30/04/2021

(BBC) Climate Change: World's Glaciers Melting At Accelerating Rate

BBCJonathan Amos

Klinaklini Glacier in Canada: There is now far more certainty about what is happening. Brian Menounos

The world's glaciers are melting at an accelerating rate, according to a comprehensive new study.

A French-led team assessed the behaviour of nearly all documented ice streams on the planet.

The researchers found them to have lost almost 270 billion tonnes of ice a year over the opening two decades of the 21st Century.

The meltwater produced now accounts for about a fifth of global sea-level rise, the scientists tell Nature journal.

The numbers involved are quite hard to imagine, so team member Robert McNabb, from the universities of Ulster and Oslo, uses an analogy.

"Over the last 20 years, we've seen that glaciers have lost about 267 gigatonnes (Gt) per year. So, if we take that amount of water and we divide it up across the island of Ireland, that's enough to cover all of Ireland in 3m of water each year," he says on this week's edition of Science In Action on the BBC World Service.

"And the total loss is accelerating. It's growing by about 48Gt/yr, per decade." The worldwide inventory of glaciers contains 217,175 ice streams.

Some are smaller than a football pitch; others can rival in area a mid-sized country like the UK. What nearly all have in common is that they are thinning and retreating in a changing climate, either through stronger melting in warmer air or because the patterns of snowfall that feed the glaciers have shifted.

The research team, led by Romain Hugonnet from the University of Toulouse, France, used as its primary source of data the imagery acquired by Nasa's Terra satellite, which was launched in 1999.

Immense computing power was brought to bear on the process of interpreting these pictures and pulling out the changes in the glaciers' elevation, volume and mass up to 2019.

The team believes its approach has hammered down the uncertainties in its results to perhaps less than 5% overall. That's in large part because every single glacier examined in the study is represented based on the same methodology.

"This new study is a major advance as we get a high spatial resolution and, at the same time, it also provides the temporal change over the two decades directly based on satellite data, which is novel," explained co-author Matthias Huss from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

"This data-set has been validated with an immense amount of additional, independent measurements and is highly accurate so that the uncertainties of previous studies are strongly reduced."

A group led from Leeds University published its own assessment of glacier ice loss in January in the journal The Cryosphere.

It arrived at very similar numbers. It reported a 289Gt/yr average loss over the period 2000-2019, with a 52Gt/yr/decade acceleration. An 8% difference.

Leeds professor Andy Shepherd told BBC News: "Glacier melting accounts for a quarter of Earth's ice loss over the satellite era, and the changes taking place are disrupting water supplies for billions of people downstream - especially in years of drought when meltwater becomes a critical source.

"Although the rate of glacier melting has increased steadily, the pace has been dwarfed by the accelerating ice losses from Antarctica and Greenland, and they remain our primary concern for future sea-level rise."

Links

(Deutsche Welle) Climate Collapse: The People Who Fear Society Is Doomed

Deutsche Welle - Ajit Niranjan

No scientific study has found that climate change is likely to wipe out civilization, but for many even the possibility is terrifying enough to upend their lives.

Rich countries like the US and Australia have seen apocalyptic images of climate change after smoke from wildfires darkened skies above big cities

When Typhoon Vamco battered the Philippines in November last year, unleashing a month's worth of rain on the capital Manila in less than 24 hours, Mitzi Jonelle Tan was on her way home from work. Her mother, scared for Tan's safety as roads flooded, warned her not to come back.

That was the last she heard from her mother for three days.

"We had no electricity, we barely had any cellular signal," said Tan, who stayed with a friend during the storm as people clambered onto rooftops to escape two-storey high floodwaters. "I had no idea if my mom was OK, if I had a home to come home to."

Like most Filipinos, Tan is no stranger to devastating cyclones — Typhoon Goni, one of the strongest storms ever recorded, barely missed Metro Manila and its 13 million residents when it made landfall just two weeks earlier. But Tan, co-founder of Youth Advocates for Climate Action Philippines, also carries a mental burden: She knows such storms will grow stronger as the planet heats up.

"Even today, without runaway climate change, we're already suffering," said Tan, a 22-year-old math graduate who remembers helping her parents scoop floodwater out of the house as a child and weeks of doing homework by candlelight when storms cut off electricity. "I have fears of drowning in my own bedroom when I hear another typhoon is coming."

Mitzi Jonelle Tan, pictured left, lives in the second-most dangerous country for environmental activists, according to NGO Global Witness

Citizens of the Philippines are adjusting to tropical cyclones that are growing even stronger

The emotional toll of climate change is often made worse by an existential debate riddled with misinformation: Just how much can society take before it breaks down?

Before Tan reaches the age of her mother, who is 58, sea levels will have risen so high that coastal floods that used to strike once a century will swamp Manila and dozens of other cities every single year. Wildfires that smother towns in the US and Australia with choking smoke will feast on plants dried to a crisp by hotter, longer heatwaves. At least one-quarter of the ice in the Hindu Kush Himalayas will have melted, raising tensions for 1.5 billion people who already rely on its rivers for water in three countries armed with nuclear weapons: India, China and Pakistan.

Heatwaves and drought leave dry fuel that helps wildfires spread out of control

Groups like the Deep Adaptation Forum — an online support group for 12,000 people — believe climate-fueled societal breakdown is "inevitable, likely or already unfolding." Their claims have tapped into a wider public fear that collapse is on the cards.

A YouGov poll at the start of the coronavirus pandemic found that three in 10 US adults think there will be an apocalyptic disaster within their lifetime. A separate poll of five countries in 2019 found that more than half of respondents in France, Italy, the UK and the US think civilization as they know it will collapse in years to come. In Germany that figure was slightly lower, at 39%.

Tan said she cried "night after night" upon reading reports that world leaders are likely to miss their target of keeping warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius this century. "For a time, I lost hope, thinking: Is everything really just impossible now?"

In February a landslide in the Himalayas that melted ice sent floods downstream that killed scores and trapped hundreds in tunnels

Will climate change cause the collapse of civilization?

Despite widespread fears, no peer-reviewed research finds that the breakdown of society or the collapse of civilization is likely, let alone inevitable. Scientists used to debunking myths from climate deniers say they must also fight off claims of collapse that hinge on distorted science.

Still, climate disasters could disrupt politics in some regions enough that "the glue that holds society together doesn't work very well anymore," said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences at the University of Princeton. "But that's where we're getting into the realm of things that are unpredictable."

"We know that we won't be fine, but there's a lot of space between fine and doomed," said Jacquelyn Gill, an associate professor of Paleoecology at the University of Maine's Climate Change Institute. "That space is our greatest asset because it allows us to choose our future."

Breeding conditions for the locust swarms that ravaged farms across East Africa were made more likely by climate change

Renewable energy has grown so cheap that world leaders could cut fossil fuel emissions swiftly

'To avoid collapse, we have to talk about it'

In December, 250 people from a range of mostly academic backgrounds signed an open letter that described the collapse of civilization as a credible scenario this century. "It's not a scientific position, it's a philosophical one," said Raphael Stevens, an independent researcher who helped draft the letter. "To avoid [collapse], we have to talk about it."

Climate scientists are experts in the physical phenomena, "but who has the expertise about what those physical changes are going to cause to happen in the world?" asked Margaret Klein Salamon, a clinical psychologist and activist who has written a self-help book about the climate emergency.

Transient treasure: Of the 2 million-odd people who visit the Great Barrier Reef annually, a 2016 survey found that 69 percent were coming to see the UNESCO World Heritage site "before it's too late." And no wonder. The IPCC says that even if we manage to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, 99 percent of the world's coral will be wiped out. Tourists can hasten their demise by touching or polluting reefs.

"The burden of proof is assumed to be with the collapsologists," said Salamon, "but I would like to see proof that 1 billion people can be refugees and not have that collapse." She was referring to a widely publicized report in September that claimed 1.2 billion people will become climate refugees by 2050.

But migration experts from three organizations told DW the report misused data by summing snapshots of internal displacement to arrive at an exaggerated figure of cross-border migration. The Institute for Economics and Peace, the think tank behind the study, quietly deleted a graph with the incorrect analysis but did not retract the estimate.

"The figure itself, to put it pretty politely, is fiction," said Sarah Nash, a political scientist at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna.

Cities like Karachi, Pakistan, have already been forced to adapt to increasingly extreme weather

How does the climate crisis make you feel?

The prospect of collapse has forced scientists and activists to confront a practical question: Does talking about climate change in extreme terms inspire people to act urgently or push them deep into despair?

"Doom-mongering, ironically, is one way to disengage us," said Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University who argues in a new book that it has overtaken denial as a threat to the climate. "If we are led to believe it's too late to do anything, then why do anything?"

Yet while hope is often held up as the best motivator of action, research has shown that anger and fear are also powerful drivers of change  if people feel they can shape their lives. 

In cities like Jakarta, Indonesia, rising sea levels combine with sinking land to leave coastal communities vulnerable to floods

In March, a study in the Journal of Climate Change and Health found that people who felt angry about climate change were more likely to take part in collective action than those who felt anxious about it, and report better mental health than those who feel depressed by it. "We don't want people to be hopeful, we want people to be angry and we want people to act," said Tan.

Some people warning of collapse are "obviously channeling their anxieties into action and raising awareness, but they're not the majority of voters," added Gill, from the University of Maine, who has increasingly received emails from young people feeling hopeless, depressed and even suicidal because of alarmist claims.

"I'm not going to grieve a planet whose obituary hasn't been published yet."

Diving in with the rest: Young activists in Berlin took a dip in the city's Spree River to demonstrate their desire for more action on climate change. Their protest took place as Germany's upper house of parliament passed a raft of measures aimed at cutting emissions. However, critics of the package said it did not go far enough.

Links

(AU The Conversation) Risky Business: 54% Of Australian Companies Plan To Slow ‘Green’ Initiatives Due To COVID

The Conversation

Shutterstock

Author
 is Associate Professor in Sustainability and Ethics, University of South Australia.     
More than half of Australian companies plan to scale back environmental initiatives to weather the financial harm caused by the COVID pandemic, a
report released this month suggests. But such a move would be bad for business, and the planet.

Over the past few decades, regulatory and societal pressures have prompted businesses to adopt environmental initiatives at a growing rate. The measures may involve divesting from fossil fuels, preventing pollution, developing eco-friendly products or even collaborating with competitors to help other organisations in their supply chains, such as distributors and retailers, become sustainable.

My research focuses on social and environmental sustainability issues confronting organisations. Environmental initiatives require a long-term focus, and in my view, businesses would be unwise to scale back these measures in response to the pandemic. Research by myself and colleagues suggests most firms with good environmental performance also do well financially. And firms that ignore environmental issues face enormous risk.

Renowned US economist Milton Friedman famously argued, “the only social responsibility of business is to make profits”. But even Friedman suggests firms are better off dealing with environmental issues when they become a risk.

Climate change and extreme weather, such as heavy rainfall, is a business risk. Flooded supermarket carpark

Business can be a force for good

Sustainability measures by business are crucial in helping mitigate and adapt to climate change. Production processes creating fewer greenhouse gas emissions help slow global warming. And when firms make products that require fewer natural resources (such as by using recycled materials), this lowers stress on global ecosystems.

In fact, our research shows businesses can be one of society’s most powerful actors in bringing about fast and furious change on environmental and social sustainability.

However a recent international survey by Deloitte found 54% of 75 surveyed Australian companies were downgrading sustainability initiatives during the pandemic.

This is a troubling figure, but below the global average of 65%. And, it should be noted, no surveyed organisation planned to stop their efforts completely and not resume, indicating the changes will not be permanent.

The results are not necessarily representative of the entire Australian business sector. But as a general rule, slowing the momentum on environmental initiatives increases business exposure to climate risk – and may affect future profitability. A firm’s environmental capabilities can take decades to hone.

They can involve complex strategies and years of consultations inside and outside the company. Stopping or slowing these actions can undo hard-earned gains.

Slowing the momentum on environmental initiatives increases business exposure to climate risk. Shutterstock

In recent years, the business community has increasingly recognised how climate change and other environmental damage poses a risk to their returns. These risks include:
  • extreme weather which disrupts operations, damages infrastructure and increases insurance costs
  • increased business costs due to scarcer resources
  • lower consumer demand for unsustainable products
  • stranded assets (those that can’t make a financial return due to changes in technology, regulation or the market)
  • reputation damage and shareholder backlash.
Rio Tinto experienced the latter last year after its disastrous decision to blow up two ancient rock shelters at Juukan Gorge. The move prompted public outrage and enraged shareholders forced the resignation of Rio’s chief executive, Jean-Sébastien Jacques. And shareholders in Australian energy giant AGL have urged its board to hasten the closure of its coal-fired power stations.

Sustainable business activities need not damage a business’ financial returns. This month it was reported that BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, had examined divestment by hundreds of funds and concluded the portfolios experienced “modest improvement in fund return”.

Protesters rally outside the Rio Tinto office in Perth earlier this year. RICHARD WAINWRIGHT/AAP

Flattening the climate curve

Rather than abandoning environmental initiatives, governments, businesses and societies should use the pandemic to reset our collective response to climate change.

For businesses, the pandemic presents a unique opportunity to rethink how they engage with their workforce. Do businesses really need all their energy-guzzling office buildings? Do their employees need to commute to work every day? Is international travel necessary? Can they pool scarce resources and work with competitors to gain traction on environmental issues?

For governments, this is a good time to seriously consider pricing carbon, which financially penalises high-emitting companies. Renewable energy is becoming more reliable each year – strengthening the case to move to a low-carbon economy.

Governments should also consider earmarking a decent fraction of further stimulus payments to encourage business action on climate change. After the global financial crisis in 2007-09, many national governments issued financial stimulus to kickstart economies. Pioneering electric carmaker Tesla emerged from one such stimulus loan in the United States.

And more broadly, as a capitalist society, must we continue on the path of incessant economic growth that is making our planet sick? Or can we use the pause caused by this pandemic to take a more sustainable route? 

The pandemic is a time to question the mantra of endless economic growth. Dean Lewins/AAP

A dry run

The COVID-19 pandemic can be viewed as a dry run for the impending climate crisis. But the size and scale of climate change demands much more sustained commitment and action than the pandemic. Successfully flattening the emissions curve will take decades, not months.

And the pain from climate change, while slower to arrive, will last much longer, and perhaps forever change civilisation as we know it.

Businesses have long been a big part of the climate problem. They, along with governments and society, cannot continue their uncoordinated, piecemeal response to climate change. This includes not dumping environmental initiatives when it all feels too hard.

Links

29/04/2021

(Forbes) How Renewables Could Kill Off Fossil Fuel Electricity By 2035: New Report

ForbesDavid Vetter

The 250-metre-high chimney of the former Steag power plant in Lünen, Germany, collapses. The plummeting costs of renewable energy could squeeze fossil fuels out of electricity generation entirely by 2035, a new report shows. dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images


Solar and wind energy have the potential to meet global electricity demand 100 times over, and the costs of these renewables are collapsing so rapidly that fossil fuels could be pushed out of electricity generation altogether by 2035, according to a report by a U.K. think tank.

The report, from London-based non-profit Carbon Tracker, reveals that solar and wind have the potential to produce thousands of petawatt hours (PWh) of electricity a year, while the world’s current electricity demand stands at just 27 PWh.

Furthermore, Carbon Tracker shows, if humans chose to get all their energy from solar power alone, the land required would take up just 450,000 km2—just 0.3% of the world’s total land area, and less than the space currently taken up by fossil fuel industry operations.

That option should not be necessary, as wind farms and other renewables are also producing an increasingly larger share of global energy capacity.

As Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson shows in his book 100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything, global energy demand could be met by using 0.2% of available land area for solar, and 0.5% for spacing between onshore wind turbines.

Carbon Tracker uses the findings to claim that “the fossil fuel era is over.” At current growth rates, it says, solar and wind power could price fossil fuels out of the world’s electricity markets by the mid-2030s, and by 2050 could replace fossil fuels entirely.

“We are entering a new epoch, comparable to the industrial revolution,” said Kingsmill Bond, Carbon Tracker’s lead strategist and the report’s author.

“Energy will tumble in price and become available to millions more, particularly in low-income countries. Geopolitics will be transformed as nations are freed from expensive imports of coal, oil and gas. Clean renewables will fight catastrophic climate change and free the planet from deadly pollution.”

The findings should not come as a complete surprise. Last year, the International Energy Agency found that solar power was now the cheapest electricity “in history,” in most major countries.

The International Renewable Energy Agency says the cost of electricity from solar photovoltaics fell 82% in the last decade, while the costs of onshore and offshore wind fell 39% and 29% respectively.

Yet right now, people are using only a fraction of the renewable energy available to them. The report notes that only 0.01% of the world’s solar potential is being utilized, and just 0.16% of wind potential is being exploited.

While many parts of the world have access to abundant solar and wind energy, in some regions these resources are super-abundant: nations in Sub-Saharan Africa, such as Namibia, Botswana and Ethiopia, have solar potential 1,000 times greater than their electricity usage.

 Indeed, Africa, Australia and South America have “huge technical potential compared to energy demand,” the report states.

The report helps bolster the case for the world’s energy decarbonization plans, including President Joe Biden’s plan to make U.S. electricity production carbon free by 2035.

Harry Benham, co-author of the report and chairman of the climate think-tank Ember, said: “The world does not need to exploit its entire renewable resource—just 1% is enough to replace all fossil fuel usage. Each year we are fuelling the climate crisis by burning three million years of fossilised sunshine in coal, oil and gas while we use just 0.01% of daily sunshine.”

The findings are also a reminder that as the economic potential of renewables grows, fossil fuel investments are becoming an increasingly risky prospect: last month, Carbon Tracker published a note showing that $640 billion in investments in fossil fuel firms had lost $123bn of their value between 2012 and 2020.

Links

(SciTechDaily) Experts Say Humanity Faces A Grim And “Ghastly Future” – State Of Planet Is Much Worse Than Most People Understand

SciTechDailyFlinders University

The global population could reach 10 billion by 2050; explosive population growth is contributing to a broad array of other challenges for the planet.

The state of the planet is much worse than most people understand and that humans face a grim and “ghastly future” unless extraordinary action is taken soon.

 A loss of biodiversity and accelerating climate change in the coming decades coupled with ignorance and inaction is threatening the survival of all species, including our very own, according to the experts from institutions including Stanford University, UCLA, and Flinders University.

The researchers state that world leaders need a ‘cold shower’ regarding the state of our environment, both to plan and act to avoid a ghastly future.

Lead author Professor Corey Bradshaw of Flinders University in Australia says he and his colleagues have summarised the state of the natural world in stark form to help clarify the gravity of the human predicament.

“Humanity is causing a rapid loss of biodiversity and, with it, Earth’s ability to support complex life. But the mainstream is having difficulty grasping the magnitude of this loss, despite the steady erosion of the fabric of human civilization,” Professor Bradshaw says.

“In fact, the scale of the threats to the biosphere and all its lifeforms is so great that it is difficult to grasp for even well-informed experts.

“The problem is compounded by ignorance and short-term self-interest, with the pursuit of wealth and political interests stymying the action that is crucial for survival,” he says.

Flinders University Professor Corey Bradshaw summarizes the perspective paper “Underestimating the challenges of avoiding a ghastly future.” Credit: Flinders University

Professor Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University says that no political or economic system, or leadership, is prepared to handle the predicted disasters, or even capable of such action.

“Stopping biodiversity loss is nowhere close to the top of any country’s priorities, trailing far behind other concerns such as employment, healthcare, economic growth, or currency stability.

“While it is positive news that President Biden reengaged the US in Paris Climate accord within his first 100 days of office, it is a minuscule gesture given the scale of the challenge.

“Humanity is running an ecological Ponzi scheme in which society robs nature and future generations to pay for short-term economic enhancement today.”

“Most economies operate on the basis that counteraction now is too costly to be politically palatable. Combined with disinformation campaigns to protect short-term profits it is doubtful that the scale of changes we need will be made in time,” Professor Ehrlich says.

Summary of major environmental-change categories expressed as percentages relative to the baseline given in the text. Red indicates the percentage of the category that is damaged, lost, or otherwise affected, whereas blue indicates the percentage that is intact, remaining, or otherwise unaffected. Credit: Bradshaw et al. LARGE IMAGE

Professor Dan Blumstein from UCLA says the scientists are choosing to speak boldly and fearlessly because life literally depends on it.

“What we are saying might not be popular, and indeed is frightening. But we need to be candid, accurate, and honest if humanity is to understand the enormity of the challenges we face in creating a sustainable future.

“Without political will backed by tangible action that scales to the enormity of the problems facing us, the added stresses to human health, wealth, and well-being will perversely diminish our political capacity to mitigate the erosion of the Earth’s life-support system upon which we all depend.

“Human population growth and consumption continues to escalate, and we’re still more focused on expanding human enterprise than we are on devising and implementing solutions to critical issues such as biodiversity loss. By the time we fully comprehend the impact of ecological deterioration, it will be too late.

“Without fully appreciating and broadcasting the scale of the problems and the enormity of the solutions required, society will fail to achieve even modest sustainability goals, and catastrophe will surely follow,” Professor Blumstein concludes.

Flinders University Professor Corey Bradshaw describes how humanity is running an ecological Ponzi scheme in which society robs nature and future generations to pay for short-term economic gain today. Credit: Flinders University

The experts say their ‘perspective’ paper, which cites more than 150 studies, seeks to outline clearly and unambiguously the likely future trends in biodiversity decline, mass extinction, climate disruption, planetary toxification, all tied to human consumption and population growth to demonstrate the near certainty that these problems will worsen over the coming decades, with negative impacts for centuries to come.

It also explains the impact of political impotence and the ineffectiveness of current and planned actions to address the ominous scale of environmental erosion.

Reference: “Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future” by Corey J. A. Bradshaw, Paul R. Ehrlich, Andrew Beattie, Gerardo Ceballos, Eileen Crist, Joan Diamond, Rodolfo Dirzo, Anne H. Ehrlich, John Harte, Mary Ellen Harte, Graham Pyke, Peter H. Raven, William J. Ripple, Frédérik Saltré, Christine Turnbull, Mathis Wackernagel and Daniel T. Blumstein, 13 January 2021, Frontiers in Conservation Science.

Links

(AU Business Insider) APRA Has Doubled Down On Its Climate Warnings, Urging The Business Community To Take Stock Of The 'Unprecented' Risks

Business InsiderDavid Adams

Matt Blyth/Getty Images

Key Points
  • Australia’s business community faces enormous risks if it remains ignorant to the impacts of climate change, APRA says.
  • The prudential regulator doubled down on its warnings on Wednesday as chair Wayne Byres addressed the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia.
  • Byres championed APRA’s new pilot climate vulnerability assessment, which will help Australia’s big banks assess their exposure.
Australia’s prudential regulator has doubled down on its climate change warnings, telling business leaders that unpreparedness is the greatest risk the environmental crisis poses to future investments.

Speaking before the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia on Wednesday, Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) chair Wayne Byres said the “unprecedented” risks posed by climate change are “increasingly very real, and immediate.”

The insurance sector is already keenly aware of climate change’s financial impact, Byres said, given the increasing severity of bushfires, flooding and cyclones in populated areas.

But Byres reiterated that further work is required to fully assess how climate change could wreak havoc on the nation’s business community.

Beyond the immediate risks posed by extreme climate variations, APRA has called for a renewed focus on climate-sensitive assets.

Drastic swings in government policy, precedents set by successful climate-based litigation, and shifting community attitudes could cause further havoc.

Byres used the speech to highlight APRA’s new pilot climate vulnerability assessment, which it hopes will help the regulator, and Australia’s big five banks, gain a clearer understanding of those risks.

“Our goal is to better identify and measure the links between climate science and financial risk within the context of existing industry risk assessment frameworks,” he said.

“Without this linkage, climate-related financial risk cannot be effectively considered nor managed by the Australian financial sector.”

The results of that pilot program are likely to be gathered later this year, Byres said.

APRA is hardly the first entity to sound the alarm on climate change and how it threatens Australian businesses.

Deloitte analysis from November 2020 states insufficient action could lead to $3.4 trillion in losses to Australia’s economy by 2070, and with it 880,000 job losses.

It is not all doom and gloom, however.

Byres said APRA’s draft prudential practice guide, revealed last Thursday, will also tune Australia’s business community into the “opportunities that a changing climate will generate, as new investment is needed, new technologies emerge, and economies and new businesses grow.”

In his address, Byres also said damaging cultural issues in the financial services industry and the threat of cyber attacks remain key concerns for APRA through 2021.

Even so, it appears APRA believes the heat is on.

“To sum up, our work on climate risks reflects our preventative, prudential role,” Byres added.

“Financial institutions exist to take risks, and our role is to make sure those risks – from whatever source – are identified, measured, monitored and (most importantly) managed.

“Climate risks pose some unique challenges, but the broad objectives for APRA are no different.”

Links

28/04/2021

(AU ABC) Scott Morrison's Climate Change Policy Is Being Left Behind By Corporate Action

ABC BusinessIan Verrender

Scott Morrison addressed the climate summit last week. (Reuters)

It's no easy task, attempting to make a virtue out of inaction.

So spare a thought for Prime Minister Scott Morrison in his address to US President Joe Biden's virtual climate conference with global leaders late last week.

Despite being at odds with the bulk of those present, many of whom upped already ambitious targets to hit net zero carbon emissions by a particular date, Mr Morrison was upbeat, confident and a man who sounded in command of his country's destiny.

Australia would focus on delivering the goods rather than making promises on the timing to a net zero carbon future, he declared. We are all about the how rather than the when, he said.

With the slimmest of majorities and a looming election, the Prime Minister's reticence to commit to anything concrete is understandable from a domestic political perspective. Climate policy has been a career killer for much of this century, with at least three Prime Ministers seen off by point-scoring rivals.

But there was one statement from the Prime Minister that hit the mark.

Our push to slash emissions, he said, would be driven by technology, innovation and our dynamic private sector.

It's difficult to disagree. Since 2005, the shambolic approach from Canberra — abrupt policy reversals, leadership vacuums, indecision and broken promises – has meant any progress Australia has made on climate policy has been driven almost entirely by a frustrated private sector increasingly alarmed about the prospect of being isolated by global investors.

Even so, despite boasting one of the greatest penetrations of rooftop solar in the world, and as ageing coal-fired generators are retired early in favour of renewables, our carbon emissions have fallen at a much slower clip than the US and Europe.

How bad is Australia when it comes to global warming?

Here is how we stand in terms of our output. This graph and the one below it measure our carbon emissions on a per capita basis, or as individuals.


Australia was near the top globally when it came to emissions per capita a couple of years ago.

As you can see, we are right up there, vying for Olympic gold.

And here is how we've gone on reducing those emissions.

We're still a world leader in CO2 emissions despite a reduction.

While our emissions have fallen, we are still world leaders on a per capita basis. And that's despite running a mass immigration policy that should have made our per capita numbers look much better.

Even China, where emissions grew strongly in the decade-and-a-half from the turn of the century, has begun to level off at less than half ours.

When it comes to overall emissions as a nation, however, China is the clear leader after it became the world's factory during the new millennium. But we still rank alongside the United Kingdom, despite our much smaller population. In fact, we're now level pegging with the Old Dart when it comes to carbon emissions.

The annual CO2 emissions of China, the US, European Union, Australia and the United Kingdom.

What price the future?


It was the Prime Minister's refusal to put a firm date on a carbon reduction target at the summit that attracted the most criticism.

It wasn't just the when, however, missing from the Prime Minister's address last week.

PM says Australia backs technology, not taxes, to tackle climate change

We certainly had the who; business and households. But despite his assurances on the direction, we didn't get much detail on the how.

There was a plan to spend $539 million on new clean energy projects including "hydrogen hubs". Still, apart from the trifling amount, it wasn't the strategy Mr Morrison's global peers were looking for.

But if they want to hear talk of carbon pricing, they may have to wait.

Traditionally, the Liberal Party has tended to rely upon free market mechanisms to achieve an economic end. Reducing red tape, cutting government spending, eliminating subsidies and individual choice have always been part of the mantra.

The Australian Labor Party, by contrast, is always accused of overspending and direct intervention with subsidies and government-funded programs.

When it comes to climate, however, those preconceptions have been turned on their ear.

Is green hydrogen the fuel of the future?

The Rudd Labor government committed itself to a carbon price and the succeeding Gillard Labor government introduced a carbon tax, that was to convert to a carbon price. The free market would determine our energy and climate future.

But the program was junked by the incoming Abbott government, which instead replaced the market mechanism with a subsidy, the Emissions Reduction Fund. That since has handed out close to $3 billion in taxpayer funds to polluters to encourage them to change their practices.

Malcolm Turnbull attempted to reintroduce a carbon price via his National Energy Guarantee, through a secondary trading mechanism between power companies. It was enough to tip the balance of power within the party — Mr Turnbull departed and Mr Morrison was installed as leader.

Not surprisingly, he last week was adamant that there would be no carbon tax, and no carbon pricing and, again, reverted to a direct government handout.

While we have no qualms about taxing the life out of tobacco, in a direct attempt to raise cash to cover the health costs associated with the drug and to send a price signal to deter Australians from smoking, a price on carbon is as far away as ever.

No carbon tax here — but maybe we'll pay anyway

More than 29 countries – including many in Europe, as well as Canada and parts of the United States – have a carbon price or tax in place, designed to send a signal to energy companies, polluters and consumers about how to invest in energy generation and industrial output.

Despite the policy vacuum, Australian households have become the world's greatest adopters of rooftop solar and our power companies now have accelerated their programs to retire the ageing fleet of coal-fired power generators, with Victoria's Yallourn the next to be axed early.

It's not difficult to understand why. Renewable energy is cheaper to install, and the economics of renewables with backup – either battery, stored hydro or gas – has now undercut coal. They are cheaper to build, operate and are far more flexible.

Even so, when it comes to electricity generation, a recent OECD report singled out our reliance on coal as a major source of concern.

Australia's reliance on coal is in the spotlight.

Without political leadership, Australian businesses risk being stranded by a global community that has embraced a carbon free future.

Longer term, thermal coal faces enormous challenges and even Liquefied Natural Gas – of which Australia recently has become one of the world's biggest exporters – now is being called into question as a fuel for the future.

AGL's recent decision to carve out its coal-fired generators into a separate unit, so that investors can choose between green energy unencumbered by its legacy power stations, is a sign of things to come.

More broadly, the European Union recently called for a carbon border tax – a penalty on goods imported from countries that do not have a carbon price.

While some of our leaders still debate climate change and energy policy as an ideological issue, the world is moving on. Australian businesses long ago realised it was an economic issue.

Links