30/09/2020

(AU) David Attenborough Urges The World To Act On Climate Change

ABC 7:30 - Leigh Sales

David Attenborough is probably the world's best known naturalist. He has written and produced dozens of documentaries, delighting generations of TV viewers. But for the past few years he's had a much more urgent mission - convincing the world to take action on climate change.



Transcript

LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER:
He's probably the world's best-known naturalist and he has written and produced dozens of documentaries, delighting generations of TV viewers.

DAVID ATTENBOROUGH:
We're so similar. Their sight, their hearing, their sense of smell - they're so similar to ours that we see the world in the same way as they do.

MICHAL KURTYKA, PRESIDENT, COP24:
Please welcome, Sir David Attenborough.

LEIGH SALES:
But for the past few years, he has had a much more urgent mission - convincing the world to take action on climate change.

DAVID ATTENBOROUGH:
We are facing a man-made disaster of global scale.

LEIGH SALES:
Sir David, in your book, A Life On Our Planet, you write, "We live our comfortable lives in the shadow of a disaster of our own making." What do you mean by that?

SIR DAVID ATTENBOROUGH, NATURALIST AND BROADCASTER:
Well, I mean that we are living more comfortably, more of us are living more comfortably than ever in history.
I mean, we are living in a controlled temperature, or at least most of us are, or lots of us are, certainly, I won't do the figures, but humanity by and large has taken what it wants from the natural world and built its own construct, its own surroundings, which we tend to think of our world and now we are realising that it isn't our world, actually.
We don't control as much as we think we do, and we are heading for disaster, because we think, we have thought that we could simply take whatever we wanted if it was there.

LEIGH SALES:
When you say, "Heading for disaster," what do you think are the most pressing threats?

DAVID ATTENBOROUGH:
One that is lurking is that the icecaps are going to melt. For the first time now you can sail from the Pacific into the Atlantic across the North Pole in the summer and before long it looks as though you are going to be able to do that the year round and if you do that, the consequences, that is what people call a tipping point, when in fact it is not reversible.
If you are going to have all of those thousands of tons of freshwater in the icecaps, melting and going into the sea, rising the sea level, changing the salinity, changing the climate and the way the winds circulate around the world, you are interrupting and changing a fundamental rhythm that our world has lived with for centuries, millennia, and what the consequences will be is anybody's guess.

LEIGH SALES:
To be blunt, messages like yours have so far failed. Political leaders have failed to act decisively, the public is insufficiently motivated to force them to do so. Why do you think that is, and what's the answer?

DAVID ATTENBOROUGH:
Why it hasn't happened is because it's not going to happen tomorrow. It's going to happen the day after tomorrow, and newspapers and ourselves, I mean, let's not blame newspapers, but we ourselves are concerned with what happens tomorrow, that seems urgent and if someone says, look a little farther down the road, oh, yes, we ought to be doing something about that, and then something else happens, and we need to deal with that tomorrow.
This problem has been delayed again, and yet again, and yet again, and if we go on delaying it, it will be tomorrow and then it will be too late.


LEIGH SALES:
Your new BBC series is "Extinction: The Facts". In the history of the world, species have always become extinct. What's different now?

DAVID ATTENBOROUGH:
What's different now is that they're becoming, hundreds of species are becoming extinct together, right now. I mean, the dinosaurs was an unearthly body hitting the earth suddenly and that was one big effort.
Previous extinctions happened over centuries and even the dying out of the dinosaurs took several decades, we know, if not more than that.
But this is happening right now, and it's happening and it can be happening very, very quickly indeed across every aspect of the world's life.

LEIGH SALES:
Nobody can really travel with ease at the moment but let's say you could magically click your heels and transport yourself to anywhere you wanted to be in the world. Where would you go?

DAVID ATTENBOROUGH:
I wouldn't mind being on your side of the world, really. I have a great time when I come to Australia and I've been to Australia fairly regular and I haven't now and I doubt whether I shall be able to do so again because of the restrictions on air travel and one thing and another.
But I've had marvellous times in Australia particularly up north, up in Arnhem Land and down on the Queensland coast, but also in the south. I mean, listening to lyre birds is one of the great experiences of life. It is unbelievable. You probably have.
Well, for me it is just echoes in the mind and just sitting there and hearing this fantastic bird singing this huge range of all the bird calls that's around and then, on top of that, imitating the chainsaws that are cutting down the very forests in which it lives. I mean that's a heart-rending thing to hear, which I have.

LEIGH SALES:
You are 94 now. When you survey the landscape of your life from this vantage point, what most stands out to you?

DAVID ATTENBOROUGH:
In my life? Well, I suppose, it's quite a conventional reply, but it is the true one so I might as well say it, I mean, what stands out was the time I met what I thought were wild gorillas, mountain gorillas that was in Rwanda, and it stands out because I'm not allowed to forget it!
I mean, we filmed it and I wasn't expecting to get that close to them and for them to come out of the forest and then sit on me, I can honestly, truthfully say, I wasn't for a microsecond concerned.
I mean, there was this animal who could rip my arm off if it wanted to, you know, and yet there she was, she just sat alongside and put her hand on my head and put her finger in my mouth and looked inside my mouth and just - unbelievable.
And then her son, her young son, came and sat on my legs, and started pulling my shoelaces apart and how long I sat there, I mean, it was, it was certainly the most meaningful first encounter with another animal that I've ever had.

LEIGH SALES:
Well, you and your team have brought many magical moments like that one to the public, thank you for them and thank you for your time this evening.

DAVID ATTENBOROUGH:
Okay, thank you.


"We've overrun the planet" - Sir David Attenborough speaks in an exclusive interview with BBC Breakfast

Links
at No comments:

(AU) What Are The Key Technologies In The Coalition's Low Emissions Roadmap, And Can They Deliver?

The Guardian - 

From clean hydrogen, energy storage and low-carbon materials to carbon capture and storage, and soil carbon

The Coalition’s Low Emissions Technology Statement has won a mixed response from energy experts. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP

The Coalition government this week released its much-anticipated Low Emissions Technology Statement that targeted five different technologies for rapid development:
  • clean hydrogen
  • energy storage
  • low-carbon materials (steel and aluminium)carbon capture and
  • storage and soil carbon
The plan was immediately criticised by many experts for shunning proven renewable energy generation, but others were cautiously optimistic. Here we take a closer look at some of the key technologies mentioned and whether they can deliver.

‘Clean’ hydrogen


It may be a colourless gas, but the industry has a colourful way of talking about hydrogen. In the simplest terms, “brown hydrogen” is turning coal into gas from which hydrogen can be extracted.

An alternative method, and the one the government is spruiking, relies on creating hydrogen using natural gas via a process known as steam-methane reforming (natural gas is primarily made up of methane).

How does it work?

In this process, high-temperature steam (up to 1,000C) reacts with methane under pressure (equivalent to about 25 atmospheres) in the presence of a catalyst, such as nickel, to produce hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and a relatively small amount of carbon dioxide – emissions which the government is hoping can be captured and stored underground.

This method of hydrogen production has been around since the 1930s, so it is relatively well understood, and is now used in more than 90% of all hydrogen production worldwide.

“Green hydrogen” is made using an electrolyser to run an electrical current through water separating it into hydrogen and oxygen. The electricity needed is provided by renewable energy such as wind or solar, eventually allowing for the creation of carbon-neutral industrial products including green steel.

Why does this matter?

It is not possible to decarbonise by electrifying everything. Some industrial processes such as steel or glass making require extremely high temperatures. While this process has relied on coal in the past, hydrogen can serve as a replacement. Hydrogen also has promise as an aviation fuel and in other modes of transport.

What’s the catch?

The government wants to generate hydrogen for under $2 a kilogram as fast as possible. Though it claims agnosticism as to method, it says hydrogen in Australia will be made by coal or natural gas in the short-term and then “underpinned” by carbon, capture and storage (CCS) to deliver “clean hydrogen”.

Dr Emma Aisbett, associate director at the Australian National University’s Grand Challenge Zero-Carbon Energy for the Asia-Pacific, says this may be harder to achieve than the government anticipates as the price of gas grows with demand.

“On the one hand they’re saying they need to get the price of gas down, but on other hand they’re planning to increase demand that will increase the price of gas,” Aisbett says.

The other issue the damage it may do to “brand Australia”.

“Truly green hydrogen is already in use and is likely to become cost-competitive with hydrogen produced from gas in the near future, particularly in locations such as Australia which have the ability to produce very cheap renewable energy,” Aisbett says. “So within a decade we can expect investments in CCS for capture of carbon from reforming fossil fuels could be redundant.”

Carbon capture and storage


The basic principle of CCS is simple enough: carbon dioxide is extracted directly from the atmosphere or siphoned off from an industrial byproduct and bottled up in a void deep within the earth.

Has it been done?

Internationally the International Energy Association says there are 20 commercial CCS projects worldwide, with 30 more in development amounting to a $27bn investment. While the field has become heavily politicised it does have potential uses.

According the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, such “negative emissions” technologies are needed to help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The catch?

Price. The government aims to reduce the cost of CCS to $20 a tonne, but fossil fuel companies have been working on CCS for decades and not come near this.

Done poorly, the process of capturing, transporting and locking away carbon dioxide may generate more CO2 than what it stores. Then there are questions about long-term responsibility, especially given the potential for leaks.

The places where CCS is most successfully used are actually in oilfields where pumping carbon dioxide back into the field helps extract more oil, which is not exactly helpful in acting on climate change.

On top of this, there are inherent limits. There are a finite number of geological formations that can be used for CCS, making them a scarce resource that should only be reserved for the most essential industrial processes that are hard to decarbonise – in other words, probably not hydrogen fuels or electricity generation.

Soil carbon


“Soil carbon” refers to the amount of decomposing plant matter in soil. Gardeners and soil scientists know this “organic matter” as a measure of soil quality, but thinking about soil as a carbon sink may offer another way to soak up CO2.

Some projections suggest it has the potential to trap 9bn tonnes of CO2 each year globally. But this process takes time, and can be quickly undone. Some calculations suggest 150bn tonnes of soil carbon has been lost since the advent of agriculture.

How does it work?

While Tuesday’s statement talks about soil carbon, more specifically it aims to bring the price of measuring organic matter down below $3 a hectare on the basis it may better open ways to use soil to lock away carbon. One approach is to develop fine-tuned sensors that sit permanently within the soil to collect data in real time, which can then be used to generate accurate models of the landscape.

The attraction of the government to soil carbon is partly political. The cost of measurement was a factor that made its emissions reductions fund – that pays farmers to increase the carbon stored in soil – uneconomic.

Dr Annette Cowie, principal research scientist in New South Wales Department of Primary Industries’ climate branch says while achieving a cost of $3 a hectare is unlikely, driving down the cost is necessary as until it changes farmers and soil scientists are flying blind.

“Organic matter is hard to build up and easy to lose,” Cowie says. “We have the technical capacity to measure it easily, but not cheaply.

“Soil carbon is quite variable. It changes depending on geology and geography. [Right now] you need to collect a lot of samples to get a good reading, multiple samples per hectare and then send it all to a lab.”

The verdict


By focusing purely on short-term developments, the Coalition is pinning its response to climate change on a sudden technological breakthrough – without doing the necessary heavy lifting.

As an exercise in green industry policy – where government attempts to drive industrial and technological development – this is welcomed in some quarters. The problem is that the Coalition remains wedded to ideas like CCS and so has set aside $18bn as an implicit subsidy for fossil fuel industry.

“Wind and solar are mature technologies that can produce energy cheaper than coal or gas,” Aisbett says. “The remaining market failures inhibiting emissions reduction are mainly around how to integrate, store and use this cheap, clean energy.

“This is where government policy and taxpayer resources should be directed. The emphasis on the use of dirty, expensive energy from gas, and ways to make it more expensive though slightly cleaner in the technology roadmap is not technology neutral and not an efficient use of taxpayer money.”

Links
at No comments:

China Changes The Game On Climate Action, For Renewables And For Coal

RenewEconomy - 



China’s newly announced commitment to achieving carbon neutrality by 2060 is set to be a game-changer, both for a renewables industry that will be tasked with an unprecedented roll-out of new wind, solar and storage capacity, as well as the fundamental shift it represents in the geopolitical environment of international climate change negotiations.

The scale of a Chinese commitment to achieving zero net emissions cannot be underestimated. Official greenhouse gas measurements place China as the world’s largest emitter, at almost 12,500 million tonnes a year, representing more than a quarter of all global emissions, almost double the emissions of the United States and more than 20-times larger than those of Australia.

To meet its new target, China will need to undertake an unprecedented deployment of zero-emissions technologies, building upon the country’s already significant portfolio of wind and solar capacity. To give a sense of the scale of the shift that will be needed; China currently consumes around 7,250 TWh of electricity, more than 25-times Australia’s total electricity demand.

Conservative estimates suggest that China could require thousands of gigawatts of new wind and solar capacity to be added over the next four decades just to shift existing electricity demand to zero emissions sources, before demand growth is taken into account, and presumes its current fleet of nuclear and hydroelectricity plants are maintained.

China will need to replace its 1,300GW fleet of coal generators and around 85GW of gas generation with zero emissions sources.

It would also require an unprecedented deployment of storage infrastructure, through the construction of new shorter-term battery storage capacity and an expansion of China’s hydroelectric capacity to provide pumped-hydro energy storage capacity.

It also spells doom for Australia’s coal sector, with China ranking as Australia’s second-largest export market for coal, purchasing around $15 billion worth of Australian coal annually.

In revealing the target in an address to the United Nations General Assembly last week, Chinese president Xi Jinping tied the need to act on climate change and to invest in new technologies with the need to drive economic development in a post-Covid-19 recovery.

“China will scale up its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions by adopting more vigorous policies and measures,” Xi Jinping said. “We aim to have CO2 emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060.

“We call on all countries to pursue innovative, coordinated, green and open development for all, seize the historic opportunities presented by the new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation, achieve a green recovery of the world economy in the post-COVID era and thus create a powerful force driving sustainable development.”

Climate Action Tracker, which assesses national climate policies against the level of action required to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and keep global warming to within safe levels, estimated that China’s target would lower global warming projections by around 0.2 to 0.3°C.

“This is the most important announcement on global climate policy in at least the last five years,” NewClimate Institute’s Niklas Höhne said, which partners with Climate Action Tracker.

“This would mean that China, responsible for a quarter of the worlds greenhouse gas emissions, would phase out any conventional use of coal, oil and gas by the middle of the century, unthinkable a few years ago.”

Analyst estimates suggest China’s target could lead to as much as 215 billion tonnes of avoided emissions by 2060, while helping to boost China’s GDP growth by as much as 5 per cent, driven by the huge investment required to build the new wind and solar projects needed to achieve the target. It will have a dramatic impact on China’s emissions trajectory, as evidenced by projections prepared by Carbon Brief.

However, China’s announcement could have an even wider reaching impact, achieving more than just a reduction in China’s own emissions, by placing pressure on other big emitters to ramp up the strength of their own targets.

Analysts at the World Resources Institute said the target would have massive ramifications in the geopolitical environment around climate action.

“This announcement will send positive shockwaves through diplomatic circles and should prompt greater climate ambition from other major emitters,” the World Resources Institute’s vice president for climate and economics Helen Mountford said.

“The case for ambitious climate action is stronger than ever and can deliver a strong economic recovery from COVID-19. Bold climate policy measures can grow China’s economy, create jobs and position the country well to compete and lead in a low-carbon 21st century economy.”

With China committing to achieving the zero emissions goal by 2060, and a prospective Biden administration promising to commit the United States to net-zero emissions no later than 2050, the Morrison government is becoming increasingly isolated in its refusal to adopt a zero emissions target.

This is a refusal that has again been reiterated in recent weeks, with prime minister Scott Morrison saying that he would not commit to a net zero emissions target by 2050, as has been advocated for by both environmental and business groups alike, instead pointing to the comparatively vague wording contained within the Paris Agreement that requires zero net emissions to be achieved sometime in the ‘second half of the century’.

Federal energy and emissions reduction minister Angus Taylor told ABC’s 730 report that he did not think the Paris Agreement even required individual countries to commit to achieving zero net emissions, suggesting instead that this was a ‘global commitment’.

“There is not, as you say, a commitment from individual countries in Paris to be net zero by 2050,” Taylor said. “The commitment is a global commitment to get to net zero in the second half of the century, and that’s why technology is so critical. We want to bring that forward to as soon as possible, but ultimately this is a global commitment and it’s going to require global solutions.”

Links
at No comments: