02/03/2021

(AU) 'A Duty Of Care': Australian Teenagers Take Their Climate Crisis Plea To Court

The Guardian - 

Anj Sharma, 16, and her team hope to force change they say is not coming quickly enough from government

Sister Brigid Arthur and Anj Sharma: ‘We just want a future that is guaranteed to be safe for us.’
Eight teenagers and an octogenarian nun head to an Australian court today to launch what they hope will prove to be a landmark case – one that establishes the federal government’s duty of care in protecting future generations from a worsening climate crisis.

If successful, the people behind the class action believe it may set a precedent that stops the government approving new fossil fuel projects.

As with any novel legal argument, its chances of success are unclear, but the case is not happening in isolation.

It is one of a number of climate-related litigation cases expected before Australian courts and tribunals in the months ahead as lawyers and activists aim to use the law to force change they say is not coming quickly enough from Canberra or, in many cases, state governments.

The lead applicant of the case in the federal court in Melbourne this week is Anj Sharma, a 16-year-old student. Her involvement evolved from her role helping organise a Greta Thunberg-inspired school strike for climate in September 2019, when about 100,000 marched in the Victorian capital.

The case is a response to a proposal by Whitehaven Coal to extend its Vickery coalmine in northern New South Wales. The expansion of the mine could lead to an extra 100m tonnes of CO2 – about 20% of Australia’s annual climate footprint – being released into the atmosphere as the extracted coal is shipped overseas and burned to make steel and generate electricity.

The teenagers and their legal team argue the federal environment minister, Sussan Ley, would be breaching a common law duty of care to protect younger people against future harm if she used her powers under national environment laws to allow the mine extension to go ahead.

Solicitors at Equity Generation Lawyers, a Melbourne firm, had been working on the case and through the climate strike movement were connected with eight teenage activists who would join it and be its face. They are spread across four states, but most live in Sydney.

Anj says all eight have “very personal stories about climate change”, including the changing impact of the monsoon season on family members in India and witnessing firsthand the impact of fracking for coal-seam gas.

“The decisions that they make right now will impact us in the future. We’re the ones who are going to have to live with the decisions, we’re going to have to raise the next generation under those decisions, and we just want a future that is guaranteed to be safe for us,” she told Guardian Australia’s Full Story podcast. “They truly do have a duty of care towards us.”

A spokesperson for Ley declined to comment while the case was before the court.

The group taking the action includes Izzy Raj-Seppings, who police threatened to arrest in a protest outside Kirribilli House in December 2019.

Given they are legally minors, the teenagers are being supported by Sister Brigid Arthur, an 86-year-old nun and former teacher who volunteered to be their litigation guardian, a role she previously played in cases involving young asylum seekers.

While the arguments being made are unusual in an Australian context, the ideas that will be heard across the five-day trial are similar to those being tested in a growing number of international cases that aim to hold governments to account for not doing more to address global heating.
It stands to reason young people are taking the fight to those in power
Lawyer David Barnden
The forerunner was a 2015 Netherlands judgment that found the government had an explicit duty to protect its citizens’ human rights in the face of climate change and must reduce its emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 compared with 1990 levels.

Earlier this month, a Paris court convicted the French state for not keeping its promises to tackle greenhouse gas emissions.

The four environmental groups that brought the case, backed by a petition signed by 2.3m people, have pledged to use the judgment to push the French state to act more aggressively to combat the climate emergency.

There are other cases afoot in Australia. The legal team behind the Vickery coalmine extension case is also representing Melbourne law student Katta O’Donnell, who last year filed a claim accusing the federal government of misleading investors in sovereign bonds by failing to disclose the financial risk caused by the climate crisis.

David Barnden, the principal lawyer at Equity Generation representing the teen activists, says: “With their future at stake, it stands to reason young people in Australia are taking the fight to those in power.”

The climate legal cases before Australian courts can be loosely divided into two categories – those that aim to stop or reverse planning approval of fossil fuel developments through traditional legal means, and those that are attempting to break new ground.

The latter group includes cases arguing the government has a duty of care, made on human rights grounds, and focused on the principle of carbon budgets, which aim to stop developments on the ground they would push the country beyond what it can mathematically emit if the world is to meet the goals of the Paris agreement.

David Morris, the chief executive of the Environment Defenders Office (EDO), says the most significant climate litigation victory in Australia to date was a February 2019 judgment that blocked the proposed Rocky Hill coalmine, in NSW’s Gloucester Valley.

The chief judge of the state’s land and environment court, Brian Preston, explicitly cited the role coal from the mine would play in increasing global greenhouse gases “at a time when what is now urgently needed, in order to meet generally agreed climate targets, is a rapid and deep decrease”.

The EDO is supporting several challenges to fossil fuel projects backed by state governments. They include action against Clive Palmer’s proposed open-cut and underground thermal coal in Queensland’s Galilee Basin by Youth Verdict, a human rights and climate action group. It is listed for the Queensland land court in May.

Others are questioning the legality of the Burrup Hub liquefied natural gas processing hub in the Pilbara and the Narrabri coal-seam gas development in northern NSW.

The EDO is also representing the group Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action in taking on the NSW Environment Protection Authority, accusing it of breaching its statutory duty in failing to have a policy to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Morris says climate litigation based on the idea the government has a role to play in protecting people from climate catastrophe is only going to grow. He compares it to the rising push against the tobacco industry as the health ramifications became undeniable.

“Ten years ago, these sorts of cases seemed wild. People would have thought ‘how can you possibly have a case like that’,” he says. “Now, I think it’s going to become increasingly normal.”

Links
at No comments:

(AU) The Global Climate Disaster Misinfornado Will End Up Killing Way More People Than The Texas Ice Storms

The Guardian - First Dog On The Moon

Texas freezes and the power goes off across much of the state. Whose fault was it? Donald Trump knows

Cartoon by First Dog on the Moon
LARGE IMAGE
Links
at No comments:

Gulf Stream System Slows To Its Weakest In A Thousand Years, Putting U.S., Europe At Risk

Study Finds

(© Colin Cramm - stock.adobe.com)

POTSDAM, Germany — The Gulf Stream System is at its weakest in 1,000 years due to climate change, reveals new research. The ocean current that brings warm water and shapes weather patterns from the Gulf of Mexico to Europe is slowing down in an unprecedented way, say scientists.

Since the 1950s, the current has slowed by about 15 percent. Experts warn that by 2100, the Gulf Stream System will weaken further by 34 to 45 percent, becoming dangerously close to the tipping point at which the flow becomes unstable.

If this happens, the U.S. east coast will face dangerously rising sea levels. Western Europe would also be plunged into a deep freeze in winters with brutal ice storms and the average temperature dropping by 10 degrees Celsius. Summers would be scorching hot, warn scientists.

(© designua – stock.adobe.com)

For the study, researchers from Ireland, Britain and Germany mapped the history of the Gulf Stream System, also known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) from proxy data like ocean sediments and ice cores.

“The Gulf Stream System works like a giant conveyor belt, carrying warm surface water from the equator up north, and sending cold, low-salinity deep water back down south,” says co-author Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, in a statement.

“It moves nearly 20 million cubic meters of water per second, almost a hundred times the Amazon flow. For the first time, we have combined a range of previous studies and found they provide a consistent picture of the AMOC evolution over the past 1600 years.

“The study results suggest that it has been relatively stable until the late 19th century,” he adds. “With the end of the little ice age in about 1850, the ocean currents began to decline, with a second, more drastic decline following since the mid-20th century.”

Statistician Dr. Niamh Cahill from Maynooth University in Ireland tested the data and found the weakness in the Gulf Stream System to be significant.

“Assuming that the processes measured in proxy records reflect changes in AMOC, they provide a consistent picture, despite the different locations and time scales represented in the data,” she explains. “The AMOC has weakened unprecedentedly in over 1000 years.”

So why will a slowing system lead to dangerous sea levels?

“The northward surface flow of the AMOC leads to a deflection of water masses to the right, away from the US east coast,” explains Dr. Levke Caesar, part of the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Unit at Maynooth University.

“This is due to Earth’s rotation that diverts moving objects such as currents to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere. As the current slows down, this effect weakens and more water can pile up at the US east coast, leading to an enhanced sea-level rise.”

Links
at No comments:

(AU) PM’s Claim Australian Coal Produces Much Lower Emissions Is ‘Nonsense’

AAP FactCheck - George Driver | Peter Bodkin

AAP FactCheck Investigation: Does foreign coal produce 50 per cent more emissions than Australia’s?

Then treasurer Scott Morrison wielding a lump of coal in parliament in 2017. 

THE STATEMENT
"Because Australian coal compared to the coal that is sourced from other countries, the other countries have 50 per cent higher emissions than Australian coal."
Scott Morrison, Liberal Party leader and Australian prime minister, December 15, 2020.
THE VERDICT

AAP FactCheck found Mr Morrison's statement that coal from other countries produced 50 per cent higher emissions than Australian coal to be false.

While carbon dioxide emissions from burning thermal coal are linked to its energy content, this relationship is not linear and the replacement of Australian coal with lower-grade coal from another country would have only a small impact on emissions, based on the available data.

Several countries also export coal of primarily the same or higher energy content than Australia, meaning an export ban from China would not necessarily lead to the local commodity being replaced with a lower-grade product.

False - The checkable claim is false.
THE ANALYSIS

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has claimed that coal from rival exporters produces 50 per cent more emissions than the local product, leading to a "lose-lose" scenario for the environment and the economy if Australia's supply was displaced.

The prime minister made the statement during a press conference on December 15 when he was asked about reports China was introducing a ban on some Australian coal imports.

"If this were to be the practice, the four billion-odd that goes into coal-fired power generation in China, it really is a lose-lose here," Mr Morrison said.

"Because Australian coal compared to the coal that is sourced from other countries, the other countries have 50 per cent higher emissions than Australian coal. As a result, that would be a bad outcome for the environment. It would be a bad outcome for the trading relationship between Australia and China, that both countries benefit from."

The comments were reported in The Australian, the Australian Financial Review and the ABC.

AAP FactCheck examined Mr Morrison's statement that coal from other countries produces 50 per cent higher emissions than Australian coal.

When asked about the basis of the statement, the prime minister's office did not provide a source but claimed it had already been fact-checked by the ABC and found to be accurate.

The ABC fact check investigated a 2015 statement from then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull that global emissions could rise if Australia stopped exporting coal as "our coal, by and large, is cleaner than the coal in many other countries".

The fact check said: "Australia's coal is on average high quality as a result of its low moisture and ash content, and high carbon content, compared with other countries, particularly Indonesia, the largest coal exporter in the world."

However, it largely focused on ash content and levels of polluting trace elements. It did not include analysis of the relative greenhouse gas emissions of coal from various exporters, and none of its sources showed that other countries' coal produced 50 per cent higher emissions than Australian coal.

Mr Morrison's office did not respond to further questions from AAP FactCheck about the basis for the statement.

Australia exports both metallurgical coal, used to make steel, and thermal coal, used in coal-fired power stations. As the prime minister referred to coal used in Chinese power stations, AAP FactCheck focused on carbon emissions from thermal coal.

According to estimates from the International Energy Agency (IEA), Australia was the second-largest exporter of thermal coal in 2020, accounting for 20 per cent of exports, behind Indonesia with 40 per cent. Australia was the sixth-largest overall producer of thermal coal.

AAP FactCheck contacted Geoscience Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia and the Australian Coal Association Research Programme, however none were able to provide information comparing coal emissions or research on the emissions produced by Australian coal.

However, experts said emissions from coal were generally tied to the product's grade and its energy content - although this relationship was far from linear.

A report provided by the Minerals Council for the ABC fact check noted that Australia was "a significant exporter of high energy-content thermal coals" which "produce fewer emissions per unit of electricity produced".

The IEA provided AAP FactCheck with provisional 2019 figures comparing the energy content of coal exports from several of the world's top coal exporters and producers.

These showed that the energy content of the two main types of thermal coal for export - "other bituminous" and the lower-grade "sub-bituminous" - was broadly similar across all countries, with the exception of India, which generally produced lower-quality coal.

The figures did show, however, that Australia only exported higher-energy bituminous coal, while its main competitor, Indonesia, mainly exported lower-grade sub-bituminous coal.

When AAP FactCheck weighted the IEA's data for export volumes, the energy content of Australian thermal coal was third-lowest - but still 13.2 per cent higher than Indonesian coal and 64.7 per cent higher than Indian coal.

However, it should be noted that India exported a negligible amount of thermal coal - around 0.3 per cent of Australia's volume - therefore it is unlikely a trade dispute would result in China burning significantly more Indian coal.

Dale Hazelton, head of Asia Pacific thermal coal at energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, told AAP FactCheck it was important to note there wasn't a linear relationship between emissions and energy content, which meant that emissions from similar power plants burning different grades of coal may be little different.

"Generally speaking, all bituminous (high-quality) coals are the same in terms of carbon emissions," he said.

"If you compare Australian bituminous coals to every other country's bituminous coals, they're roughly equivalent in energy content. So Russia and Australia are going to have roughly the same combustion emissions.

"Australian coal tends towards bituminous in rank, which is lower-emitting, while the world's largest exporter of thermal coal, Indonesia, tends towards the lignite (higher-emission) side."

Mr Hazelton cited 2006 guidelines from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which estimated the emissions from different coal grades when used in "energy industries" (page 2.16).

The guidelines said emissions from coal ranged from 94,600kg of greenhouse gas per terajoule of energy from other bituminous coal to 96,100kg for sub-bituminous coal - a difference of just 1.6 per cent. The figure for lignite was 101,000kg - 6.8 per cent higher than the bituminous grade.

One of the authors of the IPCC guidelines, Gregg Marland, an adjunct research professor at North Carolina's Appalachian State University, told AAP FactCheck via email that the heat produced by coal increased with its carbon content, which in turn increased carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

This meant that while higher-grade coals produced more energy, they also produced more emissions relative to their weight due to their higher carbon content.

"If we measure CO2 emissions (against) units of (energy), then all coals are indeed pretty closely the same," he said.

Dr Marland referred to a 2006 report he co-authored for the then-US Climate Change Science Program which said the carbon content of coal was directly linked to its heat output (figure 2, page II-14).

A 2016 US Environmental Protection Agency guidance document gave similar figures to the IPCC guidelines, with bituminous coal producing 93.28kg of carbon dioxide per energy unit, compared to 97.17kg for sub-bituminous coal - a difference of 4.2 per cent (table A-3, page 19).

AAP FactCheck found few sources directly comparing the emissions from various grades of coal, however one 1994 article from the US Energy Information Administration compared the CO2 emission factors - the amount of the gas produced for the same energy output - for different coal samples from across the country.

It found the difference in carbon emissions between the lowest-emission bituminous coal and the highest-emission lignite nationwide was only 9.6 per cent (table FE4).

Meanwhile, a 2015 report on the quality and environmental impact of Australian coal by the US-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) showed Australia's export thermal coal had the same or lower energy content than Russian and South African coal but higher energy than Indonesian and Indian coal, based on 2014 figures from energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie (page 2).

Report author Tim Buckley, the director of Australia/South Asia energy finance studies at IEEFA, said the prime minister's claim that other countries' thermal coal produced 50 per cent more emissions was "nonsense".

Mr Buckley said the development of modern, efficient coal power plants also meant the quality of the coal had less of an impact on emissions than in older plants, adding that a ban on Australian coal exports to China would make no difference to global emissions.

"If our coal isn't burned in China, then someone else will burn our coal. The idea that (a ban) will increase emissions is nonsense."

A 2013 Congressional Research Service report noted CO2 emissions from coal-fired plants could be reduced by burning higher grades of coal, however it also noted a strong link between the type and efficiency of coal plants and emissions.

University of Adelaide associate professor Liam Wagner, who researches energy markets, agreed that in general, emissions produced from burning other countries' thermal coal would not be 50 per cent higher than emissions from Australian coal.

"Australian black steaming coal is just as dirty as high-quality black steaming coal from anywhere else, and by quality I mean energy per tonne of coal," Dr Wagner said.

"But to say in general Australia's coal is better or worse than coal in China is, again, a nonsense."

Editor's note: AAP FactCheck has expanded its ability to fact-check environmental issues with the support of the Australian Conservation Foundation. AAP FactCheck retains full editorial independence in this project and continues to apply the rigorous standards required for accredited members of the International Fact-Checking Network.
    Links
    at No comments: