18/06/2021

(Earth.Org) 5 World Leaders Who Are Damaging The Environment

Earth.Org - Charlotte Davey


The climate crisis needs a coordinated response from governments, community leaders and citizens. What is essential is a top-down approach from government leaders in the form of sensible policies that ideally tax carbon and place regulations on heavy-emitting industries to curb their environmental impact. Unfortunately, some world leaders haven’t gotten the memo on what environmental stewardship should look like. Here are 5 world leaders who are damaging the environment.


Jair Bolsonaro


It would be unjust to list Jair Bolsonaro anywhere other than top of the list of world leaders who are damaging the environment.

As president of Brazil, which is home to the largest tropical rainforest on the planet, Bolsonaro has wreaked havoc on the Amazon basin.

From incentivising farmers to slash and burn the Amazon, to reversing environmental legislation, and discarding land reserved for environmental tribes, Bolsonaro is sabotaging Brazil’s best asset.

A new report illustrates that since the Bolsonaro administration was sworn into office on 1 January 2019, the annual rate of tree felling in Brazil has almost doubled. In the first year of his presidency alone, deforestation increased four-fold, rising from 1 million hectares in 2018 to 3.9 million by the end of 2019.

Such deforestation is fuelled by a deliberate lack of care and commitment under Bolsonaro’s government. They view environmental policies as obstacles for Brazil’s development, and so they set about ‘environmental dismantling’, removing environmental policies that were in place to protect the rainforest and tackle climate change. As a result, there is no federal effort to control deforestation, land is easier for businesses to exploit and violators are rarely punished.

Over two years into Bolsonaro’s tyranny the statistics continue to get worse. In the first four months of 2021, approximately 433 000 acres of the pristine lush rainforest in the Brazilian Amazon were logged or burned, hitting a record 42.5% on-year rise in April.

Recently, Bolsonaro may have gained favour as he pledged to double the budget for environmental enforcement and committed to net zero deforestation by 2030 under pressure from the Biden administration. However, less than 24 hours later, Bolsonaro signed off on the 2021 federal budget that included a 24% cut to the environment budget compared to the previous year. It is shocking, but hardly unexpected for Bolsonaro.


Justin Trudeau


In the words of Greta Thunberg, the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, is “obviously not doing enough” on climate change.

The data backs this up; Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase year on year, bucking the trend seen in many other developed nations. Canada does not have a reputation for damaging the environment, primarily because Trudeau repeatedly says the right things, and scores so highly on other issues surrounding immigration and women in government.

Yet when it comes to the defining issue of our day, climate change, Trudeau comes up short.

In June 2019 the Canadian government declared a climate emergency, yet the next day it approved a new oil pipeline project. Trudeau’s government has continued to push oil and gas pipelines, specifically from Alberta’s tar sands.

This is labelled as one of the greatest climate disasters on the planet as the oil lies under pristine boreal forest and peat bogs housing wildlife and indigenous people. In 2017 Trudeau got a standing ovation for saying “no country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there.”

This figure is the estimate for recoverable oil in Alberta’s tar sands, meaning that if Canada extracts all this oil and sells it to the world to burn, it will produce 30% of the carbon necessary to take us past the 1.5°C target in the Paris Accord.

In April, at President Biden’s Leaders’ Summit on Climate, Canada’s new target of reducing emissions by between 40% and 45% of 2005 levels by 2030 falls short of both the USA’s and UK’s targets. Trudeau has also set this new target despite missing previous targets.


Scott Morrison


The current Prime Minister of Australia, Scott Morrison, has continued to fuel the devastation of Australia’s unique environment.

As a highly coal-dependent economy, it comes as no surprise that Australia has one of the highest per capita greenhouse emission rates on the planet.

Last year, the Climate Change Performance Index ranked Australia last of 57 countries for its climate policy.

Morrison’s government has failed to clarify how it will meet the country’s insufficient 2030 emission reduction target and issued no long-term mitigation strategy. Furthermore, the government continues to promote the expansion of fossil fuels, has dismissed recent IPCC reports, withdrew funding for the Green Climate Fund, and did not attend last year’s critical UN Climate Action Summit.

In 2017, Morrison famously addressed the House of Representatives while holding a lump of coal, stating. “This is coal. Don’t be afraid. Don’t be scared. It won’t hurt you.”

Morrison failed to realise that air pollution, caused by the burning of coal and oil, was responsible for 8.7m deaths globally in 2018.

Fossil fuels, like coal, are the key driving force behind rising global temperatures which have exacerbated drought, thus increasing both the intensity and frequency of Australia’s bushfires.

The 2019-20 bushfire season was the worst on record, killing or displacing nearly three billion animals. Morrison refused to attribute climate change to the devastating fires, even though 2019 was Australia’s hottest and driest year in history.


Vladimir Putin


The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, is a renowned climate sceptic.

For decades, Putin has repeatedly denied the scientific consensus that climate change is primarily caused by human activity, blaming it on some “processes in the universe.”

He has called Greta Thunberg an “uninformed, impressionable teenager possibly being used in someone’s interests,” voiced scepticism about renewable energy, and expressed alarm at the danger of turbines to worms, causing them to “come out of the ground” by vibrating.

Therefore it does not seem surprising that Putin’s government has recently failed to improve Russia’s insufficient 2030 emissions target, with it currently in line with warming of 4°C. Russia is the world’s fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, so the country’s role in international climate politics is of particular consequence.

However, state support for environmental protection does not exist in Russia, environmental spending is low and there has been little policy reform to help Russia address its serious environmental problems.

It is disappointing that Putin holds such little regard for the environment, especially since Russia is one of the world’s most vulnerable countries to climate change. Two-thirds of Russian territory is located on permafrost, which is rapidly thawing due to increasing temperatures.

This is threatening the infrastructure built on it, including the two million people who live in Russia’s Arctic cities and the 200 000 kilometres of oil and gas pipelines. Recent floods and wildfires have been among the planet’s worst climate-related disasters.

Only last summer an area north of Russia’s Arctic circle reached a phenomenal 38°C, over 100°C warmer than the record low temperature of -68°C that was set in the 1990s.


Recep Tayyip Erdoğan


In the 18 years that Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has led Turkey, little has been achieved to protect both the environment and climate.

More than six years after the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015, Turkey is one of just six countries in the world, and the only G20 country, that has not ratified the agreement.

By not being legally bound to the agreement, it signifies the country does not intend to pursue efforts to limit global temperatures to 1.5°C.

This is deeply worrying as there has been a 190% increase in greenhouse gas emissions in Turkey since 1990, exacerbated by the country’s dependence on coal, oil and gas industries.

Erdoğan’s government has not implemented a coal phase-out policy, despite fossil fuels accounting for a third of the country’s greenhouse gases. In fact, the government is pushing forward with plans to double its coal power capacity and continues to heavily subsidise the industry.

This is despite the fact that air pollution is responsible for almost 5 000 premature deaths, 26 500 cases of bronchitis in children and more than 3 000 preterm births in Turkey per year, alongside a plethora of additional negative environmental impacts.

To give credit where credit is due, Erdoğan’s government has invested heavily in renewable energy, with almost 63% of their electricity coming from renewables in 2020. Yet this ambition does not extend to the natural environment.

Erdoğan is notorious for not letting nature get in the way of building megaprojects; during the construction of Istanbul’s airport, over 2.5 million trees, and thus wildlife, were removed. The president insists that over 4.5 billion trees have been planted during his presidency, yet Turkey still has record deforestation and high tree mortality rate of new plantations.

In 2021 it is incredibly frustrating and disappointing to witness five of the world’s key leaders failing the planet and all those who inhabit it. People are suffering, ecosystems are collapsing and a mass extinction event has begun, yet these leaders continue to favour economic growth over all else.

It is pivotal that policies addressing climate change and environmental issues are at the forefront of these nations’ political agendas. Only once leaders start treating the climate crisis like the existential emergency it is, can we even begin to address the biggest challenge of our time.

Links

(AU RenewEconomy) Australia’s Government Feels No Duty Of Care Towards Young People On Climate

RenewEconomy - 

  
It’s not easy to wrap your head around questions of timescale, for climate change.

There’s no precedent for a problem that involves the entire planet’s atmosphere and oceans, accumulates over time and has such a fuzzy disconnect between the cause of the harm and the manifestation of that harm. We
get a plastics company leaking toxins into a river; we do not get 1,000 coal plants leaking greenhouse gases into the sky.

Trying to rectify that disconnect has been the primary goal of youth climate activists around the world. Young people will be alive long after we perish, and as such, they are the ones directly connected to the consequences of decisions made today. But disproportionately, those making decisions are far older than the general population.

One clear example of this fight: a group of young Australians who sued the government, specifically the Environment Minister Sussan Ley, over the approval of a coal mine extension.

The heart of the matter was whether Ley granting an approval to the coal mine extension would cause harm to the group of children who brought the case forward. It would, as I showed in my previous article, unlock several hundred megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions through the act of extraction, over its lifespan.

   
The ruling on the case is very clear.

“It is difficult to characterise in a single phrase the devastation that the plausible evidence presented in this proceeding forecasts for the Children. As Australian adults know their country, Australia will be lost and the World as we know it gone as well”, wrote Justice Mordecai, in the final judgement.

“Lives will be cut short. Trauma will be far more common and good health harder to hold and maintain. None of this will be the fault of nature itself. It will largely be inflicted by the inaction of this generation of adults, in what might fairly be described as the greatest inter-generational injustice ever inflicted by one generation of humans upon the next”.

The ultimate decision of the Federal Court was to deliver a landmark ruling that found Minister Ley holds a duty of care to protect the children from harm, including the harm caused by the use of the fossil products created by the coal mining operation. He stopped short of granting an injunction to stop the mine, mostly because Ley hadn’t actually approved it yet, and saw the potential of a way forward through consultation between the two sides.

Ley’s first public opinion on the ruling isn’t surprising.

When asked about it at her National Press Club speech yesterday, she said “I didn’t agree with the judgement, that is the first point I want to make. The second important point was that no final orders have been made and that both I and my department are considering the judgement. The judge has asked for submissions, I think they are due in about a week and we are are preparing submissions”.

It’s not a lot of detail, but we’ll surely find out more when the submissions are made. However, what this illustrates is that these court rulings are shifting the rhetorical burden. Ley now has to openly declare that the concept that she holds a duty of care on climate is wrong. We’ve known this all along, through the government’s decisions on emissions, but it’s important that we now hear it stated explicitly.

The most significant component of Justice Mordecai’s ruling is, in my opinion, about ‘knowledge’. That is, there is no pleading innocence or ignorance in the face of climate impacts.
“Here, the Minister has at least all of the knowledge about the risk of harm to the Children which the evidence has provided. The evidence about the risk to the Children is substantial…..the Minister has the understanding provided by my determination that the Children are exposed to a real risk of harm from the Extension Project should it be approved. That is the state of knowledge that the Minister is fixed with for the purpose of this analysis”.
It is perfectly aligned with the Dutch court ruling against Shell, which also showed that by enabling the supply of fossil fuels, the company was knowingly contributing in a non-zero way to the worsening of climate change. There is no mystery, no secret, and no excuse. To actively enable climate change is to be personally responsible for the damage it eventually causes, at any point in the future. Ditto for the ruling against the German government, which was forced to implement stricter climate targets because the weak ones placed an undue burden on young Germans.

That is paired with the immense power that companies like Shell, or people like Minister Sussan Ley, have.
“Here, the Minister has substantial and direct control over the source of harm and also control which flows from the situation of responsibility which the Minister occupies. Her control is also enhanced by her knowledge of the potential consequences of the conduct within her control. The salient features of control, responsibility and knowledge tend strongly in support of the existence of relations between the Minister and the Children sufficient for the common law to impose a duty of care”
The ruling here is significant in that it strikes at the heart of how the Australian government has gone about shirking responsibility on climate. Through specific inaction and actions, they are allowing the new release of greenhouse gases, which heat the planet and harm people and other living things: a failure to dismantle fossil power ASAP, or to swap out fossil transport, heating and cooling with electric alternatives. Or the active, effortful policies to encourage expansion and growth of fossil mining, mostly coal and gas.

These government attitudes are coated with greenwashing, to obscure the damage. Domestic emissions are hand-waved away with empty policies like the ‘technology roadmap’. Fossil mining emissions are dismissed because they’re exported, as if the climate impacts that result will obey country borders and greenhouse accounting spreadsheets. The underlying philosophy behind these actions must be the belief that – truly – they as individuals do not feel any sense of responsibility, or a sense of duty, to care for the citizens of the country.

“It’s just a nuisance at the moment, and — but we’ve seen this before. We’ve just got to put our heads down and work our way through this with government”, said the CEO of the coal mining company, Paul Flynn, before the case was heard. After the ruling, Whitehaven happily welcomed the decision to not grant an injunction against Ley approving the mine, expecting it to be approved and asserting the coal it sells will reduce emissions. They, too, do not feel any need to protect the physical safety of young people who will be alive when the consequences of their decisions manifest in the atmosphere.

But there is hope. “I hope any young person who feels worried about their future, or frustrated about the state of inaction, feels assured that they can generate change, and becomes even more inspired to push for stronger, faster and deeper cuts to carbon emissions worldwide”, wrote Ava Princi in the Guardian, one of the eight students that brought the action against the government.

The burden of justification is shifting. It’s slow, and it may not even feel noticeable, but it really, really is. Increasingly, the onus is lying on those who once enjoyed the benefits of quiet incumbency; of the assumption that business as usual does not need to be interrogated or examined. Now, those fighting to hurt those who’ll be alive well into the mid-century have to justify themselves. It isn’t pretty to watch them saying the quiet parts out loud.

Links

(AU The Australian) Environment Minister Sussan Ley Frosty On Climate Change Ruling

The Australian

Environment Minister Sussan Ley. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Environment Minister Sussan Ley disagrees with a Federal Court ruling that she has a duty of care to protect children against future personal injury from climate change after a Melbourne justice found she had a responsibility to shield future generations from emissions.

The court last month ruled she owed children a duty of care for the health risks linked to climate change – but refused to impose an injunction preventing the expansion of the Vickery coalmine near Gunnedah, NSW.

The court heard the 100 million tonnes of CO2 was likely to cause a tiny but measurable increase to global average surface temperatures.

“In my assessment, that risk is real, meaning that it may be remote but it is not far-fetched or fanciful,” Justice Mordecai Bromberg said.

“Those potential harms may fairly be described as catastrophic, particularly should global average surface temp­eratures rise to, and exceed, 3C beyond the pre-industrial level.”

Justice Bromberg said the court heard one million of today’s Australian children were expected to suffer at least one heat-stress episode serious en­ough to require acute care in a hospital.

But Ms Ley disputed the finding at the National Press Club on Wednesday, declaring: “I didn’t agree with the judgment.”

She said she didn’t know how the court’s finding would affect the government’s environmental approval processes or the ability of mining businesses to work in Australia when no final orders had been made.

“I will continue to make decisions in accordance with the EPBC Act, and beyond that the matter is still under legal contest,” she said.

Ms Ley also revealed she had been checking federal environmental laws to find a provision to direct the NSW government to tackle the booming feral horse population in Kosciuszko National Park.

This followed the Berejiklian government caving in to pressure from Deputy Premier John Barilaro, in 2018, and vetoing the culling of horses in the park.

“I’m looking through the EPBC Act. I’d love to find permission in there that could actually allow the commonwealth to have a say in a heritage-listed national park,” Ms Ley said.

Ms Ley said she had recently flown over the park to see the damage caused by the horses.

She also accused Labor of being split on environmental reform with “one foot planted either side of a barbed wire fence, whistling to mining electorates from the Hunter to the Pilbara in one voice and suburban electorates in another”.

Links

(AU Bloomberg) A $213 Billion Investor Targets Whole Nation Over Climate Change

Bloomberg Green

Photographer: David Gray/Bloomberg

Robeco Institutional Asset Management BV will soon start pressuring Australia to phase out its reliance on coal and other natural resources, as money managers slowly begin targeting governments over climate change.

Australia has a “particularly high-risk profile” when it comes to climate performance, said Peter van der Werf, the Dutch firm’s senior manager of engagement and active ownership. As global investors implement plans to decarbonize portfolios by mid-century, Australia’s lawmakers must follow suit, he said in an interview.

Cutting back on natural resources “are very hard decisions because these are obviously very important sources of revenue for the Australian economy,” Rotterdam-based Van der Werf said. “That’s where in those conversations, institutional investors can also provide a perspective how they would foresee such a transition to take place.”

Unlike established asset manager groups like the Climate Action 100+ that pressure companies such as BHP Group Ltd. to bring their practices in line with the Paris Agreement, bond investors pushing governments to mitigate environmental, social and governance risks is a new concept.

“Aside from green and social bond investing, relatively few efforts have been directed towards helping sovereign debt investors actively contribute to advancing particular sustainable development objectives -- this is surprising,” since government bonds account for almost 70% of the $128 trillion global bond market, Robeco analysts wrote in a report this month.

“Sustainability was something you could sort of test and make a score card, but there was very little room to change that,” Van der Werf said. Robeco’s bond managers are “very eager to get these conversations going,” he said.

Robeco was among firms with $7 trillion in combined assets that engaged Brazil’s government last year in a bid to reduce deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. The investor group is also targeting Indonesia over forestry.

Australia will be next on Robeco’s list to accelerate a so-called just transition as the firm seeks to decarbonize its stock and bond portfolios. The 176 billion euro ($213 billion) manager owned by Orix Corp. of Japan has already shunned Australian debt in its Paris-aligned bond fund, but still owns the debt in other funds. Australia is among the world’s largest per-capita carbon emitters.

Debt investors globally are grappling with assessing the long-term effects of rising world temperatures and how much economic growth must be sacrificed for countries to adapt. They’re also balancing client demands for cleaner, greener portfolios with a fiduciary duty to make money.

Australia may pay a price if it fails to take stronger action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The nation may join others in default on its bonds by mid-century if strong policies aren’t introduced by decade’s end. That could lead to sudden or disruptive changes to its economy, according to research by FTSE Russell.

About one-third of the economy and almost a quarter of the workforce are exposed to disruption if key trading nations source cleaner materials elsewhere as momentum to cut global carbon emissions accelerates, according to Deloitte Access Economics.

Australia is unlikely to be receptive to Robeco. Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who famously brandished a lump of coal in parliament, has steadfastly refused to commit to a deadline for net-zero emissions in support of politically sensitive industries like coal and gas.

The nation instead is hoping technology such as carbon capture and storage will help meet its Paris Agreement obligations.

A spokesperson for Angus Taylor, Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, said Australia’s track record is better than many advanced economies, noting between 2005 and 2019 emissions fell faster than in Canada, New Zealand, Japan or the U.S.

“Action and outcomes are what matter, and our track record is one that will see Australia meet and beat our emissions reduction commitments while continuing to grow our economy and jobs,” the spokesperson said.

Getting Serious

Major sovereigns face creditworthiness risk due to climate change

Note: "Disorderly Transition" scenario assumes climate policies are not introduced until 2030. Reduced sample of sovereigns shown in chart. Source: FTSE Russell

Robeco is looking for Australian institutional investors to help formulate the engagement plan to be put into action this year, Van der Werf said. They’re “closer to the fire” with a “sharper view” of the opportunities to facilitate a transition, he said.

“You need to have a coalition of investors” to pressure all stakeholders that influence government policy, Van der Werf said. “You can’t go at this alone.”

Links