23/11/2020

The Australian Government Is Surrounded By Leaders Taking Climate Action. Will It Step Up?

ABC News - Michael Slezak

When it comes to climate policy, Scott Morrison will be dealing with a very different global playfield in 2021. (ABC News)

Author
Michael Slezak is the ABC's national science, technology and environment reporter. He has been the environment reporter for The Guardian in Australia, the Australian correspondent for New Scientist magazine, and he edited the anthology Best Australian Science Writing 2017.
The Morrison Government is surrounded by state governments, foreign trading partners, local businesses and big investors who are moving ahead to transition the world to net zero emissions by 2050.

The past few weeks have shown that Australia has only two choices when it comes to our climate-heating greenhouse gas emissions: sink good money after bad in polluting industries, or invest in the clean industries of the future.

As much as it might look like Australia is seeking one, there is no viable third option.

As the world strides ahead to try to stop global warming at 1.5C, Australia could risk being isolated and missing out on the opportunities the transition poses.

Five years after Australia signed up to the Paris Agreement, the Australian Government is now surrounded by leaders making progress towards its aims — a task most would say Scott Morrison is not enthusiastically embracing.

A new incumbent in the White House and a reversal of US policy is just the start: Morrison will be dealing with a very different playing field in 2021.

President-elect Joe Biden's plan for a 'clean energy revolution and environmental justice' includes rejoining the Paris Agreement on climate change. (AP: Andrew Harnik)



A series of dramatic events over the past month have shown that a transition to net zero emissions will occur around 2050. A transition of that nature can either be done in a coordinated way — one that exploits the potential benefits — or in an uncoordinated way, which is likely to see few of the benefits but still be hit with downsides.

Just look at what our main trading partners are doing.

There's no doubt where our economy will go

China has committed to net zero emissions by 2060. China is our biggest overall trading partner, the biggest buyer of Australian thermal coal (taking about 20 per cent of all our exports), and the second biggest buyer of Australian gas (taking about 17 per cent of our LNG exports).

At about the same time, Japan and South Korea committed to net zero emissions even earlier — by 2050. Together, those two countries buy 33 per cent of our exported gas and 21 per cent of our exported thermal coal.

And looking at our top trading partners together, there's no doubt where our economy will go — by choice or otherwise. 

*Commitment made by president-elect Joe Biden. Sources: ABS and DFAT.

These massive transformations by Australia's trading partners mean changes will be imposed on our economy from the outside. Fossil fuel exports will dry up, tariffs could be placed on carbon-intensive products, and demand for clean energy will skyrocket.

Without guiding our economy towards those clean industries, and helping dirty industries transition, we're likely to be disproportionately affected by the downsides of this transformation.

Australia's biggest buyer of thermal coal — China — has committed to net zero emissions by 2060. (Wikimedia Commons)
In Australia, we don't have any robust federal policy to guide this transition in a meaningful way.

The Morrison Government's key policy is the so-called Technology Investment Roadmap. That policy doesn't have an emissions goal for Australia, and the bureaucrats that worked on it told Parliament last week they didn't have analysis showing how the policy would impact Australia's emissions by 2030.

In fact, in documents obtained by The Australia Institute, the Government admits the abatement expected under the roadmap is just a guess — it wasn't really modelled at all.

The modelling Australia has released shows no significant cuts to emissions to 2030.

And to meet our promise to cut emissions to 26 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, forecasts show we will only get there by claiming credits for beating targets from earlier climate agreements — the so-called "Kyoto carry-over credits", the validity of which is widely questioned.

The Federal Government is on its own


How climate change policies continues to divide parliament

It's not just Australia's trading partners leaving our Federal Government's position isolated. It's also our own state and territory governments.

Every single state and territory in Australia has declared they will aim to reach net zero emissions by 2050. So Australia does actually plan on doing that — the only thing we're lacking is federal coordination for how it will happen.

Among those states, the Liberal-National NSW government this month announced some of the strongest policies to reach that target. It plans to build a massive 12 gigawatts of renewable energy in the next decade, supported by two gigawatts of storage.

Also this month, the Liberal Tasmanian government passed a 200 per cent renewables target through the lower house.

Meanwhile, the Federal Government is also being left behind by Australian investors and big business. Most of Australia's five biggest super funds have committed to reducing the emissions of their investments to net zero by 2050.

Within the last month ANZ has committed to align its business to support a transition to a net zero economy and Woolworths (Australia's sixth-largest electricity user) committed to go 100 per cent renewable within five years. Even business groups like the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group support net zero by 2050 targets.

In the end, a federal net zero target for 2050 would carry little meaning on its own, since every jurisdiction within the federation already has that target. But if it was formally acknowledged by the Federal Government, it could help what really matters: guiding policies to help achieve the goal.

Politics, politics, politics

Emissions reduction minister Angus Taylor says the Federal Government does want Australia to reach net zero emissions "as soon as possible" and that it will happen before 2100.

In launching the Technology Investment Roadmap, Taylor argued that "long term targets without a plan" would "penalise energy-intensive industries and reduce economic activity".

He argued that other countries, "particularly our largest trading partners, are reluctant to commit to policies and targets with material economic costs".

That seems completely true. But what was not said was that those trading partners see great economic benefit in their much stronger targets and the policies that enact them.
    
When asked if he was worried about Australia's fossil fuel exports, Angus Taylor said he was confident those commodities will have a market "for years to come". (ABC: Marco Catalano)
It is no secret that climate policy has been a poison chalice for the federal Coalition and Labor alike, having claimed the heads of many leaders and prime ministers.

So it could be politically convenient to leave climate policy to the states, where governments of both political persuasions are getting on with the job.

Politically, that might let be win-win for the federal Coalition. But it leaves the federation without a coordinated approach — and a united front to show the world it's taking the global problem seriously.

States can do a lot of the work, albeit less efficiently. But there are some things they can't do. They can't themselves do what the UK and other countries are doing and plan a transition towards electric vehicles, for example.

They can't introduce fuel efficiency standards, helping Australia catch up to the rest of the world, while simultaneously reducing emissions and costs to consumers.

And they can't easily drive a shift away from a reliance on fossil fuel exports towards commodities that will still have a significant market in a decade or two.

When asked if he was worried about our fossil fuel exports, Taylor seemed relaxed, telling Sky News this week he was confident those commodities will have a market "for years to come" and that the mix of commodities "will change" but that "was natural".

But one can't help wondering if addressing that transition — and planning for it to happen — might be a better strategy than letting it happen to us.

Links
at No comments:

Sentinel-6: 'Dog Kennel' Satellite Blasts Off On Ocean Mission

 BBC - Jonathan Amos

Artwork: The unusual shape, with fixed solar panels, keeps the satellite very stable.

A satellite that will be critical to the understanding of climate change has blasted skyward from California.

Sentinel-6 "Michael Freilich" is set to become the primary means of measuring the shape of the world's oceans.

Its data will track not only sea-level rise but reveal how the great mass of waters is moving around the globe.

Looking somewhat like a dog kennel, the sophisticated 1.3-tonne satellite was taken aloft from the Vandenberg base on a SpaceX Falcon-9 rocket.

The Sentinel is a joint endeavour between Europe and the US, and will continue the measurements that have been made by a succession of spacecraft, called the Jason-Topex/Poseidon series, going back to 1992.

These earlier missions have shown unequivocally that sea levels globally are rising, at a rate in excess of 3mm per year over the 28-year period. And their most recent data even suggests there is an acceleration under way, with levels recorded as going up at over 4mm per year.

The Falcon rocket, with its Sentinel-6 payload, heads out over the Pacific Ocean. ESA/Stéphane Corvaja

About one-third of the measured global sea-level rise on Earth is from the expansion of warming water, a key driver of which is climate change. The rest is largely from melting ice.

Sentinel-6, like all the satellites before it, will use a radar altimeter to assess the height of the oceans.

This instrument sends down a microwave pulse to the surface and then counts the time it takes to receive the return signal, converting this into an elevation.

Sentinel-6 will, however, fly with a much improved capability, which will allow it to see more clearly what seas are doing right up against coastlines; and also how inland water features - rivers and lakes - are behaving.

The record has been built by four previous satellites. The baton now passes to Sentinel-6. 

Why is ocean height so important?

Elevation is a key parameter for oceanographers. Just as surface air pressure reveals what the atmosphere is doing above, so ocean height will betray details about the behaviour of water down below.

The data gives clues to temperature and salinity. When combined with gravity information, it will also indicate current direction and speed.

The oceans store vast amounts of heat from the Sun; and how they move that energy around the globe and interact with the atmosphere are what drive our climate system.

But having the longest possible record of change is essential.

"The longer that time series, the better able we are to separate out the natural climate signals from the forced ones, from the human signal," explained European Space Agency mission scientist Craig Donlon.

"It means we can run climate models backwards and then, through a validation process, have confidence that when we run them forwards we have some predictive skill."

The rise in sea level is not uniform. Some regions of the globe have been rising very fast. 

Why is the 3mm figure a little misleading?

The oceans are not rising at the same rate everywhere. There are parts of the world where the elevation exceeds 1cm per year.

This is due to a multitude of factors, including changes in ocean circulation, changes in heat content, and the uneven dispersal of meltwater from ice sheets.

It's a little recognised fact that the discharge from mighty glaciers, such as Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica, has the greatest effect on ocean height at far distances.

"Sea-level rise is not uniform; it's really important to recognise this," Christine Gommenginger, from the UK's National Oceanography Centre (NOC) in Southampton, told BBC News.

"It's the regional sea-level budgets that we're now targeting. Global sea-level rise - fine, we know about this. But it's the local picture we want, and the altimetry can give us this."

Meltwater from the huge Thwaites glacier affects sea level a long way away from Antarctica.
Who uses sea-surface height data?

Oceanographers and climatologists, obviously. But the data is of supreme importance to the weather forecasters as well.

In the return signal is information about the state of the ocean - about how rough it is, which speaks also to the strength of the winds.

The ocean and its connection to the atmosphere is perhaps best illustrated in hurricanes. These storms get their energy from warm tropical water which an altimeter can sense by the way the sea surface bulges.

And it's satellites like Sentinel-6 that give forewarning of an El Niño event, which sees warm waters in the western Pacific shift eastwards. This sets off a global perturbation in weather systems, redistributing rainfall and bumping up temperatures.

"Other users include ship routers - they don't want their vessels to go through storms; they want to avoid big waves," said Remko Scharroo, from the intergovernmental weather agency Eumetsat. "With the Sentinel-6 altimeter, we will also see the eddies in the ocean, and if you're a ship router this information will tell you how to go with the current, not against it."

It goes without saying that coastal and flood defence planning depends on the elevation data. No new nuclear power station can be built without understanding where high tide and storm surges might reach decades into the future.

The information is used to plan coastal and flood defences decades into the future.
What's in the special name?

The "Sentinel" moniker is the name given to all the satellites in the European Union's Copernicus Earth-observation programme, of which this mission is a part.

Its number shows that it is the sixth in the series of different sensor types planned for the network.

The name Michael Freilich commemorates the former director of the US space agency Nasa's Earth sciences division who died earlier this year. He was an oceanographer by background and was instrumental in putting together the international partnership behind the mission.

"Mike Freilich exemplified the commitment to excellence, generosity of spirit and the unmatched ability to inspire trust that made so many people across the world want to work with Nasa, to advance big goals on behalf of the planet and its people," commented Thomas Zurbuchen, who heads Nasa's science directorate.
What's the UK angle in this mission?

British engineers built the propulsion module on Sentinel-6. It has eight 5-newton thrusters that will help maintain the 1.3-tonne satellite in the very precise orbit required to make its measurements.

The module is a kind of plug and play unit that can easily be incorporated into other spacecraft.

"As we have recurring equipment, it means we can do bulk procurement which is cost-saving," said Natasha Pushkin from Airbus UK. "And as we have reusable building blocks, this means that designs and processes can be established in advance, which is time saving."

Further modules are to go in the successor to Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich, and in Europe's next-generation polar-orbiting weather satellites.

But beyond the industrial contribution, UK scientists and agencies will be heavy users of the data - at NOC to understand the broader behaviour of the oceans, and at the UK Met Office which will feed its data into the numerical models that produce the next day, medium and long-range weather forecasts.

Sentinel-6's propulsion system is a design that could go in other spacecraft. AIRBUS UK

Links
at No comments:

(AU) Kevin Rudd Says Climate Change Is the Reason He's Taking On Rupert Murdoch

NIKKEI Asia -  Kevin Rudd

Fox News owner a cancer on democracy

Rupert Murdoch's position is all about accumulating and exercising political power. © AP



Author
Kevin Rudd was the 26th Prime Minister of Australia, serving from December 2007 to June 2010 and again from June to September 2013.
Recent landmark moves by Japan, South Korea and China to embrace a pathway to net-zero emissions beg the question as to why other major economies such as Australia -- and until now the United States -- have been dragging their feet in the fight against climate change. Part of the answer, quite simply, is Rupert Murdoch.

The Murdoch family's media empire may be virtually nonexistent in Asia, but its political influence across the English-speaking West should not be underestimated. Their crown jewels in the American media include the most-watched cable outlet in Fox News, the biggest-selling metropolitan newspaper in the New York Post, and premier business title The Wall Street Journal -- properties that Murdoch surrendered his Australian passport to acquire. These outlets collectively feed American voters a steady diet of climate change denial while running a protection racket for politicians who toe this company line.

In my own country, Australia, Murdoch has ruthlessly deployed his monopoly control of daily newspaper circulation to sow doubt about climate science and destroy politicians who take the problem seriously. Even as our nation was besieged by megafires that burned out almost as much land as the United Kingdom, these newspapers heaped doubt on climate change and spouted trumped up claims of mass-arson.

The lies became so transparent that Rupert Murdoch's own son, James Murdoch, quit the News Corporation board in disgust at these newspapers' relentless denial and disinformation on climate change.

James Murdoch and his wife, pictured in March 2016: he quit the News Corporation board. © Reuters

At its heart, Murdoch's position is all about accumulating and exercising political power. In 2006, when conservative governments in both the United States and Australia were inching toward accepting the need for climate action, Murdoch smoothed the way by declaring in Tokyo that "the planet deserved the benefit of the doubt." But years later, when the world was edging closer toward securing a new landmark deal, he did everything in his power to bring down the progressive governments such as my own that had been working toward it. It was the same modus operandi that Murdoch would use against my conservative successor, Malcolm Turnbull, when he also acted in the national interest to advance climate action.

All along, Murdoch's strategy has been to use his media mastheads and networks to narrowly frame the debate as one simply between outright climate change denialism at one end, and skepticism as to the humankind's contribution at the other. This means trotting out his most ardent mouthpieces to proclaim among a long and distinguished rap sheet of disinformation such as that "there is no carbon emissions" and "if there were, we could not see because most carbon is black." This is, as James Murdoch put it, a campaign to "sow doubt, to obscure fact."

This tactic of trotting out pseudoscience at every opportunity should not be unfamiliar. It is exactly the same tactic that big tobacco used during the 1950s and 1960s to try and dispel the connection between smoking and cancer. Just as it did then, and is now, this kind of reckless commentary costs lives.

This is part of why I have called Murdoch a cancer on Australia's democracy, and recently launched a national petition calling for an independent inquiry -- known as a royal commission -- into media diversity in our country.

In just a few short weeks, the petition garnered 501,876 signatures -- the most of any online petition the history of the Australian parliament. It was introduced into the national parliament by Andrew Leigh from the Labor Party. There will now be a parliamentary inquiry to examine the matters raised in the petition. This will only be the beginning.

Our petition not only struck a chord with the Australian people, it struck a chord with the international community that has watched in horror at Australia and the United States' climate inaction over recent years, and drawn a direct link to Murdoch's not so invisible hand. This includes some of the most conservative voices in the United States, such as former Republican congressman Bob Inglis.

Unfortunately, the harsh reality is that Murdoch himself is likely to now be just as much of an impediment to President-elect Biden implementing his ambitious climate agenda as a Republican-controlled Senate. Just as he will continue to stand in the way of climate action in Australia, no matter who is in power. This is precisely why it is time the rest of us also declare that enough is enough. 

Links
at No comments: