27/04/2021

(AU The Conversation) More Reasons For Optimism On Climate Change Than We’ve Seen For Decades: 2 Climate Experts Explain

The Conversation -  | 

Shutterstock

Authors
  •  is Lecturer in Communication, Deakin University, and Research Fellow in Climate Change Communication, Climate Futures Program, University of Tasmania
  •  is Senior Lecturer in Climatology, Director, Climate Futures Program, University of Tasmania
It’s unusual for researchers who study our catastrophically changing climate to use the words “optimism” and “climate change” in the same sentence.

As an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author and a climate communication researcher, we well understand how grave the climate situation is.

The science projections tell us we’re not on track to stay under the Paris Agreement’s 2℃ target.

Our planet’s biodiversity and oceans are in peril. And if we reach climate tipping points, we’ll have little ability to mitigate runaway climate change.

But what if we were to come to a tipping point for climate action?

At Biden’s climate summit last week, the US committed to a 50-52% cut in greenhouse gas emissions reduction on 2005 levels by 2030. The UK promised a 78% emissions reduction by 2035, while the EU pledged to cut emissions 55% by 2030 on 1990 levels. And Japan committed to a 46% cut by 2030 on 2013 emissions.

Australia, however, brought nothing new to the table in terms of emissions, offering no further cuts to its planned 26-28% reduction on 2005 emissions by 2030.

Australia’s lack of ambition aside, the summit is not the only sign transformation in the global climate effort is underway. Recently, more reasons for optimism have emerged than we’ve seen for decades.

A groundswell of change

The science on climate change is now more detailed than ever. Although much of it is devastating, it’s also resoundingly clear.

The IPCC’s AR6 reports — the latest assessment of the science and social responses to climate change — will be released in time for the next major climate summit, COP26, in Glasgow in November. This means policy makers will have a stronger directive than ever on the urgency to act.
It’s now also unequivocal that people want action. The largest ever global opinion survey on climate change, The Peoples’ Climate Vote, found in late 2020 that 64% of people consider the climate crisis a “global emergency”.

This poll also showed strong support for wide-ranging policy action. Support for climate action was above 80% in all countries among people with post-secondary education, underscoring the importance of education in advancing support for climate-friendly policy.

Policy makers at last seem to be taking both science and public will for action seriously. Some 120 countries have committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050. Even the current largest emitter, China, has committed to carbon neutrality by 2060, or sooner.

Business and finance are also on board. Internationally, the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures and, at home, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority now consider climate change mitigation central to corporations’ due care and diligence.

Company directors who fail to consider and disclose climate-related risks could now be held liable under Australia’s Corporations Act.

Biden’s Earth Day summit saw many nations increase their climate change commitments. Kyodo via AP Images

International finance and insurers, are also progressively abandoning coal. And investment in climate solutions is garnering increasing interest. There is much opportunity in this domain: the OECD estimated in 2017 that investment of US$6.9 trillion a year over 15 years in clean energy infrastructure would be needed to keep global temperature rise under 2℃.

Carbon border taxes are also now being mooted, so countries will pay for their high-emissions supply chains in taxes on their exports. Australia is particularly exposed in this regard, given it’s slower to decarbonise than many of its trading partners.

Better social understanding of climate

The unprecedented student climate strikes in 2019 brought climate change repeatedly onto media agendas and into conversations around dinner tables. The student strikers can no doubt be credited with setting off the first domino in a tipping point for action that seems to be beginning now.

In the past two years, we have seen greater visibility and increased social understanding of climate change.

Globally, films like David Attenborough’s climate testament, A Life on Our Planet, have made the climate and biodiversity crisis unflinchingly clear for audiences around the world.

In Australia, popular media outputs — such as the film 2040, ABC’s Fight for Planet A and Big Weather — have enhanced Australians’ climate literacy.

Films like David Attenborough’s A Life on Our Planet increase social understanding of climate change.

While climate denial still exists, people overwhelmingly understand climate change is real and is contributing to disasters such as the 2019-2020 Black Summer bushfires. In fact, 82% of Australians think climate change will lead to more bushfires.

Though research on social understanding of climate has long shown climate change makes people feel powerless, we now have tools giving us agency to act by meaningfully reducing our own emissions, such as carbon accounting apps that help us track and minimise household emissions.

And such change from below is significant: some research shows household emissions account for 72% of the global total. So with the right incentives (we’ll need both carrots and sticks) behavioural change could contribute significantly to emissions reductions.

The damage to the Flinders Chase National Park after bushfires swept through on Kangaroo Island in January 2020. 82% of Australians think climate change will lead to more bushfire. AAP Image/David Mariuz
Actions for the decisive decade

For the first time, then, political will and global public opinion seem focused on profound action across many domains. This could mean we’re not bound to the current heating trajectory. But to elude a catastrophic temperature rise of 3-4℃ by 2100, we must make political ambitions, collective change and personal contributions concrete.

Actions for this decisive decade include putting the international commitments to deep emissions cuts into action, with clear pathways to net zero. Ambitions on cuts will have to be continually ratcheted up, this decade, with developed countries making the greatest reductions.

Climate laggards - as Australia is increasingly characterised - will need to step up.

Australia brought nothing new to the table in terms of emissions at Biden’s summit. AAP Image/Mick Tsikas
Coal will have to be phased out quickly, carbon pollution taxed and investment in climate solutions incentivised.

People in developed countries will need to accept fundamental lifestyle changes and decision makers must construct policies to guide such change. Governments must make policy based on science — which the coronavirus pandemic has shown we can do.

It seems we’re heading for an “overshoot” scenario, where the global temperature rise will exceed 1.5℃, before we pull the temperature back down over decades with negative emissions.

Investment in such technology initiatives as direct air carbon dioxide capture, must be massively scaled up.

Nature-based solutions such as reafforestation and restoration of carbon sequestering ecosystems, on land and in the water, will also be crucial.

Above all, we need to act fast. The 2020s really are our final chance: our “Earthshot” moment to start to repair the planet after decades of inaction.

Links
at No comments:

(AU ABC) Calls To Phase Out Fossil Fuel Subsidies After Speculation About Net-Zero Emissions Target

ABC News - James Glenday

The Australia Institute's report said the fossil fuel industry received more in subsidies than Australia spent on the Army or Air Force. (ABC News: John Gunn)
Fossil fuel subsidies have cost state, territory and federal budgets roughly $10.3 billion over the past financial year, or $19,686 a minute, according to a new report from The Australia Institute.

The progressive think tank says the $7.84 billion allocated for the fuel tax credit scheme in the Federal Budget alone exceeds the $7.82 billion spent on Army capabilities or the $7.55 billion on Air Force capabilities.

It also has calculated state governments have contributed some $1.2 billion to coal, oil and gas companies by helping reduce the costs of exploration, improving ports, railways and power stations, while also funding research aimed at reducing emissions caused by burning fossil fuels.

In the past, mining industry lobby groups and pro-mining politicians have rejected The Australia Institute's figures, saying the assumptions underpinning them are "flawed" and do not take into account the industry's broader contribution to the economy.

"We really now need to be talking about phasing these incentives out, particularly given the US under Joe Biden is looking at removing tax perks," Australia Institute research director Rod Campbell said.

"It's not just important for Australia to take action on climate change but some of this money could be going to schools, or hospitals or issues voters are really worried about."

The report also states:
  • The Northern Territory is the biggest backer of the gas industry over the longer term with almost $4 billion committed to an offshore gas project and $1 billion for pipelines.
  • Queensland provided industry assistance measures worth at least $744 million last year.
  • Western Australia is spending hundreds of millions on power stations.
  • New South Wales is allocating $100 million towards "coal innovation".
  • The ACT is the only jurisdiction with no fossil fuels subsidies, though it notes Tasmania's budget also has no clear industry assistance.
Australia Institute
2020-21 fossil fuel subsidies by State, Territory and Federal governments
Source: Budget papers, annual reports and tax expenditure documents

The true cost of fossil fuel subsidies is hard to calculate

The total cost of fossil fuel subsidies has been a contentious issue over the past decade.

At the centre of the debate is what should count as a subsidy and what should not.

An International Monetary Fund report in 2019 said Australia was spending some US$29 billion ($37.4 billion) in subsidies, though that paper included the estimated cost of things like the environmental and social price of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Other organisations, like the Productivity Commission as well as think tanks have estimated the annual cost actually ranges from several hundred million a year to as much as $12 billion annually.

"The real question is, what's the most appropriate number?" Mr Campbell said.

"We haven't included damage to the environment or to human health (in our report), because estimating those numbers is difficult and estimating those numbers is controversial.

"What we've done to try and eliminate any controversy, is we've just added up what is in the books, state and federal budgets, and reports from government-owned corporations."

Canavan says net-zero target makes no sense amid China tensions

Former resources minister and outspoken Queensland backbencher Matt Canavan said many of the assumptions in The Australia Institute's report are flawed.

He said some assistance to fossil fuel industries can be good for the country and economy, and asserts that mining is the least subsidised industry.

Former resources minister Matt Canavan has been vocal in his support of the fossil fuel industry. (ABC News: Sean Davey)

"Fossil fuels are our nation's biggest export. I think government should be helping encourage that," Senator Canavan, a big supporter of new coal projects, said.

"If a government builds a rail line or a port to support mining, companies have to pay to use it … but it also then is permanent infrastructure that allows other industries to benefit and piggyback on."

"This has an impact far beyond their own sector."

He doesn't believe infrastructure spending or the federal fuel tax credit scheme should be seen as fossil fuel subsidies.

"I fundamentally disagree with the assumptions. The absence of a tax is not a subsidy and the mining industry builds its own roads, they don't use public ones," Senator Canavan said, even though he conceded the fuel excise tax is not directly linked to spending on roads.

"This scheme is also available to other industries, like agriculture."

Over the past week, there has again been speculation Prime Minister Scott Morrison will commit Australia to a target of net-zero emissions by 2050 at some point this year.

It is a target that would be a lot less ambitious than the UK, the US and Canada, which are all vowing substantial emissions reductions by 2030 or 2035.

But Senator Canavan, who has been a vocal opponent of a 2050 goal, claims regional security concerns in coming decades should make Australia think twice before committing to anything.

"I agree completely with Defence Minister Peter Dutton; we can't discount the possibility of war with China. While that is a distinct possibility why would we be hamstringing our own industries?" he said.
"Cutting our carbon emissions while China increases output is not going to change the environment, it's just going make that country stronger and more able to bully us and other peace-loving countries in the region."
Instead of set targets, over the past week the Morrison government has pledged more than $1.1 billion dollars towards what it calls "clean" and "low emissions" technologies and projects.

Some of the money will go to carbon, capture and storage research – a technology many climate scientists say is an expensive failure aimed at extending the life of fossil fuel power generation projects.

Another chunk of the funding will go towards boosting hydrogen production, some of which will be manufactured using gas.

Links
at No comments:

(AU SMH) As Australia Tiptoes To 2050 Climate Targets, The World Moves On 2030

Sydney Morning Herald - Nick O'Malley

On Monday night Scott Morrison again voiced the government’s intention to create a net-zero economy “as quickly as possible and preferably by 2050” in a speech widely interpreted as an effort to delicately shift Australia’s climate position another pace closer to that of its international peers.

That may have been the case, but the speech also highlighted how isolated Australia has become in a world that has largely banked its 2050 targets and is now concerned with 2030 plans.

US President Joe Biden is expected to ramp up pressure on Australia to act on climate change. Credit: AP

Indeed, the focus by the US and the UK at this week’s talks on 2030 targets will be “intense”, says Alden Meyer, until recently the co-director of the Washington DC, office of the Union of Concerned Scientists and now a member of the leading European climate think tank E3G.

This is because over the past year or so about two thirds of the world’s economy has either formally adopted or accepted 2050 net zero targets. On this point China is now aligned with the US, the UK, the EU, Japan and South Korea, among others.

The reasons for the unanimity of focus on near-term goals are threefold. Firstly the Paris process functions like a ratchet – negotiators secured global agreement to a distant, politically viable goal, and then began raising the bar.

The second reason is scientific. Carbon dioxide lingers in the atmosphere for between 300 and 1000 years, so any greenhouse gas we emit today joins the “stock” already there. If our emissions remain high today but we suddenly reach net zero in, say 2049, we are still compounding climate damage day by day until then.

As a result, the authors of the agreement always envisioned a steady emissions decline.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the body through which Paris was negotiated - says a 45 per cent reduction by 2030 is necessary to meet net zero 2050.

As a wealthy industrialised nation the pressure is on Australia to do more than that to allow developing nations to secure some of the industrial and economic benefits we have already enjoyed.

The third reason is technical. Whatever the value of newly developed technologies - such as the hydrogen linked to carbon capture and storage that has attracted funding from the Morrison government - there is no time left. To reach a net zero 2050 goal massive reductions need to begin today using today’s technology.

If Morrison was to announce 2050 net zero target and did so without a credible 2030 target, “It’s not gonna be taken seriously, it’ll be seen as rhetorical posturing,” Meyer told the Herald and the Age.

Meyer, who has close ties with members of Biden’s climate team, believes the costs of posturing rather than acting will soon become concrete.
“Australians are going to be hearing about this in every meeting they go to.”
The European Union has made it clear that it intends to introduce a border tariff on emissions intensive imports from countries that do not price carbon.

Last week the new US Trade Representative, Katherine Tai, gave a speech signalling the US is considering similar measures.

What will happen to our cities (and beaches) at 3 degrees of warming?

“The science indicates that the window of opportunity to prevent a catastrophic environmental chain reaction on our planet is closing fast, and the United States must be a leader in the collective effort to work toward a global solution,” she said.

“For too long, the traditional trade community has resisted the view that trade policy is a legitimate tool in helping to solve the climate crisis.”

Campaigning for the White House, Biden said that climate change would be a central focus of his presidency and that he would seek to encourage global action to tackle it using the full machinery of America’s government and diplomatic corps.

Since his election the energy with which he has pursued the issue has startled even some of the most optimistic climate change advocates. This week he is expected to announce the doubling of America’s 2030 target to 50 per cent reductions.

Morrison has so far indicated that he has no plans to increase Australia’s goal of 26-28 per cent reductions by 2030.

According to Meyer, Biden’s focus on 2030 targets this week - and this year - will be both intense and relentless.

“It’s not only going to be an issue when Scott Morrison has bilateral conversations with President Biden or when John Kerry comes to Canberra,” Meyer told a webinar hosted by the Australia Institute on Wednesday.

World ‘walking blindfolded into a minefield’ due to climate inaction

“Australians are going to be hearing about this in every meeting they go to. So when they go to the Clean Energy Ministerial Mission Innovation Summit in Chile at the end of May, they’re going to hear about this from the Secretary of Energy.

When they go to the G20 finance ministers meeting, they’re going to hear from Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen about the importance of addressing the climate issue and getting rid of fossil fuel subsidies.

“This is going to be unrelenting pressure on every front where Australia has to deal with the United States and I think increasingly with other countries as well.”

In this light, edging towards 2050 rather than charging towards 2030 is unlikely to satisfy global expectations.

Links
at No comments: