(UK BBC) Climate Change: Courts Set For Rise In Compensation Cases

BBC News - Matt McGrath

Dutch environmentalists celebrate a recent victory over Shell in court. REMKO DE WAAL

There's likely to be a significant increase in the number of lawsuits brought against fossil fuel companies in the coming years, say researchers.

Their new study finds that to date, lawyers have failed to use the most up-to-date scientific evidence on the cause of rising temperatures.

As a result, there have been few successful claims for compensation.

That could change, say the authors, as evidence linking specific weather events to carbon emissions increases.

So far, around 1,500 climate-related lawsuits have been brought before the courts around the world.

There have been some notable successes for environmental groups, such as in a recent case against Shell decided by a civil court in the Netherlands.

Campaigners also took to the streets to support a successful case that the Dutch government was moving too slowly on climate change. NurPhoto

The judge ruled that, by 2030, the company must cut its CO2 emissions by 45% compared to 2019 levels.

The verdict also indicated that the Shell group is responsible for its own CO2 emissions and those of its suppliers.

However, there have been few successes in cases where the plaintiffs have sought compensation for damages caused by climate change linked to human activity.

This new study has assessed some 73 lawsuits across 14 jurisdictions and says that the evidence presented to the courts lagged significantly behind the most recent climate research.

Over the past two decades, scientists have attempted to demonstrate the links between extreme weather events and climate change, which are in turn connected to human activities such as energy production and transport.

These studies, called attribution science, have become more robust over the years.

For example, researchers have been able to show that climate change linked to human activities made the European summer heatwave in 2019 both more likely and more intense.

The remote Alaskan community of Kivalina brought a climate lawsuit against oil giant ExxonMobil claiming damages, but lost in court. Joe Raedle

A recent paper on Hurricane Sandy - the deadly storm that wreaked havoc from the Caribbean to New York in 2012 - showed that climate change was responsible for about 13% of the $62bn in losses caused by the event.

If peer-reviewed evidence like this was presented to the courts, the authors say, it would be easier to prove causality and make compensation claims more likely to succeed.

"Despite the clear role for attribution science evidence in these lawsuits, we found that the evidence submitted and referenced in these cases still lags considerably behind the state-of-the-art in climate science," said Rupert Stuart-Smith, the study's lead author and a PhD student at Oxford University.

"Crucially, we found that this is, in fact, impeding these causal claims."

"If some of these cases are successful, and the courts see a plausible route to justice or a plausible route to compensation, that would increase the likelihood that more and more communities will turn to the courts."

Sophie Marjanac, from the environmental law group ClientEarth, told BBC News: "As this science improves, the boards of individual fossil fuel companies should be preparing for their day in court, to respond to charges that they are to blame for increased natural disasters and disruptions to the planet's climate stability.

"And as this trend continues, we will also need to see courtrooms keep pace with the work of attribution scientists, so that their judgements are in line with the latest scientific evidence."

One farmer's fight

Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya. Anthony Kwan

Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya's case against the German energy giant RWE has been ongoing since 2014. Mr Lliuya claims that rising temperatures are melting a glacier, threatening his home in Huaraz, in the west of the country, with flooding.

The farmer has spent thousands of dollars trying to stem the waters to little avail. His case for compensation of around $17,000 was based on RWE being responsible for around 0.5% of global warming. While many experts believed the case was weak, in 2017, the courts in Germany recognised that there was merit to the questions that the farmer was raising.

Rupert Stuart-Smith commented: "That case has got further than any other before it on compensation, and it's now in an evidentiary phase where the court has essentially asked the question, is climate change really doing this?"

"And our suggestion is that plaintiffs can answer those questions in their submission to the courts."

The researchers point to the example of the link between smoking and lung cancer. The solid, scientific evidence was eventually accepted by the courts and the tobacco industry paid huge amounts in compensation as a result.

Oil, gas and coal producers are aware of these legal moves to use the most advanced science to prove responsibility - they are likely to do everything in their power to resist them.

"There's increasing concern within the fossil fuel industry, and among investors, that these cases seem to have merit and have a chance of success and the risk perception of investors in the fossil fuel industry could quite rapidly change [so that] emissions could become seen as liabilities," said Rupert Stuart-Smith.

"That could change the game in terms of understanding whether or not it makes sense to continue to dump carbon in the atmosphere, if doing so causes risk for your company."

The study has been published in the journal Nature Climate Change. 

Links

• Lethal Heating: Legal Posts
  
• (UK The Guardian) New Climate Science Could Cause Wave Of Litigation Against Businesses – Study
• Can climate litigation save the world?
• Court orders Royal Dutch Shell to cut carbon emissions by 45% by 2030
• Belgium’s climate failures violate human rights, court rules
• Ministers 'should urge public to eat less meat'
• Climate action is still hotly contested in Australia
• A billion new trees might not turn Ukraine green

(AU SMH) Failure To Model Costs Of Climate Change To Coal, Gas ‘Beggars Belief’

Sydney Morning Herald - Mike Foley | Nick Toscano

Australia’s 40-year economic outlook is forecasting dwindling demand for some of the nation’s most valuable exports including coal and natural gas after China, Japan and South Korea unveiled targets to achieve net-zero emissions.

But prominent think tank the Grattan Institute on Monday said it “beggars belief” that the Morrison government’s modelling failed to make projections about the scale of loss of export earnings or the impacts from global warming such as drought and natural disasters.

The federal government’s Intergenerational Report 2021 says Australia’s coal and gas exports are under threat from global climate commitments. Credit: Rob Homer

Australia’s mining and energy exports are expected to have hit a record-high of $310 billion this financial year.

The nation’s top export, iron ore, accounted for an all-time-high $149 billion, while fossil fuel exports of coal and liquefied natural gas (LNG) together accounted for $71 billion, helping to underpin the economy amid a worsening trade spat with China and a global pandemic.

However, the Treasury’s 2021 Intergenerational Report on Monday warned the emissions-intensive commodities’ export earnings would fall as global efforts to combat climate change accelerated.

It noted that countries had committed to net-zero emissions by 2050 including key trading partners Japan and South Korea, while China has committed to carbon neutrality by 2060.

“These commitments by other countries, if fully implemented, are likely to reduce demand for unabated fossil fuels over some decades,” it said.

---

Energy

Gas giants risk ‘going the way of coal’ as climate push heats up

Grattan Institute chief executive Danielle Wood criticised the landmark report for omitting more detailed projections of the magnitude of the losses, saying it “beggars belief that the federal government hasn’t made any attempt to think about it in a structured way”.

“It just makes no sense to run fiscal and economic scenarios out to 40 years without factoring in climate change,” Ms Wood said.

Ms Wood said the NSW government delivered credible cost estimates in its intergenerational report, released in April. It said more frequent and severe natural disasters fuelled by climate change are forecast to cost NSW between up to $17.2 billion a year by 2061. It also said the state’s coal sales would fall 44 per cent between 2030 and 2061.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said “some sectors will need to adjust to falling demand for some exports” as the economy shifted to lower carbon emissions, while new opportunities will open up in other sectors.

“The effects will depend on domestic and global actions, as well as the pace and extent of climate change,” Mr Frydneberg said in his speech launching the report.

An investor coalition backed by funds managing $2 trillion of assets on Monday said climate change loomed as the biggest economic theme of the century and “the outlook is shifting at an extraordinary rate”.

“There’s the impact of fires, and droughts, but also as countries take action on emissions, that’s going to impact our exports,” Investor Group on Climate Change policy director Erwin Jackson said.

After a ministerial reshuffle shunted federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt from Cabinet to the junior minister, Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) chief Andrew McConville said backing the resources sector must remain “high on the new Cabinet’s agenda”.

“The figures illustrate the importance of our sector to the economy and I am sure this won’t be lost on the highest levels of government,” he said.

---

Nationals

Nationals plan to pay farmers to cut emissions in deal on net zero

“We will continue to have a good working relationship with Resources Minister Keith Pitt and I am sure the new Cabinet also understands our industry is doing the heavy lifting at a time of great economic uncertainty arising from the pandemic.”

Mr McConville said the latest trade data, which showed mining and energy exports hit an all-time high in the past year, underscored the “importance of the commodities to Australia’s economy”.

Climate advocates on Monday seized on the report to attack the Morrison government for continuing to support the expansion of Australian fossil fuel production including its plans for a “gas-led” economic recovery from COVID-19.

“The Morrison government knows that fossil fuels are on borrowed time but it plans to continue squandering taxpayer money subsidising coal, oil and gas when it knows the market for them is rapidly shrinking and will eventually disappear,” Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s David Ritter said.

Links

• Three key predictions for Australia’s future: highlights from the intergenerational report
• (AU) The Treasury: 2021 Intergenerational Report
• Grattan Institute: Intergenerational reports ought to do more than scare us — they ought to spark action
• Climate change poses risk to Australia's financial stability, warns RBA deputy governor
• Reserve Bank: Climate Change and the Economy
• (AU) Australia Will Lose More Than $3 Trillion And 880,000 Jobs Over 50 Years If Climate Change Is Not Addressed, Deloitte Says
• (AU) Back Of The Pack: Australia Now The Worst OECD Country For Climate Change
• (AU) When Investors Won't Back Gas, Why Should Taxpayers?
• (AU) Minerals Council Slammed For “Woefully Inadequate” Climate Action Plan

(UK The Guardian) New Climate Science Could Cause Wave Of Litigation Against Businesses – Study

The Guardian - Fiona Harvey

Experts say scientific advances are making it easier to attribute the damages of climate breakdown to companies’ activities

Previous attempts to take companies to court for their carbon output have often run into trouble, as courts have rejected links between companies’ activities and specific damage to the climate. Photograph: Charlie Riedel/AP

Businesses could soon be facing a fresh wave of legal action holding them to account for their greenhouse gas emissions, owing to advances in climate science, experts have warned.

More than 1,500 legal actions have already been brought against fossil fuel companies whose emissions over decades have played a major role in building up carbon in the atmosphere.

Last month, in a shock ruling, the multinational oil and gas company Shell was ordered by a court in the Netherlands to cut its emissions by 45% in the next decade. Shell has said it will appeal against the decision. Earlier this month, a Belgian court ruled that the government’s failure to tackle the climate emergency was an infringement of human rights.

Rupert Stuart-Smith, researcher at the Oxford University sustainable law programme, and lead author of a new study, said more such cases were likely to be successful, as new science was making it possible to attribute the damages of climate breakdown more directly to companies’ activities.

“It’s no longer far-fetched to think that these companies can be taken to court successfully,” he said. “The strength of evidence is bolstering these claims, and giving a firm evidentiary basis for these court cases.”

That success could in turn unleash a further new wave of litigation, he said. “It’s possible that we will see precedents made that will make it easier to file future lawsuits on climate impacts.”

The impact was also likely to be felt in the form of less investment in companies with higher emissions, he said. “If more of these cases are successful, then corporate emissions could be seen as liabilities,” he told the Guardian. “There is concern in investor circles about the legal risk. This could have substantial consequences for investors.”

Previous attempts to take companies to court for their carbon output have often run into trouble, as courts have rejected links between companies’ activities and specific damage to the climate, or extreme weather events.

However, using more up-to-date science can overcome some of these difficulties, according to Stuart-Smith and colleagues, in a paper entitled Filling the Evidentiary Gap in Climate Ligitation, published in the peer-review journal Nature Climate Change on Monday.

The paper cited the case against oil giant ExxonMobil brought by the village of Kivalina in 2008 which was thrown out because judges found a lack of evidence linking the company to climate change and to specific harms suffered by the village. If there had been access to more recent scientific techniques, the report’s authors believe, the outcome might have been different.

The researchers examined 73 lawsuits around the world, and found that many failed to use the latest science in their evidence. They concluded that the chances of success of such litigants could have been improved if they had used the latest science, which is increasingly able to show clear links between companies’ activities giving rise to carbon emissions, and the damages caused by extreme weather.

“Limitations in scientific evidence in the past played a role in cases,” said Stuart-Smith. He called on lawyers to work more closely with scientists to ensure that the best evidence was being used.

The branch of climate study known as attribution science has moved on considerably in the last 15 years. It used to be possible only to say that increasing greenhouse gas emissions were very likely to have led to an increase in extreme weather around the world.

Today, scientists can say with great accuracy that specific events were caused or made much more likely by the climate crisis, and can attribute specific damages to the human actions involved in changing the climate. Scientists can also estimate how much certain companies, which are very large emitters, have contributed to make such events more likely.

For instance, research published last month found that the damages from Hurricane Sandy in 2012 were increased by at least $8bn from the impact of human actions on the climate, and another study found climate change responsible for $67bn of damage from Hurricane Harvey in 2017.

Links

• Lethal Heating: Legal Posts
• Can climate litigation save the world?
• Court orders Royal Dutch Shell to cut carbon emissions by 45% by 2030
• Belgium’s climate failures violate human rights, court rules
• Global warming made Hurricane Harvey deadly rains three times more likely, research reveals
• School climate strikers urge boycott of Science Museum show over Shell deal
• Climate crisis has shifted the Earth’s axis, study shows
• Climate crisis: world is at its hottest for at least 12,000 years – study
• Climate crisis will cause falling humidity in global cities – study
• Climate crisis making autumn leaves fall earlier, study finds
• Climate change made Siberian heatwave 600 times more likely – study
• World's beaches disappearing due to climate crisis – study
• Melting permafrost in Arctic will have $70tn climate impact – study

(AU SMH) This Time, The ‘Danger’ Sign Must Go Up

Sydney Morning Herald - Ove Hoegh-Guldberg

Author Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is Professor of Marine Studies at the University of Queensland. He is deputy director of the ARC Centre for Excellence in Coral Reef Studies.

There is a distinct possibility that one of our most treasured environmental assets, the Great Barrier Reef, will soon be listed by the World Heritage Committee as “in danger"⁣.

The listing “is designed to inform the international community of conditions which threaten the very characteristics for which a property was inscribed on the World Heritage List, and to encourage corrective action.″⁣

Examples of bleached coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. Credit: Jason South

Listing the reef as “in danger” was discussed a decade ago when it was noted “with extreme concern the approval of Liquefied Natural Gas processing and port facilities on Curtis Island”.

About the same time, long-term monitoring by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) reported a 50 per cent decline in coral populations over almost 30 years.

There were numerous other concerns as well. As a result of these growing threats, UNESCO and the International Union for Conservation of Nature were invited to visit the reef in March 2012, finding that declining water quality, expanding coastal development, cyclones and mass coral bleaching were affecting the reef.

Then came talk of adding the GBR to the “in danger” list. This led to a massive mobilisation by the Queensland and federal governments to convince World Heritage Committee members and the world that Australia had got the message and had taken significant steps to deal with issues such as water quality and limiting the number of industrial ports up and down the GBR coastline.

Adding the reef to the “in danger” list back then was premature, and giving the federal government the chance to implement changes was justified. As I wrote with University of Queensland legal scholar Justine Bell-James in 2014, it “would seem ill-advised that the World Heritage committee remove one of the only levers it currently has over the treatment of the World Heritage-listed GBR.

Work is underway to plant 100,000 healthy corals on reefs in the Cairns and Port Douglas region. Credit: James Brickwood

“The threat of an ‘in danger’ listing is a major incentive for Australia to improve its game, and has already prompted some reform.

With this lever gone, the influence of UNESCO would largely disappear along with, most probably, any political will to prevent the further decline of the once-pristine reef.”

Rightly or wrongly, we have not improved our game enough.

Fast forward to today and the overall health of the Great Barrier Reef has decreased from “poor” to “very poor” in the latest five-year Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report in 2019.

This comprehensive account of the state of the Great Barrier Reef concluded that climate change was its greatest threat, along with coastal development. According to the report, while some gains have been achieved, many gains are occurring too slowly or not at all.

Most significantly has been the rapid escalation of damage from climate change. In just the last five years, the Great Barrier Reef has experienced three record coral bleaching and mortality events. Taken together these impacts have killed at least 50 per cent of shallow water corals. The scale and the impact of these events has been nothing short of shocking.

So, after 10 years of further decline in almost all dimensions plus exceptional heatwave and bleaching impacts, I think that it is time to recognise that the reef is “in danger”.

Others feel that this is a beat-up that involves the 21 members of the Chinese-led World Heritage Committee. For the Minister Sussan Ley, this is about a government being broadsided by UNESCO processes.

For me, however, the science is telling us that we are not doing enough to ensure the recovery of the reef from decades of declining water quality, coastal development and climate change. It is a story about rapid environmental change driving our reef to rubble.

Australia will oppose a draft World Heritage Committee recommendation that Queensland's Great Barrier Reef be singled out for an "in danger" listing.

Importantly, this is also not a time to be giving up, but a time to accelerate our efforts to fix water quality, control crown of thorns starfish outbreaks, and deal comprehensively with the climate problem. We must seek new solutions – and we must also double down on driving Australia and the international communities to zero emissions as soon as possible.

Given the big impacts that are starting to occur on the Great Barrier Reef, we are heading into territory that will be hard to reverse. We must get to the zero carbon emissions as soon as possible, while helping our neighbours to do so as well.

---

Great Barrier Reef

Australia criticises United Nations warning that Great Barrier Reef is in danger

The good news is that we still have time, but only if we act deeply and fundamentally to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to put Australia on a pathway compatible with global warming of 1.5 degrees, which is a critical threshold for corals and many other systems.

The climate science tells us Australia must reduce its emissions to zero by 2035 or sooner.

After all, every tonne of carbon going into the atmosphere will cost us, whether as a loss of jobs and income, or the loss of the intangible benefits of a place like the Great Barrier Reef.

While the issue may be inconvenient for Australia’s leadership, it is a wake-up call to all of us that unless we take deep and serious action on climate change, we face the prospect of our World Heritage-listed Great Barrier Reef no longer being a coral reef paradise.

Links

• (AU ABC) Environment Minister Says Government Will Challenge UNESCO Move To List Great Barrier Reef As 'In Danger'
• (AU ABC) Coral Reefs Across The World 'In Danger' As Scientists Note Slowing Calcification
• (AU) Barrier Reef Doomed As Up To 99% Of Coral At Risk, Report Finds
• (AU) Great Barrier Reef Outlook 'Critical' As Climate Change Called Number One Threat To World Heritage
• (AU) 'There Is No Time To Lose': Great Barrier Reef Has Lost Half Its Corals
• (AU) Australia Cannot Wait For Climate Decision To Save Reef: Foundation

(ABC) US Cities Set Up 'Cooling Centres' As Historic Heatwave Bakes Pacific North-West

ABC News - ABC/wires

People sleep at a cooling shelter set up in Portland, Oregon. (Reuters: Maranie Staab)

Key Points Areas that normally experience mild weather are reaching temperatures in the mid-40s  Temperatures have soared due to a high-pressure dome The US National Weather Service says more unusual weather patterns could become more common amid rising global temperatures

Cities across the United States Pacific Northwest are setting up "cooling centres" where people can escape a record heatwave baking the region.

Daytime temperatures have been breaking records in places where many residents do not have air conditioning.

Shops have sold out of portable air conditioners, fans, water and sports drinks.

Cities have been reminding residents where pools and cooling centres are available and been urging people to stay hydrated, check on their neighbours and avoid strenuous activities.

"This is life-threatening heat," Jennifer Vines, health officer for Multnomah County in Oregon, said in a statement.

"People need to find some place cool to spend time during the coming days."

Multnomah County, which includes the state capital Portland, opened three cooling centres over the weekend, including one at the Oregon Convention Center in Portland. 

Sunday's forecast temperature of 44 degrees Celsius in Portland would break the temperature record of 42C, set just a day earlier. Another 44C day is predicted on Monday.

The temperature was expected to rise to an all-time record of 40C at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on Sunday and surpass that to reach 43.9C on Monday, as the excessive heat warning continues for the region.

And so it begins. A record temperature has already been equaled. The low in Seattle this morning was 64. This ties the record high minimum for the date from 2017.

If you're keeping a written list of the records that will fall, you might need a few pages by early next week. #wawx

— NWS Seattle (@NWSSeattle) June 25, 2021

At least one county closed several COVID-19 testing sites because of the heat.

Seattle opened additional public library branches on Sunday, and will again on Monday, to provide additional cooling centres, The Seattle Times reported.

Cooling centres have also been opened in parts of California and elsewhere in the Pacific north-west as the heatwave has gripped the region.

Temperatures had soared due to a high-pressure dome that had built over US and Canada's upper north-west, the National Weather Service said, similar to the atmospheric conditions that punished south-western states earlier this month.

The Salvation Army has been handing out bottled water. (Reuters: Karen Ducey)

The National Weather Service (NWS) in Coeur d’Alene said this week's weather would "likely be one of the most extreme and prolonged heatwaves in the recorded history of the inland north-west".

"Unprecedented heat will not only threaten the health of residents in the inland north-west but will make our region increasingly vulnerable to wildfires and intensify the impacts of our ongoing drought," the service said.

The high temperatures were forecast to move into western Montana beginning Monday.

Experts say extreme weather events such as the late-spring heatwaves that have descended on parts of the US this year cannot be linked directly to climate change.

But more unusual weather patterns could become more common amid rising global temperatures, NWS meteorologist Eric Schoening said. 

Links

• (USA NPR) The Drought In The Western U.S. Is Getting Bad. Climate Change Is Making It Worse
• Severe Drought, Worsened by Climate Change, Ravages the American West
• A very, very, very dry future for the U.S. West
• Drought stokes fears of severe fire season in West
• Drought Is the U.S. West’s Next Big Climate Disaster
• Large contribution from anthropogenic warming to an emerging North American megadrought
• Western U.S. may be entering its most severe drought in modern history
• Creeping toward Permanent Drought
• Megadrought emerging in western U.S. could be the worst in 1,200 years, study finds
• ‘Megadrought’ persists in western U.S., as another extremely dry year develops
• The megadrought parching 77 percent of the Western US, explained

(AU BBC) Climate Change: Why Action Still Ignites Debate In Australia

BBC - Shaimaa Khalil

Australia has seen weather extremes in recent years - from devastating bushfires to record floods. Image copyright Getty Images

Author Shaimaa Khalil is Australia Correspondent for BBC News. She holds a Master's degree in Broadcast Journalism from Westminister University.

In my first week as the BBC's new Australia correspondent in 2019, a state of emergency was declared in New South Wales. Bushfires blazed and came very close to Sydney.

The orange haze and the smell of smoke will forever be etched in my memory.

As the country woke to pictures of red skies, destroyed homes and burned koalas in smouldering bushland, the climate change debate came to the fore.

But this wasn't a scientific debate. It was political and it was partisan.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison did not answer questions about the issue, while then Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack dismissed climate concerns as those of "raving inner-city lefties".

That was my other big memory of my first week in Australia. The leadership - after years of drought and as blazes raged across the east coast - openly throwing doubt on the effects of climate change.

This was a tussle at the heart of Australian politics.

Climate change is a hotly charged issue here. It draws in the powerful fossil fuel industry and regional voters fearful for their livelihoods.

It's a subject that has ended political careers.

'Vacuum of leadership'

Throughout those months of the Black Summer fire season, Mr Morrison would face fierce criticism about how his government handled the situation - and how it continued to avoid the climate crisis.

The science around climate change is complex but it's clear. Yes, it was not the cause of any individual fire but experts agree it played a big role in creating catastrophic fire conditions; a hotter, drier climate contributed to the bushfires becoming more frequent and more intense.

An inquiry following the Black Summer fires said further global warming is inevitable over the next 20 years - and Australians should prepare for more extreme weather.

Still, Australia's government refuses to pledge net zero carbon emissions by 2050. This refers to balancing out any emissions produced by industry, transport or other sources by removing an equivalent amount from the atmosphere.

In his address to US President Joe Biden's climate conference in April, the prime minister said Australia will "get there as soon as we possibly can".

Climate change remains hotly contested ground in Australia. Image copyright Getty Images

"For Australia, it is not a question of if, or even by when, for net-zero but, importantly, how," Mr Morrison said.

That is at the heart of the problem. The "when" is as crucial as the "how" when it comes to climate change. Scientists and global leaders say Australia is not doing enough, and not going fast enough.

The country is embracing new green technologies, but that's often spearheaded by a frustrated private sector in the absence of central leadership.

"You have many businesses banding together and taking matters into their own hands," says Dr Simon Bradshaw, researcher at the Climate Council, an independent advisory group.

"Almost all of Australia's states and territories are committed to net zero emissions by 2050. It's really just that vacuum of leadership at the federal level," he says.

Dr Bradshaw says while much of the world pushes ahead with action on climate change, Australia is becoming "increasingly isolated".

The power of industry

As it resists tougher emissions targets, the Morrison government also continues to invest in the fossil fuel industry.

Last month it said it will fund a new gas-fired power plant in New South Wales' Hunter Valley, despite experts warning the plant makes little commercial sense long- term.

Mr Morrison recently told a conference of fossil fuel executives that oil and gas will "always" be a major contributor to the country's prosperity.

If you're watching this from the outside, you'd be forgiven for being surprised. But it makes sense from a domestic political perspective.

Australia is among the world's biggest exporters of coal, iron-ore and gas. This is the bedrock of the country's wealth and its thriving economy. It's proven to be political suicide to go against that.

"The fossil fuel lobby continues to be very powerful in Australia," says Dr Bradshaw.

With a slim majority and a looming election, Mr Morrison is aware of what a poisoned chalice climate action is here. This issue has ended the careers of leaders before him including predecessor Malcolm Turnbull, whose efforts to bring back a carbon price policy - a tax on polluting fossil fuels - led to his downfall.

Scott Morrison (L) is under pressure from his UK and US allies to impose tougher emissions reduction targets. Image copyright Getty Images

Mr Morrison also faces pressure from his coalition partners - the National party - and their block of voters.

Many National MPs, who represent rural Australia, have been public about their opposition to the government formally embracing a net zero emissions reduction target.

While still refusing to commit to a target, Mr Morrison has said he wants Australia to achieve net zero emissions "preferably" by 2050. That was enough to anger the Nationals and worry their constituents especially in regional mining communities.

The 'cost' of action

Part of why the politics around climate action is so toxic here is the way the narrative around it has been framed, says Australian National University climate scientist Dr Imran Ahmed.

"The message to the people [has been] that action on climate change is a cost, not an investment," he says.

"It is not jobs or the environment, it is both."

Dr Bradshaw says the country's concentrated media landscape has also shaped views around the climate emergency.

"It's been dominated by largely right wing, and conservative media, and particularly the Murdoch press that's had a heavy influence on public opinion and understanding of the climate crisis."

For regional voters, the messaging around a transition to cleaner energy has been confusing and unconvincing at best - or a cause for fear and anxiety about their future at worst.

"We have to be mindful of existing coal communities and the people that have jobs [in the fossil fuel industry].

"They need to be prepared with the necessary skills to transition into the new industries," says Dr Ahmed.

Some koalas were rescued from Australia's bushfires but many perished. (Report from September 2020)

Mr Morrison has been adamant that "technology not taxes" is the way forward - knowing the backlash he would face if he were to impose carbon pricing.

But scientists say technology on its own is not enough and that what is needed is a combination of all measures; reduction targets, new technology for clean energy and a carbon tax.

Mr Morrison is stuck between two unrelenting pulling forces; his own party and his governing coalition partner standing firmly behind the country's fossil fuel industry - and an increased international pressure from strategic allies like the UK and the US for tougher emissions reduction targets.

The first is about the prime minister's domestic political standing. The second is about Australia's standing in the world.

Links

• A visual guide to Australia's bushfire crisis
• Australia told to plan for 'simultaneous disasters'
• What is Australia doing to tackle climate change?
• Climate Change Performance Index (pdf)
• The Climate Question: Why is Australia so slow to act on climate change?
• Newsday: Unesco: Great Barrier Reef should be listed as 'in danger'
• Climate change: Why action still ignites debate in Australia
• The Science Hour: Australia’s fires - fuelled by climate change

(AU The Guardian) From Barnaby Joyce To The Great Barrier Reef, Coalition Climate Inadequacy Is On Parade

The Guardian - Greg Jericho

Australia’s government is still in denial, caught unawares by the tide of global opinion moving against it

‘The National party has just re-elected as its leader Barnaby Joyce, whose main policy position appears to be to ensure such a target is never set.’ Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

How the heck can this still be happening?

It’s 2021 and we have a government within sight of an election with no policy on climate change that endeavours to reach net zero emissions, and the National party has just re-elected as its leader Barnaby Joyce, whose main policy position appears to be to ensure such a target is never set.

Climate change denial continues to be the strongest force in Australian politics.

Instead of a target we have, as foreign affairs minister Marise Payne articulated so circuitously last week on Insiders, a “broad position of the Australian government that we want to achieve net zero emissions as soon as possible and preferably by 2050”.

That is a shift from their once saying they wanted to achieve it in the second half of this century – that’s what counts as progress in this country.

The whispers continue that the government is trying to come up with an actual target, but I am not Charlie Brown, so I’ll let others try to kick Lucy’s football.

At no point has this government done anything to make net-zero emissions achievable, let alone acknowledge that 2050 will be too late to limit temperatures to rising 2C above pre-industrial levels.

To be fair, there is no pressure on them to acknowledge this, given the Labor party is stuck on 2050, and most of the media also think it is some magical timeframe that will solve all climate change ills.

It’s rather apt, given the past 30 years, that governments around the world have finally settled on an emissions target that is sold as being wonderful and yet is manifestly inadequate.

I guess this is “the good” that should not be the enemy of the perfect.

Even more apt is that this inadequate target remains well beyond the scope of the Morrison government, especially now Joyce is back.

Inadequate is not enough.

It might be easy to forget, during a cold winter, or even as we exit a La Niña period, that the world continues to warm.

Over the past 50 years temperatures have risen within an ever-rising 0.3C range.



The problem is that while we are currently experiencing lower temperatures, they are lower only relative to the most recent El Niño period.

Over the past year global surface temperatures have been 1.1C above the average of the last part of the 1800s. That is below the record of 1.3C set in 2016, but is still warmer than any time before December 2015.

It’s not just that the hot years are getting hotter; the “cold” years are less cold.

It’s not just that the policy is inadequate, it is that the Morrison government continues to hope it will skate by on such a policy with no consequences.

Clearly it has been caught unawares by the tide of global opinion moving against our inadequacies.

We already have the EU and the G7 musing about carbon tariffs that almost seem designed with Australia in mind, and then this week came the news that Unesco has recommended the Great Barrier Reef world heritage site be listed as “in danger”.

Both these aspects highlight that climate change policy is actually economic policy. And you need to act right now – not in or “preferably by” 2050.

Environment minister Sussan Ley – the same person who in 2019 went for a snorkel on the reef and declared it “vibrant” – instead blamed Unesco’s processes and argued that it blindsided the Australian government – a charge Unesco strenuously disagrees with.

It is odd, however, that this could be a shock to anyone, given Graham Readfearn reported earlier this month that such a listing was very much on the cards, and the government’s own Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority had listed the reef as “very poor” back in 2019.

This decision not only points to our lack of action on climate change but also the Morrison government’s complete diplomatic failure.

Failure and inadequacy – the hallmarks of this government’s climate change policy since 2013.

Links

• The Coalition doesn’t want to focus on climate change – but Australia will be forced to
• (AU New Daily) Australian Farmers Line Up To Demand Action On Climate Change
• (AU) Australians Should Be Worried About Future Emissions. To Be Told Otherwise Is Absurd
• (AU New Daily) Alan Kohler: The Coalition’s Climate Change Argument Is Really Just About Freeloading 
• As Barnaby Joyce unleashes a new strain of climate denial, can Labor plug the credibility gap?
• (AU The Guardian) Guardian Essential Poll: Majority Of Voters Fear Australia Will Be Left Behind On Climate Change
•  (AU ABC) Environment Minister Says Government Will Challenge UNESCO Move To List Great Barrier Reef As 'In Danger'
• (AU) Energy Policy Paralysed As Nationals Firm Up Demands 

(NZ Herald) Green Hydrogen: New Zealand Scientists Edge Closer To Climate-Friendly Fuel Future

 NZ Herald - Jamie Morton

Green hydrogen is being used to fuel New Zealand's first hydrogen fuel cell bus, unveiled by Auckland Transport in March. Image / Auckland Transport

Scientists are edging closer to making green hydrogen a star of New Zealand's clean energy future, as the Government injects millions more dollars into a major research effort.

Green hydrogen has become a growing focus of New Zealand's "just transition" away from oil and gas because it can be created sustainably, using renewable energy or biomass.

It's being eyed as a climate-friendly way to generate electricity, power engines and heat homes and make fertilisers.

While hydrogen is produced around the world, nearly all of it is "brown" hydrogen - or that made from coal and natural gas, and the source of hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO2 emissions each year.

But green hydrogen can be made by using electrolysis from renewable energy sources, leaving little carbon footprint.

The biggest drawback?

It remains expensive to produce.

That's a barrier a GNS Science-led research programme is aiming to overcome, through pioneering new approaches to make the energy source affordable, efficient and plentiful.

With a $9 million boost through the Government's Advanced Energy Technology Platform (AETP), scientists will push ahead in developing three ways to make green hydrogen.

That includes creating it from water using an electrolyser - currently the most common approach - but also using energy directly from sunlight to split the water, as well as high-energy plasma.

Already, GNS scientists have been working to improve a system of water electrolysis called polymer exchange membrane, or PEM.

In contrast to the more commonly used "alkaline" electrolyser, PEM is better suited to working with the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources like wind and solar that could provide electricity for hydrogen production.

While it has the advantage of being readily adaptable to large-scale hydrogen production, PEM systems still rely on catalysts based on metals that are rare, expensive or inefficient – and which ultimately make green hydrogen more expensive than fossil fuels.

GNS Science scientists (from left) Dr John Kennedy, Dr Michelle Cook and Dr Jerome Leveneur are working to make green hydrogen a viable future energy source for New Zealand. Image / GNS Science

The project's leader, Dr John Kennedy, said New Zealand had a chance to be a "world leader" in the production and export of green hydrogen – shifting us from an importer to an exporter of energy.

Currently, New Zealand brought in about 60 per cent of its energy in the form of oil and coal - and green hydrogen offered a chance to make the country more self-sufficient. Specifically, hydrogen could replace fossil fuels for stationary power and transport industries that contributed 40 per cent of our greenhouse gas emissions.

"We'll be working with partners from across New Zealand and around the world, developing our industry capability and creating innovative solutions which will lead to a globally-connected green hydrogen economy," Kennedy said.

The project also aims to scale up the hydrogen industry by training engineers, scientists and technicians.

"The AETP funding will include grants, scholarships and placements to develop skills in the green hydrogen industry – to ensure that qualified people are available to fill the jobs that will be created as the industry grows," GNS Science energy materials scientist Dr Michelle Cook said.

"We're particularly focused on partnerships with iwi and wananga, to support the learning and development of rangatahi Māori in the energy sector."

The horizon-scanning H2 Taranaki Roadmap, produced by local agencies, has already forecast that hydrogen will be increasingly produced using electricity to split water, with the only emission being oxygen.

The report found hydrogen could be utilised as a fuel, particularly for heavy vehicles, as a feedstock for products such as urea or methanol, or to store electrical energy for long periods of time from weeks to years.

A new network could include storage of hydrogen or synthetic natural gas in depleted gas fields, it said, and electricity generation using green hydrogen in Taranaki's gas-fired peaker plants.

Earlier this year, New Zealand and German scientists joined forces in a new research alliance focused on advancing green hydrogen technology.

And last month, Christchurch-headquartered cryocooler developer AFCryo unveiled a new production system to provide a cheaper and more reliable way of generating green hydrogen.

Links

• NZ scientists in $8m bid to make 'green' hydrogen a reality - NZ Herald
• BOC to supply 'green' carbon-free hydrogen to NZ Steel at Glenbrook - NZ Herald
• Government releases plans for green hydrogen to curb greenhouse gas emissions - NZ Herald
• Hydrogen: The ultimate green fuel, or industry hype? - NZ Herald
• Is this what the clean, green future of NZ energy looks like? - NZ Herald
• 'Green' hydrogen: Could it save Taranaki's energy industry? - NZ Herald
• Wheels on the bus go round - powered by green hydrogen - NZ Herald

( Axios ) Global Warming Makes Extreme Weather A Regular Event

Axios - Andrew Freedman

Earth's climate has drastically
shifted in three decades

Global average temperature anomalies during 1981-1990 and 2011-2020, compared to 1981-2010 average.

Data: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Graphic: Axios Visuals

The climate change the planet has seen so far, now that the world has warmed by about 1.2°C (2.16°F) since the preindustrial era, is already resulting in unprecedented and destructive events worldwide.

Why it matters: In the past few decades alone, climate change has shifted from a far-off problem disconnected from our day-to-day lives to a crisis to be grappled with here and now.

• From the dried-out landscape of the Southwest to the rapidly warming Arctic, the shifts we've already seen have resulted in what some researchers call "weather weirding," as deadly and damaging weather events supercharged by global warming strike with increasing regularity.

The details: A look at just the past few years shows a climate that's already separated from the conditions that existed when millennials were born starting in the 1980s.

• The last colder-than-average month globally, compared to the 20th century average, was February 1985. Each of the past three decades has been hotter than the one before it.
• All the 10 warmest years have occurred since 2005.
• The oceans, which absorb most of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases, are warming so rapidly that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's chart of ocean heat content has had to be continually adjusted upwards to accommodate the new readings.

Extreme events: Climate change has manifested itself in the form of extreme weather and climate events that have cost lives and property.

• During 2020, California saw its worst wildfire season on record, with massive fires also occurring in other Western states as well as Siberia and Australia, among other areas.
• Due to human-caused global warming, heat waves are becoming more severe and longer-lasting across large portions of the globe, from the American Southwest to the Middle East.
• A burgeoning scientific field known as extreme event attribution focuses on the links between climate change and extreme weather events, with some of these studies showing that individual events could not have occurred without human-caused global warming.
• Sea level rise is leading to a dramatic increase in so-called "sunny day flooding" — floods caused by high tides combined with higher sea levels rather than weather — in major cities along the East Coast of the U.S., a trend that is forecast to continue.

What's next: The summer of 2021 is a prime example of the costly extreme weather that's becoming the norm, with a severe drought in the West combining with record heat waves to create ideal conditions for wildfires in much of the region.

Yes, but: Studies show that the more we cut emissions of greenhouse gases — especially if we do it quickly — the better our chances are of averting truly catastrophic consequences of climate change, such as the collapse of the Greenland or West Antarctic Ice Sheets.

• Upcoming climate negotiations in November are aimed at securing enough emissions reduction commitments to avert such disastrous outcomes.
• However, even if all emissions were to stop today, the long atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide — on the order of 1,000 years per each molecule — means that we will have to cope with climate change's effects for the rest of our lives.
• Because of this, adaptation efforts are underway to make society more resilient to climate shocks.
• Also, the relentless and steep upward march of emissions has plateaued to some degree, though the necessary cuts have not yet begun.

The bottom line: How severe the effects will be is largely up to us. Innovation in the energy sector to create the clean technologies of the future, as well as the resources we already have available, such as wind, solar and battery technology, mean we can cut emissions by large amounts starting now, depending on the political will. 

Links

• Biden's ticking climate clock
• The next major climate science report: What to expect
• Exclusive poll: America catches up with climate science
• Business looks for traction in the new Beltway
• UN climate summit faces serious roadblocks