The increasing frequency of dead zones will affect billions of people who
rely on the ocean for survival
Thousands of dead fish float in the Boca Ciega Bay located near the
mouth of Madeira Beach in July 2021 in Madeira Beach, Florida. Ocean
water that has lost much of its oxygen content has led to such die
offs of marine life in Florida and other parts of the US.
Credit: Octavio Jones/Getty Images
Last summer, more than 100 miles of Florida’s coastal waters became an
oxygen-depleted dead zone, littered with fish that could be seen even into Tampa
Bay. On the other side of the country, Dungeness crabs were washing onto
Oregon’s shoreline, unable to escape from water that has, in dramatic episodes,
become seasonally depleted of oxygen over the past two decades.
While
much of the conversation around our climate crisis focuses on the emission of
greenhouse gases and their effect on warming, precipitation, sea level rise and
ocean acidification, little is said about the effect of climate change on oxygen
levels, particularly in oceans and lakes. Water without adequate oxygen cannot
support life, and for the three billion people who depend on coastal fisheries
for income, declining ocean oxygen levels are catastrophic.
As ocean and atmospheric scientists focused on climate, we believe that oceanic
oxygen levels are the next big casualty of global warming. To stop this, we need
to build on the momentum of the recent COP26 summit and expand our attention to
the perilous state of oceanic oxygen levels—the life support system of our
planet. We need to accelerate ocean-based climate solutions that boost oxygen,
including nature-based solutions like those discussed at COP26.
As the amount of CO2 increases in the atmosphere, not only does it
warm air by trapping radiation, it warms water. The interplay between oceans and
the atmosphere is complex and interwoven, but simply,oceans have taken up about
90 percent
of the excess heat created by climate change during the Anthropocene. Bodies of
water can absorb CO2 and O2, but only to a temperature-dependent
limit.
Gas solubility decreases with warming temperatures; that is,
warmer water holds less oxygen. This decrease in oxygen content, coupled with a
large-scale die-off
of oxygen-generating phytoplankton resulting not just from climate change, but
from
plastic pollution
and industrial run-off, compromises ecosystems, asphyxiating marine life and
leading to further die-offs. Large swaths of the oceans have lost 10–40 percent
of their oxygen, and that loss is
expected to accelerate
with climate change.
The dramatic loss of oxygen from our bodies of water is compounding
climate-related feedback mechanisms described by scientists in many fields,
hundreds of whom signed the
2018 Kiel Declaration on Ocean Deoxygenation. This declaration has culminated in the new Global Ocean Oxygen Decade, a
project under the U.N.
Global Ocean Decade
(2021–2030).
Yet, despite years of research into climate change and
its effect on temperature, we know comparatively little about its effect on
oxygen levels and what falling oxygen levels, in turn, may do to the atmosphere.
To address this unfolding crisis, we need more research and more data.
In the past 200 years, humans have shown remarkable ability to change the planet
by altering the timescales in which the Earth cycles chemicals such as
CO2. We need to evaluate any possible solutions for their impact on
not just greenhouse gases but other critical elements of life, such as oxygen
levels.
As the financial world invests in climate change solutions
focused on CO2 drawdown, and possibly including future
geoengineering efforts
such as iron fertilization, we run the risk of causing secondary harm by
exacerbating oxygen loss. We need to evaluate potential unintended consequences
of climate solutions on the full life support system.
Beyond enhanced monitoring of oxygen and the establishment of an oxygen
accounting system, such an agenda encompasses fully valuing the ecosystem
co-benefits of carbon sequestration by our ocean’s seaweed, seagrasses,
mangroves and other wetlands. These so-called “blue carbon” nature-based
solutions are also remarkable at oxygenating our planet through photosynthesis.
The theme of COP26 chosen by the host country (U.K.) was
“nature-based solutions.” And we saw a lot of primarily terrestrial focused
(forestry) initiatives and commitments that are an excellent step forward. We
hope this year’s conference and next year’s COP27 help oceanic nature-based
solutions to come into their own, propelled by the U.N. Global Ocean Decade.
Putting oxygen into the climate story motivates us to do the work to understand
the deep systemic changes happening in our complex atmospheric and oceanic
systems. Even as we celebrated the return of humpback whales in 2020 to an
increasingly clean New York Harbor and Hudson River,
dead fish
littered the Hudson River in the summer as warmer waters carried less oxygen.
Ecosystem changes connected to physical and chemical systems-level
data may point the way to new approaches to climate solutions—ones that
encompass an enhanced understanding of the life support system of our planet and
that complement our understanding of drawdown to reduce emissions of carbon
dioxide. Roughly 40 percent of the world depends on the ocean for their
livelihoods. If we do not stop marine life from oxygen-starvation, we propagate
a further travesty on ourselves.
Human activity is causing
Earth's atmosphere to heat up much quicker than any changes which might
happen naturally, leaving many ecosystems at breaking point.
While
November's COP26 summit was the first time a global climate deal
explicitly identified fossil fuel consumption as a major driver of
climate change, climate experts have warned it has not gone far enough
to limit global warming to "well below" 2C. centigrade compared to
pre-industrial levels—a key level of the 2015 Paris Agreement.
So which countries are taking action, and which are not?
Scientific
analysts Climate Action Tracker (CAT) have examined government policy
of 40 countries that account for the vast majority of global greenhouse
gas emissions.
Its
analysis indicates less economically developed countries are struggling
the most to combat the effects wrought by their richer neighbors.
At
present, only a small group of developed markets are leading on
research, innovation and public funding, according to Steve Varley, EY
Global's vice chair of sustainability.
He told Newsweek that governments need to work more collaboratively and alongside businesses to drive change.
"A
small group of developed markets are leading the way in terms of
climate research, innovation and public funding, at a time when not
enough 'green money' is flowing to emerging markets where the impacts of
climate change are felt the most," he said.
The Very Worst
("Critically Insufficient" Countries)
CAT
notes this indicates a country's climate policies and commitments
reflecting minimal to no action and are not at all consistent with the
Paris Agreement.
Iran
Iran is one of the few countries that has not yet ratified the Paris Agreement, ArefBarahuie/Getty Images
Iran is one of the few countries that has not
ratified the Paris Agreement, and this effect has been compounded by an
economic crisis resulting from
International sanctions in place
since 2018, has meant a decrease in the export of fossil fuel oil, yet
there has been a sluggishness in embracing eco-friendly policies.
Economic
effects of sanctions and the COVID-19 pandemic has slowed climate
policy developments further,according to CAT analysts.
Russia
Although Russia in November 2020 proposed reducing its emissions by a minimum of 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, CAT describes this target as not representing an increase in climate actionlapandr/Getty Images
In November 2020, Russia proposed reducing its emissions by a minimum of 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
But
CAT analysts do not assess the target as an increase in climate action,
"as it is simply the lower bound of the previous target's range
(25-30%)."
U.S. President Joe Biden criticised Russia—the world's fifth-largest carbon dioxide (CO2) emitter—for not attending the COP26 climate summit.
CAT
states: "Russia needs to set a more ambitious target for emissions
reductions, adopt and implement additional policies, and provide
additional finance."
Singapore
Singapore’s climate policies and commitments are deemed to reflect "minimal to no action", which are considered by the climate activist "not at all consistent with the Paris Agreement."danaibe12/Getty Images
Singapore's climate policies and commitments
reflect "minimal to no action," according to CAT. Government policy here
is "not at all consistent with the Paris Agreement," it said.
The
island city-state in Southeast Asia is also believed to be overly
reliant on natural gas, which CAT estimates provides 96 percent of the
country's electricity.
CAT
writes: "If all countries were to follow Singapore's approach, warming
could reach over 3C and up to 4C"—twice the upper target of the Paris
Agreement.
Thailand
Thailand's overall climate performance is described by CAT as "weak despite some good intentions."torwai/Getty Images
CAT analysts call Thailand's overall climate performance "weak despite some good intentions."
Thai
leaders have pledged to shift away from a dependency on coal to natural
gas over the next 20 years, but little change has been witnessed so
far.
CAT writes: "Until the next wave of Thailand's climate
strategies and its accompanying mitigation policies are implemented and
strengthened, the CAT rates Thailand's climate targets and policies as
"critically insufficient."
Turkey
Turkey is described as sitting "at a crossroads" regarding its energy futureHuseyin Bostanci/Getty Images
Turkey is "at a crossroads" regarding its energy future, CAT analysts say.
President
Erdoğan's government intends to decrease dependency on gas imports
through increased renewable energy capacity, but at the same time plans
to continue to use domestic coal for the foreseeable future.
CAT
writes: "Turkey's emissions will increase significantly under current
policies. This first NDC [Nationally Determined Contributions] is so
weak that it allows GHG [Green House Gas] emissions to essentially
double compared to current levels.
Vietnam
Vietnam lacks policies for a transition to a low-carbon economy and has not focused efforts on emissions reductionsKittikorn/Getty Images
Vietnam lacks policies for a transition to a
low-carbon economy and has not focused efforts on emissions reductions,
according to the analysts.
While the country's renewable energy
policy has witnessed "positive developments," CAT considers these
outweighed by "plans for continuing the expansion of fossil fuels."
It
writes: "Vietnam is further off track when compared with modelled
domestic pathways and the extent of reductions that need to be taking
place inside its borders with international support."
Extremely Poor Performing
"Highly Insufficient" Countries
Note
CAT rates these countries policies and actions are considered to lead
to "rising, rather than falling, emissions" tabulating to global
temperatures rising "up to 4C by end of the century."
Argentina
Argentina’s policies and actions are considered "not at all consistent with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C temperature limit."Christian Peters/Getty Images
Argentina's
policies and actions are considered "not at all consistent with the
Paris Agreement's 1.5C temperature limit," by CAT analysts.
Beset
by economic trouble, the country failed to introduce a single green
measure of note in its latest recovery stimulus plan, according to the
researchers.
Former President Mauricio Macri's government declared
a "climate emergency" in 2019, but little action has been taken since,
analysts found.
Australia
Australia is one of several COP26 nations unsupportive of agreeing to the request for all countries to return next year with stronger commitments to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 2030Tim Allen/Getty Images
Australia was one of several countries which
proved unsupportive of COP26 plans to strengthen 2030 targets at next
year's summit in Egypt.
CAT writes: "GHG emissions in Australia have dipped due to a range of factors, but effective climate policy is not one of them."
Brazil
Although Brazil's Bolsonaro missed the COP26 summit, South America's largest country pledged to reduce methane emissions and, most notably, end illegal deforestation by 2030MaRabelo/Getty Images
Although Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro
missed the COP26 summit, South America's largest country pledged to
reduce methane emissions and, most notably, end illegal deforestation by
2030.
However, CAT is still critical of Brazil, writing: "There
are significant gaps in Brazilian policymaking for halting emissions
growth, and Brazil's deforestation remains a serious cause for concern."
Canada
Canada has borne the brunt of climate impacts, from brutal heat waves to devastating forest firesChristopher Knox Photography/Getty Images
Canada has often borne the brunt of climate change, from brutal heat waves to devastating forest fires.
But
while describing recent climate policy developments as "positive," CAT
deems these to be "insufficient" to address the climate crisis.
The
analysts add: "If fully implemented, Canada's current policies are not
enough to achieve this target and are only in line with 4C warming.
Canada is also not meeting its fair-share contributions to climate
change and in addition to strengthening its targets and policies also
needs to provide additional support to others."
China
City in the fog, China's Guangzhousuperjoseph/Getty Images
An agreement between China and the U.S., the
world's two biggest carbon polluters, to boost climate cooperation over
the next 10 years, was one of the most striking headlines from the COP26
climate summit.
Ahead of the summit, China officially submitted its carbon neutrality "before 2060" target.
However,
CAT notes there is still space to accelerate China's green revolution,
writing: "To improve on its rating and become compatible with 2C
('Almost sufficient'), China would need to peak emissions as early as
possible, and decrease coal and other fossil fuel consumption at a much
faster rate than currently planned —and set clear phase-out timelines."
Colombia
Colombia has previously announced reducing emissions from deforestation is a vital part of its climate actionArturo Rosenow/Getty Images
The South American country with a population of
almost 51 million people has previously said reducing emissions from
deforestation is a vital part of its planned climate action.
However, while Colombia does have mitigation targets for energy and transport, CAT states that "further action is needed."
India
The banks of Yamuna River polluted with garbage and beautiful Taj Mahal in the backgroundModernNomads/Getty Images
Political pressure exerted by India and China
reportedly resulted final COP26 deal promising only to "phase down"
instead of "phase out" coal.
However, CAT notes the difficulties
of still developing countries such as India to meet the commitments of
its wealthier neighbors, writing: "India has been severely impacted by
COVID 19 during the second wave in the first half of 2021, which has
further reduced the resilience of climate change vulnerable populations
already at risk of displacement by storms, floods, droughts and other
climate disasters."
Indonesia
Following COP26, Indonesia introduced new rules on carbon trading to introduce a market mechanism to achieve the southeast Asian country's greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2030Koldunov/Getty Images
Following COP26, Indonesia introduced new rules
on carbon trading to introduce a market mechanism to achieve the
southeast Asian country's greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2030.
However, the CAT analysis suggests emissions will still "continue to accelerate away from Paris compatible levels."
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan has been rated "highly insufficient" by CAT as its "climate policies and commitments are not consistent with any interpretation of a fair-share contribution and lead to rising, rather than falling, emissions."Sergey Panikhin/Getty Images
The Central Asian, former Soviet state has been
rated "highly insufficient" by CAT, which argues that its "climate
policies and commitments are not consistent with any interpretation of a
fair-share contribution and lead to rising, rather than falling,
emissions."
This forecast is despite Kazakhstan's falling fossil fuel production due to the pandemic.
Mexico
A shot of the Mexico City landscape engulfed in smog, a continuing concern for Mexico’s citizensE_Rojas/Getty Images
CAT rates Mexico's climate targets and policies "highly insufficient," but with one exception.
Mexico's conditional Nationally Determined Contributions target, "roughly stabilises emissions at today's level," it states.
During
the pandemic, the Mexican Ministry of Energy published a bill
effectively halting private renewable energy investment in the country,
prioritising the government's own ageing, fossil fuel-fired power
plants.
New Zealand
Although New Zealand is in the minority of countries with a net-zero emissions 2050 target goal enshrined in law, with its Zero Carbon Act, its short-term policies are thought unable to keep track with this ambitiondarrensp/Getty Image
New Zealand has a net-zero emissions 2050
target goal enshrined in law, but its short-term policies are considered
by CAT to be unable to keep track.
CAT writes: "New Zealand is
increasingly relying on the mitigation potential of the land use and
forestry sector to meet its target rather than focusing efforts on
reducing emissions from high emitting sectors."
Saudi Arabia
Despite perceived improvements in Saudi Arabia’s commitment to climate action, CAT declares on its site these "commitments do not resolve concerns about its role as one of the world’s leading fossil fuel exporters."the.epic.man/Getty Images
Despite perceived improvements in Saudi
Arabia's commitment to climate action, CAT declares on its site that
these "commitments do not resolve concerns about its role as one of the
world's leading fossil fuel exporters."
CAT writes of the Middle
Eastern Country: "Its updated Paris Agreement pledge is explicitly based
on a scenario with substantial fossil fuel exports and has a "get out
clause" if international climate change policies negatively affect these
exports.
"Shortly before the Saudi government released its
updated emissions pledge, the national oil company Saudi Aramco
announced it would aim to increase oil production capacity during this
decade."
South Korea
Although there are positive signs of progress in the East Asian nation, CAT believes South Korea "lacks the necessary speed and stringency it needs to get onto a pathway compatible with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C temperature limit."Olezzo/Getty Images
Although there are positive signs of progress
in the East Asian nation, CAT believes South Korea "lacks the necessary
speed and stringency it needs to get onto a pathway compatible with the
Paris Agreement's 1.5C temperature limit."
This is despite the
fact South Korea's 2020 share of coal-fired power generation decreased
from 43 percent to 39 percent, as fossil fuels still account for a "very
large" amount, thought to be more than two-thirds of the supply.
United Arab Emirates
An unidentified person walking on a deserted road covered by sand dunes with the Dubai Skyline in the background. Dubai, United Arab EmiratesTravel Wild/Getty Images
The U.A.E's development of large renewable and
nuclear energy projects shows signs of hope, but the Middle Eastern
state's emissions are projected to continue growing because of the
continued expansion of its fossil fuel-based sources of electricity.
CAT
writes on its site: "In line with its energy strategy, which projects
coal reaching a 12 percent share of total electricity generation in
2050, in May 2020 the UAE completed the first unit of its inaugural 2.4
GW coal-fired power plant.
"The construction of new coal-fired
generation is inconsistent with the need to phase out coal from
electricity production in the Middle East by 2034 in order to limit
warming to 1.5C."
Ukraine
Environmental forecasts for Ukraine have painted a slight bleaker prognosis for Ukraine, as emissions were projected to be one percent higher than their pre-COVID-19 estimationsInside Creative House/Getty Images
Environmental forecasts for the country have
painted a slight bleaker prognosis for Ukraine, with emissions projected
to be 1 percent higher than pre-COVID-19 estimations.
This is despite the Ukrainian government approving its Economic Stimulus Program to help stabilise the economy in May 2020.
This picture taken on November 4, 2021 shows steam rising from
cooling towers of the power generating plants in the town of
Singleton, some 70km (43 miles) from Newcastle, the world’s largest
coal exporting port. Saeed Khan | AFP | Getty Images
But he added that he would not legislate the goal and instead would rely on
consumers and companies to drive reductions in emissions.
It was the kind of half measure that climate activists worried would carry over
to the
COP26 summit, the recent United Nations climate talks in Glasgow. They said it did.
“Australia’s ambition for COP26 was to get away with it. To do as little as
possible,” said
Richie Merzian, who previously spent a decade as an Australian government COP negotiator and
now works as the climate and energy program director at The Australia Institute,
an independent public policy think tank.
Fondly known as the sunburned country due to its vast stretches of dry and
barren terrain, Australia has long been under fire as one of the world’s top
producers of coal and gas, and narrowly dodged being labeled the summit’s
villain.
While the country remains a
key U.S. ally amid tensions with China, it has done little in recent years to suggest it will be a leading partner in
the fight against climate catastrophe, despite its pride in its abundant native
wildlife and numerous environmental treasures. Its actions at the climate
conference did little to assuage environmentalists’ concerns.
Critics say Australia’s net zero announcement was a hollow promise and that the
country’s attendance at the
global summit
only showed that the current conservative government is more wedded to fossil
fuel interests than tackling climate change in any substantive way.
“They wanted to neutralize the critique that they aren’t doing anything on
climate” by showing up but did little beyond that, Merzian said in a phone
interview from Glasgow during the closing days of the summit.
David Ritter, CEO of Greenpeace Australia Pacific, was also scathing in his
criticism of how Australia fared at the climate summit.
“The position the Morrison government took to Glasgow was an embarrassment,
deeply inadequate, and wildly insufficient as the climate crisis accelerates in
front of our eyes,” he said in an email from Sydney after the summit.
NBC News reached out to Morrison’s office for comment and was referred to public
comments by Angus Taylor, the minister for industry, energy and emissions
reduction.
“Under our Plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, we will act in a
practical, responsible way to reduce emissions and build on our track record of
achievement — reducing emissions while growing our economy, maintaining
affordable, reliable energy and ensuring our regions remain strong. That’s the
Australian way,” Taylor
said in a joint statement
with Marise Payne, the minister for foreign affairs, after the climate summit.
Mining has been a major driving force in Australia’s economy since it was a
British colony in the early 1800s, but coal production truly expanded after
World War II and the industry is still a major employer in many rural
communities.
The country is one of the world’s largest emitters of
greenhouse gases
on a per capita basis and ranks as the world’s third largest fossil fuel
exporter, behind only
Russia
and
Saudi Arabia.
Australia needs ‘national leadership’ to drive climate action: Climate
Council
Coal power then became a major point of contention in the closing hours of the
conference, when delegates from China and India
insisted on watering down the final language
of the COP26 deal and replacing a commitment to “phase out” coal with the term
“phase down.”
And despite
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s assertion that Glasgow had effectively sounded “the death knell for coal
power,” Morrison reiterated his country’s commitment in the wake of the summit,
saying the coal industry will be working in Australia for “decades to come.”
Australia’s lack of action on the issue sets a bad example for other countries,
Merzian said, “instead of driving ambition like the
U.S.
and the
U.K.”
“They are giving cover to other laggards like Russia and
Turkey
because they can look at Australia and say, ‘Look, if a wealthy industrialized
country like Australia isn’t doing more in the short term, why should I?’” he
said.
Morrison has long been caught in a political bind over climate change.
His government’s coalition partner, the National Party, is a strong supporter of
the coal industry and made multiple attempts to block the net zero target,
citing potential risks to the country’s economy.
Morrison is a well-known proponent of the industry himself. He famously brought
a
lump of coal into the Australian Parliament
in 2017 and, with a showman’s flair, praised its value during a debate on
renewable energy.
“Sadly, historically, Australia’s climate policy, to some extent, has been
dictated by the position of incumbent interests in the oil, gas and coal
industry” and that is why it has lagged behind it’s global peers, Christian
Downie, an associate professor at the Australian National University who
specializes in energy and climate politics, said ahead of the conference.
At the same time, the country has felt the impact of
climate change
and that has helped increase pressure from some voters for more decisive action.
Sixty percent of respondents said “global warming is a serious and pressing
problem” that should be addressed now “even if it involves significant costs,”
according to a
May 2021 poll by the Lowy Institute, an independent think tank in Australia.
A young male koala named ‘Jan’ is seen in a outdoor koala pen at
Port Macquarie Koala Hospital on September 14, 2020, in Port
Macquarie, Australia. Lisa Maree Williams | Getty Images
And the
Great Barrier Reef, the world’s most extensive coral reef ecosystem, has suffered so much from
warming sea temperatures that it lost half its corals in just 20 years.
Yet, Australia ranked last out of 60 countries for its policy response to the
climate crisis in one assessment released at the COP26 summit.
“The country’s lack of domestic ambition and action has made its way to the
international stage,” the Climate Change Performance Index
report said. “Australia has fallen behind its allies.”
A spokesperson for Taylor, the minister for energy and emissions reduction, said
that the Australian government “rejects” the report’s “subjective” findings
“because it clearly ignores key facts and statistics.”
Environmental activists have reacted angrily to the lack of action in Glasgow.
Two young climate protesters disrupted operations at the world’s largest coal
port in Newcastle, Australia, on Nov. 17 by abseiling off the huge machinery and
declaring in a video livestream: “This is us responding to the climate crisis.”
To Ritter, from Greenpeace Australia, it’s past time for the country to step up
on the world stage.
“Australia’s reckless climate obstruction is as brazen as it is appalling,” he
said. “A betrayal of our trust and a betrayal of our future.”
Asit K. Biswas
is Distinguished visiting professor, University of
Glasgow.
Peter Joo Hee Ng
is Chief Executive Officer, Public Utilities Board, Singapore's
National Water Agency.
Singapore is at the forefront of nearly all countries that have formulated a
long-term plan for managing climate change and is steadfastly implementing that
plan.
The small island state of 6 million people was among the 40 nations invited by
the US President Joe Biden to attend his leaders’ summit on tackling
climate change
last April.
Singapore is one of
most densely populated countries in the world. It faces the twin challenges of ensuring sustainable water supply during
droughts as well as effective drainage during intense rain seasons amid climate
change.
Much of Singapore is also as flat as a pancake and stands no more than
5 metres above the mean sea level. This puts the country at risk from rising sea level due to climate change.
But thanks to its water system management, Singapore has been a success story as
a resilient and adaptable city.
Water-resilient Singapore
The country has to be prepared for when rights to draw water from Malaysia
end in 2061. Singapore draws up to 50% of its water supply from the neighbouring country.
For over two decades, Singapore’s National Water Agency, PUB, has successfully
added
large-scale nationwide rainwater harvesting, used water collection, treatment and reuse, and seawater desalination to its
portfolio of conventional water sources, so the nation-state can achieve
long-term water sustainability.
The agency has been collecting and treating all its sewage to transform it into
clean and high-quality reclaimed water. As a result, the PUB has become a
leading exponent of using recycled water, dubbed locally as NEWater, as a source
of water.
In 2017,
NEWater succesfully supplied up to 40% of the total water demand of 430 million
gallons per day in Singapore. As the projected demand will double by 2060, the
PUB plans to increase NEWater supply capacity up to 55% of demand.
Under the plan, desalinated water will supply 30% of total demand in 2060 – a 5%
increase from its share in 2017.
The remaining share of the country’s water demand (15%) in 2060 will come from
local catchments, which include 17 reservoirs, and imported water. The country
does not have the land area to collect and store enough run-off despite abundant
tropical rains.
To increase the economic viability of these plans, much of the PUB’s current
research and development effort
is aimed at halving energy requirements for desalination and used water
treatment.
Other than that, reducing carbon emissions from water treatment and generating
energy from the byproducts of used water treatment have become essential for
Singapore.
Embracing ‘life and death’ matters
Based on this success story, the Singapore government applies the same approach
of long-term planning and implementation to tackle threats of climate change,
including rising sea level.
In 2019, Singapore’s Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, described the country’s
seriousness in treating climate change as
“life and death matters”. The government estimates it will need to spend US$75 billion, around 20% of
the country’s GDP, on coastal protection over the coming decades.
The government has tasked PUB to lead and co-ordinate whole-of-government
efforts to protect these coastal areas. The agency is working hard to ensure
Singapore does not become a modern-day Atlantis, Plato’s famous sunken city.
PUB’s first order of business is to develop an
integrated coastal-inland flood model. This will allow it to simulate the worst-case effects of intense inland
rainfall combined with extreme coastal events. PUB expects its flood model to
become a critical risk-assessment tool for flood risk management, adaptation
planning, engineering design and flood response.
The agency has also undertaken coastline protection studies of different
segments. The first study began in
May 2021 along City-East Coast, covering 57.8km of the coastline. This section had been identified as prone
to flooding and has various critical assets such as airports and economic and
industrial districts.
Other segments to be analysed are in Jurong Island, in southwestern Singapore,
with the study to begin later this year, and the north-west coast, comprising
Sungei Kadut and Lim Chu Kang, starting in 2022.
Rather than mere adaption to coming crisis, protection measures will be designed
for multi-functional land use. Nature-based solutions will be incorporated
whenever possible, to create
welcoming spaces for living, work and play.
For sure, whatever Singapore does in climate mitigation will never move the
global needle. But it is a very good example of what a country can do to
successfully adapt to the dangers of climate change through good planning.
If its policies are duplicated in other countries, these combined efforts will
most certainly cause the needle to move significantly.
After the United Nations High Level meeting on climate change, COP26, just
completed this month in Glasgow, UK, Singapore can be considered to be a very
good model of how countries can successfully adapt to the dangers of climate
change in the coming decades.
In a taste of things to come, a secret Office of National Assessment report
worried the ‘carbon dioxide problem’ would hurt the nation’s coal
industry
A composite image showing former Australian PM Malcolm Fraser
and pioneering scientist Graeme Pearman.Composite: Getty/Supplied
The report was stamped CONFIDENTIAL twice on each page, with the customary
warning it should “not be released to any other government except Britain,
Canada, NZ and US”.
About 40 years ago this week, the spooks at Australia’s intelligence agency, the
Office of National Assessments (ONA), delivered the 17-page report to prime
minister
Malcolm Fraser.
The subject? “Fossil Fuels and the Greenhouse Effect”.
Michael Cook, the agency’s director general, wrote in an introduction how his
team had looked at the implications of rising levels of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere “with special reference to Australia as a producer and exporter of
coal”.
Cook wrote: “Scientists now agree that if such emissions continue it will some
time in the next century lead to a discernible ‘greenhouse effect’ whereby the
Earth’s atmosphere becomes measurably warmer with related climatic changes.”
Graeme Pearman, a former CSIRO scientist who was doing work to
measure CO2 in the early 1970s.Photograph: Supplied
The agency had several warnings for the Fraser government, but central to the
concerns was the potential for the country’s coal exports to be affected.
Those concerns from high levels of government show that from the beginning, the
country was seeing the climate change issue through the
prism of its fossil fuels.
There were “potentially adverse implications” for the “security of Australia’s
export markets for coal beyond the end of the century”.
About 16 years after the ONA report, the Howard government signed the Kyoto
protocol to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
John Howard, who was treasurer when the ONA report was released,
later refused to ratify that Kyoto deal, saying it would damage the country’s industries, including coal.
ONA was predicting in 1981 that tensions were likely. Sooner or later the
“carbon dioxide problem” would “arouse public concerns and so engage the
attention of governments”.
If there wasn’t cost-effective technology “to reduce the carbon dioxide problem”
by the end of that century, then concerns could “culminate in pressure for
action to restrict fossil fuel usage”.
There was no “anti-fossil fuel lobby” yet that could be compared to
“anti-nuclear groups” but some environmental organisations were starting to
express concern.
Public attention was only going to increase as more scientific results were
published “and are sensationalised by the press and others”.
But in a concluding sentence that could be commenting on the Morrison
government’s
current defence of fossil fuels
from a distance of four decades, the report says: “Australia could well find its
export market particularly vulnerable to international policies aimed at
limiting the use of coal.”
Dr Robert Glasser, head of the climate and security policy centre at the
Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said: “It’s the job of intelligence
agencies to anticipate these long-term threats and then alert the government.
“In that respect, they were doing their job.”
Former Australian prime minister John Howard refused to ratify
the Kyoto deal.Photograph: Mark Baker/REUTERS
The existence of the ONA report – sent to Fraser on 25 November 1981 – is still
not widely known.
Scientists working on the issue at the time said they had never seen it until
the Guardian sent them a copy. Australia’s longest-serving science minister,
Barry Jones, who took up his ministerial role in 1983, also said he had no
recall of it.
Glasser says those who have followed the science over decades might not be
surprised that Australia’s intelligence was exercised by climate change 40 years
ago.
“The science has been clear in terms of a general direction ever since the 1970s
– a decade before this report. But we now know the impacts.”
But he says despite the country’s intelligence agency first engaging with the
issue 40 years ago, Australia is still “way behind” on the security risks being
posed by climate change.
“We are failing to assess the climate and security risks generally, not just in
Australia where we can see these simultaneous record-setting compounding events,
but even in the region it’s a major security issue.”
One of the first people outside government to see the document was likely Prof
Clive Hamilton, who says he was handed it by a “senior public servant” while he
was researching his 2007 book Scorcher on the “dirty politics of climate
change”.
“The document was amazingly prescient and remains accurate in its essentials,”
said Hamilton
“It was one of those extraordinary things a researcher occasionally stumbles
upon. Almost no one seemed aware of the report. It was just gathering dust on a
shelf somewhere.”
As well as forecasting problems for the country’s coal industry, the ONA report
included qualified forecasts of the potential impacts on the climate.
The area where cyclones could hit could extend as the tropics expand. Sea
levels could rise, plants might grow quicker and the polar regions would warm
much faster.
There would be global winners and losers, the report said. Canada’s
wheat-growing belt could grow, gaining area from the USA as the climate shifted.
A loss of permafrost in the USSR and Canada could deliver more
agricultural land (permafrost is now melting, with concerns about the
release of large amounts of greenhouse gases
that could further raise temperatures).
If CO2 levels doubled in the atmosphere, then the ONA thought this could cause
between 2C and 3C of warming. That estimate – from 40 years ago – is within the
range of the
UN’s latest assessment.
Emerging science
But the science and the concerns among Australia’s top scientists
had been building well before the ONA report dropped on Fraser’s desk.
Some of the data in the report was drawn from the work of Dr Graeme Pearman and
colleagues at CSIRO. Pearman is a pioneering climate scientist who started
working on the issue in the early 70s and remembers speaking to ONA staff at the
time.
‘I knew they were aware of the issues’: Graeme Pearman in
Melbourne last week.Photograph: Darrian Traynor
“I knew they were aware of the issues but I didn’t know how they would play that
game,” says Pearman, who is now aged 80 but who saw the report for the first
time this week.
“The report does reflect pretty well the state of our scientific
understanding at that time. Where it perhaps falls down is that there seems to
be no real attempt to evaluate the risks associated with what may unfold.”
The CSIRO had started measuring CO2 levels in the air using instruments in a
wheat field in Rutherglen, Victoria, in 1971.
The following year, Pearman and colleagues had put air-sampling equipment on
planes – some commercial and some government-owned. More than 3,500 samples were
taken.
Pearman was curious about CO2 measurements that had been taken continually since
1958 in Hawaii by pioneering climate scientist
Charles David Keeling, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California.
To Pearman’s amazement, the amounts of CO2 in the air above the wheat field and
from the aircraft instruments were almost identical to Keeling’s findings from
Hawaii
In 1974, Pearman took the Australian air samples in six steel flasks across the
world, visiting Keeling’s laboratory in California as well as other scientists
doing CO2 measurements in Sweden, Canada, American Samoa and New Zealand.
In 1976, the Australian Academy of Science published a Report of a Committee on
Climatic Change that mostly dealt with natural variations in the climate.
But that report included a chapter on “man’s impact on climate”. All past
climate changes had been due to natural events “on an astronomic or global
scale,” the report said.
But then came this sentence: “Human
activities are now developing in ways that could have an appreciable effect on
the climate within decades.”
Graeme Pearman with a book about climate change that he edited in
1988.Photograph: Darrian Traynor
Four years later, and one year before the ONA report, Pearman edited a book –
Carbon Dioxide and Climate: Australian Research that summarised the work going
on in Australia. How were the levels of CO2 changing? What could this mean for
rainfall? How would plants respond?
“The potential significance of a CO2-induced climatic change is large,” wrote
Pearman, but so too were the uncertainties. A lot more work needed to be done.
Pretty ordinary or prescient?
“It is fascinating and remarkable to read how this was being viewed [by the
intelligence agency] only 10 years after we started our CO2 and climate work at
CSIRO,” says Pearman.
Australia’s longest-serving science minister from 1983 to 1990, Barry Jones,
could not recall ever seeing the ONA report, but he wasn’t particularly
impressed.
“I think it’s pretty ordinary,” says Jones, whose latest book is called What Is
to be Done: Political Engagement and Saving the Planet.
“They imposed on themselves a very narrow terms of reference,” he said, and was
puzzled why the report mentions other greenhouse gases but ignored methane.
Prof Ian Lowe was lecturing students on the future of energy supply at Griffith
University in the early 1980s. He also hadn’t seen the ONA report before.
A Queensland coal-fired power station during construction, circa
1980. Australia has been worried about climate change’s
implications for fossil fuels for decades. Photograph: Peter Righteous/Alamy
“It’s stamped confidential top to bottom. I was surprised how accurate it was
though,” he said.
“The spy agency thought it was important enough to draw it to the
attention of our political leadership largely because of what they saw as the
commerce implications for the Australian export markets for coal.
“But what’s politically interesting is there was absolutely no response to this
warning, even though the expansion of fossil fuels was tragically compromised.”
Author
and academic Dr Jeremy Walker, of UTS in Sydney, is researching the history of
climate science and energy policy. He’s been reviewing the ONA report as part of
a wider project.
“What’s interesting to me is that this was being considered at the highest
levels of government, but the security issue is being interpreted in terms of
the profitability of the fossil fuel industry. The fossil fuel industry is
central to the government’s response – then and now.”
