23/10/2020

(AU) Morrison Government 'Ignored' Climate Change Authority's Advice On Covid Recover

The Guardian - 

Report hails the chance to jump-start the economy and deal with climate change, but Labor says there was no official response

Angus Taylor has not officially responded to a report recommending Covid stimulus spending be directed to measures that also address the climate crisis. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP
The Morrison government has been accused of ignoring advice from one of its agencies that it should use the economic response to Covid-19 to “set up Australia for generations to come” by directing stimulus spending to measures that also addressed the climate crisis.

A Climate Change Authority report submitted to the government in July says the stimulus package offered a “once-in-a-lifetime” chance to jump-start a recovery and deal with climate change by preparing for inevitable impacts and positioning Australia to take advantage of its abundant clean energy resources.

“It’s a win-win-win opportunity for economic recovery, resilience and prosperity in a low-emissions world,” the report says.

A Senate estimates hearing on Tuesday night was told the report was discussed with the office of the emissions reduction minister, Angus Taylor, and officials from Treasury and the industry department, which has responsibility for climate change policy.

In response to questions from Labor, the authority’s chair, Wendy Craik, said she did not know if Taylor had read it and he had not officially responded to it.

The authority posted the report on its website without fanfare and it received little to no media coverage. It was submitted as governments across the globe were being urged to tackle the climate crisis alongside the pandemic.

The Morrison government has emphasised the need for a gas-led recovery from recession, and announced $52.9m to develop plans to increase gas supply and transportation infrastructure.

It re-funded the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena), allocating it $223.9m over the next four years in the budget and promising $1.4bn over a decade while planning to change its mandate, but has been criticised for not doing more to back renewable energy.

Labor’s climate spokesman, Mark Butler, accused the government of refusing to engage with the authority’s report, saying it was not surprising as it had “completely gutted” the agency after trying and failing to abolish it.

He said backing renewable energy projects and developing clean energy manufacturing would create tens of thousands of jobs, stimulate regional economies and lead to cheaper power prices while tackling climate change.

“To ignore a Covid-19 recovery plan which highlights the massive potential of renewable energy and renewables-related industry is exactly the type of ideological bias that has undermined progress under the Liberals,” Butler said.

A spokesperson for Taylor responded that the government was taking action consistent with recent reports by the authority, pointing to a proposed $1bn “grid reliability fund” to expand the remit of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

While the authority said the corporation should be allowed to “invest in emissions reduction technologies in all sectors”, Labor has said it would oppose the change as it would open up the corporation, which operates as a green bank, to fossil fuel investments.

Craik told Senate estimates some issues raised in the report had been picked up by the government “in one way or another”, including in a low emissions technology statement that was in the works before the pandemic, support for clean hydrogen and soil carbon, and proposed changes to Arena and the CEFC.

But the report suggests a more holistic climate focus in the pandemic recovery. It calls for a stimulus package that takes account of climate risks and opportunities to create a “virtuous cycle” in which a more prosperous economy led to better preparation for the impacts of climate change, and vice versa.

It cites evidence from the Nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz and economist Nicholas Stern suggesting sustainable stimulus measures could offer the best economic returns and says governments in Europe, New Zealand and South Korea had made efforts to head down this path.

The authority defines recovery as being about “getting people back to work and businesses back to business”, and says there were many renewable energy projects that could make a strong contribution to that.

“According to the Clean Energy Council, bringing forward the pipeline of renewable energy projects could create over 50,000 new direct jobs, help drive down power prices, triple the amount of large-scale renewable energy capacity in the country and stimulate private investment into rural and regional areas,” it says.

It repeats recommendations the authority made in a “climate policy toolkit” report in March, including government support for:

  • Energy efficiency programs targeting low-income households and small businesses including tax incentives and grants.
  • Greater investment in electricity networks and technologies such as batteries and pumped hydro to support variable solar and wind energy.
  • Electrification and industrial energy efficiency projects in regional areas.
  • Electric vehicle charging infrastructure on highways and regional routes, and targets for government fleets to take up the technology.
  • An agency equivalent to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from “the land sector”.

Craik told Senate estimates that Taylor had been briefed on the March report, but there had not been further discussion with him about its recommendations.

She said the authority was not consulted about the government’s plans for a significant gas industry expansion.

Its July report says gas can play a role “in the mix” of large-scale sources of electricity generation, and suggests energy deals with states include programs that reduce emissions by improving efficiency in gas production, but it does not call for a government-backed gas-led recovery.

Several non-government reports have made suggestions for a green recovery from Covid-19 to set up the economy for the decades ahead.

Beyond Zero Emissions, a climate change thinktank, won support from former prime ministers Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin Rudd for an analysis that concluded projects to rapidly cut emissions could modernise industry and create work for an average of 355,000 people a year over five years.

Links
at No comments:

Don’t Worry, The Earth Is Doomed

MIT Technology Review - Tate Ryan-Mosley




Catastrophic risks are events that threaten human livelihood on a, well, catastrophic scale. Most are interconnected, meaning that one event—such as a nuclear detonation—is likely to trigger others, like water and food crises, economic depression, and world war.

The intricate interdependence of our physical, social, and political systems has left humans vulnerable, something that covid-19 has highlighted.

The good news, if you can call it that, is that few of these risks are truly existential, spelling the very end of the human race. Moreover, most catastrophic risks are within our control. Those that aren’t have to be dealt with through mitigation and preparedness—or just accepted.

These risk estimates are from the World Economic Forum, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Chicago Actuarial Association, the Global Challenges Foundation, Bethan Harris at the University of Reading, and David Morrison at NASA, with advice from Phil Torres at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, author of Human Extinction: A Short History.

Near-term risks
Autonomous Weapon

Autonomous weapons

High risk in the next 10 years. Fully autonomous weapons don’t exist yet, but advances in drone technology and AI make them likely. Rogue code and irresponsible use could lead to mass violence on a  scale and speed we don’t understand today.

Cyber attacks and information infrastructure breakdown


High risk in the next 10 years. Hacking the transport system or a central bank would wreak havoc and threaten public safety. Prevention relies on educating people about cybersecurity.

Data fraud or theft


High risk in the next 10 years. Large-scale theft of data like Social Security numbers could create irreversible damage to political and social systems.

Long-term risks
PEXELS


Extreme weather

Already happening; likely to worsen in the coming years. Floods, storms, wildfires, and hotter temperatures threaten hundreds of millions of people globally: over 20 million are already forced to leave their homes each year as a result of extreme weather. The threats go beyond personal safety, posing general economic risks and the potential to overwhelm systems such as insurance.

Catastrophic climate change


Under a high-emissions model, surface temperatures are projected to rise by 2.6 to 4.8 °C by the end of the century. Catastrophic climate change occurs once human damage starts setting off tipping points that make the changes irreversible. Human actions are altering the climate 170 times faster than natural forces, bringing about extreme weather, warming oceans, ice melt, and rising sea levels.

Biological and chemical warfare


Up to a 1% risk in the coming century or so. Biological and chemical weapons are becoming cheaper and easier to produce—and more lethal. Most nations and many terrorist groups are likely to have access to them. The level of risk varies, but examples include toxic chemicals that are sprayed from aircraft or injected into water systems.
    

Artificial intelligence


Up to a 10% risk in the coming century. The catastrophic risk associated with AI hinges more on misuse or poor development than on concerns about computers overtaking human society. Algorithms that spread fake news and create echo chambers could undermine trusted information sources and leave democracy even more precarious than it already is.

Food or water crises
UNSPLASH

Likely between now until at least 2200 if surface temperatures reach 1.5 to 4 °C above preindustrial levels. As temperatures increase, we’ll probably face a water shortage caused by drought and ecosystem collapse. A food crisis would be tied to this, but soil quality, global supply chains, and available land are also factors.

Ecological collapse

Likely between now until at least 2200 if temperatures rise by 1.5 to 4 °C. Natural ecosystems bring us air, water, food, shelter, and energy. Human overuse and destruction of natural resources now threaten a cascading, quick collapse of global ecosystems.


Pandemics and antimicrobial resistance

A pandemic like the 1918 flu occurs around once every 420 years. Covid-19 is the biggest pandemic in a century. Increased urbanization, population density, and international travel raise the risk that any new infectious disease will become a major outbreak. At the same time, antimicrobial resistance is rising, making infections more deadly.

Asteroid collision


 A species-level impact is expected once every 70,000 years. The largest near-Earth asteroids have a diameter of more than 1 kilometer, and an impact could result in human extinction. Smaller asteroids could still lead to hundreds of millions of deaths. But we’re getting better at tracking them, and maybe one day we could divert them.

Ultimate doom
WIKIMEDIA

Supervolcanic eruption

About a 1% probability in the next 70,000 years. Supervolcanic eruptions would devastate habitats, obstruct sunlight, decrease air quality, and maybe even lead to global cooling. Several areas are currently graded as high risk, including Yellowstone in the US.

Nuclear warfare


1% risk before the end of the century. The world’s nuclear nations have over 13,000 warheads between them. In a nuclear winter, soot and dust released by fires would block sunlight, leading to global cooling and mass extinction.

Collapse or failure of democracy


UNSPLASH

Growing concern. Global democratization accelerated sharply beginning in the 1980s. Now, however, rising nationalism, misinformation and propaganda, and the undermining of independent institutions and fair elections are pushing many democracies to the brink of autocracy—or over it.

The sun consumes earth


Certain. In about 800 million years, Earth will become uninhabitable for humans because of the expansion of the sun. About 6.5 billion years later, the sun will expand enough to consume the planet in a fiery end.

Links
at No comments: