwine to form the “trunk”, the “crown” and the “seeds”.

One of the characters, Dr Patricia Westerford, publishes a paper showing trees are social beings because they can communicate and warn each other when a foreign intrusion occurs.

Her idea, though presented as controversial in the novel, is actually well supported by today’s scientific studies.

Despite her groundbreaking work, Dr Westerford ends up taking her own life by drinking poisonous tree extracts at a conference - to make it clear humans can only save trees and the planet by ceasing to exist.



These are just a few books with a specific focus on environmental issues – perfect for your current reading list.

To everyone’s surprise, this global lockdown has given us some eco-benefits, such as a sudden dip in carbon emissions and the huge decline in our reliance on traditional fossil fuel energy. Maybe then if we can learn from this experience we can move towards a greener future.

Links - Books

(AU) Environmental investigations - From Covid-19 To Climate: What's Next After The Global Oil And Gas Industry Crash?

The GuardianWhile oil and gas are not alone in struggling in the economic slump, the reality of the climate crisis is starting to bite, analysts say

An estimated US$1.6tn has been wiped from the global oil and gas industry this year, but the danger for Australia’s LNG sector remains little acknowledged. Photograph: Dazman/Getty Images/iStockphoto

The global oil and gas industry has crashed. In mid-June, BP – formerly British Petroleum – slashed the value of its assets by US$17.5bn and revealed plans to cut its workforce by 15%.

It forecast the price of oil would be a third lower than expected for decades to come and said it may be forced to leave new fossil fuel discoveries in the ground.

It was later joined by Royal Dutch Shell, which announced its own US$22bn writedown, with its vast gas business – including major liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments in Australia – expected to take the heaviest toll.

Wood Mackenzie, a global energy research and consultancy group, says the fall in value is industry-wide, estimating US$1.6tn has been wiped from the sector this year, with more to come.

While oil and gas are not alone in struggling in the face of biggest economic slump in nearly a century, WoodMac says its carnage cannot solely be blamed on Covid-19. The economic reality of the climate crisis is also starting to bite.

“It’s about fundamental change hitting the entire oil and gas sector,” WoodMac’s vice-president for corporate analysis, Luke Parker, said.

“Just a few years ago, few within the oil and gas industry would even countenance ideas of climate risk, peak demand, stranded assets, liquidation business models and so on. Today, companies are building strategies around these ideas.”

If that reflects the global picture, the story among Australia’s oil and gas businesses – which until recently have been enjoying booming growth selling LNG to Asia, and driving most of the increase in national greenhouse gas emissions – is less clear.

The idea of stranded assets due to climate change is not new. It suggests carbon-intensive projects potentially worth trillions risk becoming next-to worthless – stranded – if investors abandon them in favour of emissions-free technology, as required to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement.

In Australia, the risk is recognised by the country’s major financial institutions and regulators, and has increasingly become a focus of shareholders. Earlier this year they gave resolutions calling for climate action and transparency at oil and gas companies Woodside Energy and Santos more than 50% and more than 40% support, respectively.

Activist shareholders are not persuaded by suggestions support for gas is justified as it emits less than coal when burned, and point to studies suggesting it may release more emissions than previously thought.

‘Double-whammy effect’

On coal, where the concept of climate risk is increasingly accepted, Australia’s second-largest superannuation fund, First State Super, last week announced it would divest from any company that earns more than 10% of revenue from thermal coal mining. It followed an earlier, similar statement by Hesta, and three of Australia’s four major banks promising to soon stop supporting thermal coal.

But the possibility of major assets being stranded is only occasionally acknowledged across politics, media and the industry.

The federal resources minister, Keith Pitt, responded to First State Super’s announcement by saying it was “mystifying” that a fund would deny its members a “solid and attractive investment opportunity” in coal based on “misguided ideology”.

Australian oil and gas companies have been hurt by the shutdown, with decisions on more than $80bn of new LNG projects put on hold and Oil Search this month laying off a third of its workforce. But the local industry’s public position on what the future holds differs from its competitors in Europe.

In response to questions about Shell and BP’s writedowns, the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (Appea), representing oil and gas producers, did not mention climate risk.

Andrew McConville, Appea’s chief executive, said Covid-19 and the ongoing low oil price were having a “double-whammy effect” and that it would remain an “incredibly challenging time” for the sector even after the broader economy began to recover. But he said the industry was accustomed to cyclical commodity prices and would be “here for the long term”.

“Energy demand, and oil demand with it, will recover as travel restrictions are eased and economic activity resumes over time,” McConville said. “The right regulatory and fiscal policy settings will help ensure that Australia remains a competitive destination for oil and gas investments into the future.”

The Morrison government agrees, having backed the idea of a “gas-fired recovery” from coronavirus after a drop in domestic gas prices. Its National Covid-19 Coordination Commission, led by the former Fortescue Metals executive Nev Power, has focused on gas-related recommendations.

Neither the government nor the commission has explained how lower gas prices would encourage increased private investment unless it is backed by substantial public support. Even if that were in the offing, analysts believe maintaining low prices would be a pipe dream given production costs in new Australian gas fields are recognised to be high.

This, in part, is what is driving the push to install gas import terminals along the Australian east coast.
While it may seem ridiculous to starting buying fossil fuels from overseas while the country mines huge amounts for export, experts believe it may be the cheapest gas option – if the Morrison government and industry are determined to back new gas infrastructure rather than accelerate a switch to cheaper renewable energy.

Big investors may ultimately drive change

Analysts and investor representatives say it is still unclear how much weight climate risk will be given in oil and gas investment decisions in Australia in the short-to-medium term.

Zoe Whitton, the head of ESG research with the financial services multinational Citi, says Australia’s outlook is arguably different to some other oil and gas producers as it mostly extracts gas, not oil. It also mostly sells to north Asian countries, where investment patterns are less clear and have been interpreted as backing both fossil fuels and renewable energy.

It means that compared to Europe, views on gas still range from it being seen as a legitimate transition fuel to any support for it being clearly at odds with where the rest of the world is pulling. Whitton says investors are increasingly, but not uniformly, in the latter camp.
Gas may be a transition fuel for some regions, but not at any price and not forever
Zoe Whitton
“The local [companies] face the same pressure that the internationals do,” she says. “There is a process of negotiation going on between companies and investors, but I don’t expect the locals will respond to the global signal in a uniform way or a rapid way.

”Whitton believes the future of the local gas industry may be clearer once world-leading models published recently by more than 60 central banks, under the banner of the Network for Greening the Financial System, give a local, rather than just a global, picture. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority has begun the job of producing that data.

It could, for example, give investors a better picture of whether Santos’s controversial $3.6bn Narrabri coal-seam gas proposal has a viable future.

“The truth is gas may be a transition fuel for some regions, but not at any price and not forever,” Whitton says. “So the question is at what price, and for how long?”

Emma Herd, the chief executive of the Investor Group on Climate Change, representing institutional investors with funds worth about $2tn, says there is clear evidence an industry-wide structural change is under way. “Covid is to some extent attaching a rocket to a trend we were seeing anyway,” she says.

She says Australia is part of that trend, but agrees with Whitton that it is a slightly different conversation than in some parts of the world. “Australia is saying its gas will continue to be competitive and its markets will hold up as others go down. The big question is: is that true?”
The obvious question is if Shell and BP can do it, why can’t Australian companies?
Emma Herd
Herd says if there is any analysis to support the idea that the local gas industry will thrive while others crash it has not been publicly released.

The lack of information is driving calls for fossil fuel companies to release data on their “scope 3 emissions” – in basic terms, the carbon pollution that results from the fossil fuels a company sells.

Herd says including information on scope 3 emissions in financial reporting is vital for investors to understand financial risk in a world that has pledged to cut emissions, and driving the push at recent annual general meetings for greater disclosure.

“The obvious question is if Shell and BP can do it, why can’t Australian companies to the same extent?” she says.

“What we need to see for our gas companies is reporting at the asset [project] level, not just at the company level. We need the data to assess risk. That could change the viability of some of their projects.”

Australia’s oil and gas companies did not engage on the question of climate risk. Santos declined to comment while spokespeople for Woodside and Origin Energy said the companies periodically reviewed their portfolio of assets. Origin said several factors contributed to the valuation “including commodity prices, interest rates, exchange rates and costs”.

Whitton suggests big investors, who may ultimately drive change faster than governments, have additional criteria.

“A lot of investors are saying ‘look, if I have 10 futures and if in five of those futures gas is an answer and in five it is not, but renewable energy is an answer in all 10, then you can see where the greater risk lies,” she says.

“The reality is when you have a really wide range of future scenarios the risk of stranded assets is higher. And the risk of stranded assets is higher in Australia just by dint of the higher likelihood that people will take a bet on oil and gas compared to the EU, where they won’t.”

Links

(AU) A Biden Win Would Change Our Climate Policy

AFRAlan Mitchell

Wishful thinking, or timely intervention?

After reading Grattan Institute's checklist of changes needed to get the economy from the fiscal cliff to modest recovery, you might think Anthony Albanese's bid for a climate change consensus is destined to end up in the “wish list” the former Grattan boss John Daley is warning us about.

But in the current rapidly changing political environment, I wouldn't be so sure.

Well ahead in the polls: If Joe Biden were comfortably elected, the global politics of climate change and emissions reduction could change quite quickly.  Bloomberg

The big change, of course, is in the United States, where Donald Trump's handling of the anti-racism protests and the surging coronavirus infection rates has seen his popularity slide.

Trump's position is looking dire. He is trailing Joe Biden in most of the national polls, with younger members of his 2016 support base reportedly turning away from him. His approval rating, which peaked in April at 50 per cent, has fallen to the low 40s.

That, the Brookings Institution's William Galston points out, is dangerously close to rates of popular disapproval that preceded the defeats of incumbent presidents Jimmy Carter and George Bush snr.

A Republican pollster quoted in London’s Financial Times did not attempt to put a gloss on the President’s position: “If the election were held today, it is pretty obvious that Joe Biden would be elected president, comfortably.”

If Biden were comfortably elected, the global politics of climate change and emissions reduction could change quite quickly. The Democratic nominee's promise is to achieve a "100 per cent clean energy economy” with net zero emissions by 2050.
Australian voters would recognise that we would have no choice but to follow the US lead.
But to protect US competitiveness and jobs, he also plans to “use every tool of American foreign policy to push the rest of the world to raise their ambitions alongside the United States”.

“We can no longer separate trade policy from our climate objectives,” his policy documents say. “The Biden administration will impose carbon adjustment fees or quotas on carbon-intensive goods from countries that are failing to meet their climate and environmental obligations.”

Brutal choice

The European Union has been considering a similar border carbon tax. Together the world’s two largest export markets could be presenting their trading partners with a brutal choice: either pay a carbon tax to yourselves, or pay it to us.

The governments of Brazil and Malaysia have accused the EU of a new form of colonialism. Biden’s campaign documents talk about putting the US “back in the driver’s seat”.

Strong US leadership has been the key missing ingredient in the climate policy debate in Australia and elsewhere.

Australia is too small to unilaterally make a significant difference to the quantity of global carbon emissions. The argument for Australia making economically damaging emissions cuts has had to rest on the hope of leading international change by example.

Under the Biden policy, Australia would be contributing to a far more reliable emissions reduction strategy. Moreover, Australian voters would recognise that we would have no choice but to follow the US lead, especially if it was seen as an important contribution to Australia’s wider strategic association with the US.

Of course, with coal representing a major part of Australia’s comparative advantage, emissions reduction will be a big economic adjustment and a huge political challenge.

However, Biden would, in effect, be giving the Morrison government political "cover". It would be an opportunity for the Coalition parties to win back a generation of Australian voters and to embrace an economically efficient and cost-effective emissions reduction policy.

Research by the Productivity Commission early last decade found that a carbon price, imposed as an emissions trading scheme or a tax, would cut emissions at a fraction of the cost of the policies then in place.

This is a crucial issue. As the emissions cuts deepen, the cost of meeting our climate policy obligations will rise exponentially. Last year, the International Monetary Fund estimated that Australia would need a carbon price of more than $US75 ($109) a tonne to meet the Abbott government’s Paris emissions reduction commitments.

On the Productivity Commission’s evidence, alternative non-price measures would be far more expensive.

Morrison government ministers have rejected the IMF estimate, but the government has an obvious interest in fudging the cost of emission reduction, as does the Opposition Leader. Albanese now also claims that a carbon price is no longer necessary.

So far, they have got away with it.

But, thanks to President Trump’s incompetence, Australia’s political game of climate change may be about to become more demanding.

Links