Lethal Heating: 11/24/21

24/11/2021

(The Conversation) The Seas Are Coming For Us In Kiribati. Will Australia Rehome Us?

The Conversation - Akka Rimon | Anote Tong

Getty Images

Authors

Akka Rimon is a PhD Student, Australian National University
Anote Tong is Distinguished Global Leader-in-Residence, University of Pennsylvania

Our atoll nation is barely two metres above sea level, and the waters are coming for us.

Despite the progress and momentum of the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, we are still not moving fast enough to avoid the worst of climate change.

It is heartening that more than 190 countries and organisations agreed to rapidly phase out coal power and end support for new coal power stations.

More than 100 countries signed a pledge to cut methane emissions 30% by the end of the decade, and about the same number agreed to stop deforestation on an industrial scale in the same timeframe.

But even with these agreements, we in Kiribati face the death of our homeland. Co-author Anote Tong led our country as president for 15 years, alongside lead author Akka Rimon, who was foreign secretary between 2014 and 2016.

Author Anote Tong, when he was Kiribati president, at the Pacific Islands Forum in 2015. Mick Tsikas/AAP

The problem is speed. Our land is disappearing faster than global action can stem climate change. Delays and a lack of global leadership mean the existence of small island states like Kiribati is now in the balance.

That means we must urgently find ways to rehome our people. It is very difficult to leave our homes, but there is no choice. Time is not on our side. We must prepare for a difficult future.

What we need is a model where displaced people can migrate to host nations when their homes become uninhabitable. Countries like Australia need workers – and we will soon need homes.

This is, increasingly, a question of justice. Australia’s actions, in particular, raise questions over how sincere it is in honouring its recent commitments at COP26.

As the world’s largest exporter of fossil gas and the second largest exporter of coal, Australia’s reluctance to change is putting its neighbours in the Pacific at risk of literally disappearing. It is the only developed nation not committed to cut emissions at least in half by 2030.

In Glasgow, Fiji urged Australia to take real action by halving emissions by 2030. Did it work? No. Australia also refused to sign the agreements on ending coal’s reign, with prominent politicians undermining the COP26 agreement as soon as the conference was over.

We desperately hope the commitments Australia did make at COP26 are not just words on paper. But if they are, that makes our need for certainty even more urgent.

Let us speak plainly: If Australia really does plan to sell as much of its fossil fuel reserves as possible and drag its feet on climate action, the least it can do is help us survive the rising seas caused by the burning of its coal and gas.

Kiribati’s Tarawa Atoll is home to more than half of the island nation’s far-flung population. European Space Agency, Flickr, CC BY-SA

To migrate with dignity

Eighteen years ago, the Kiribati government – then headed by Anote Tong – introduced a “migration with dignity” policy as a way for I-Kiribati people to adapt to climate change.

We gave our I-Kiribati workers international qualifications tailored for jobs in demand overseas. After this, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Fiji, Tonga and New Zealand set up a scheme to allow workers to migrate to New Zealand if they had an offer of a job. Each year prior to COVID, 75 people from Kiribati were able to migrate through the scheme.

New Zealand is the first and only country currently offering a permanent labour migration program from Kiribati. While welcome, we will need more places for I-Kiribati as climate change intensifies.

Like New Zealand, Australia has expanded its seasonal worker schemes for Pacific workers, and is now moving towards a longer stay, multi-visa arrangement under its Pacific Labour Scheme. We expect this scheme will evolve into a permanent migration scheme similar to New Zealand.

While we wait in hope for a true safe haven for our people, our diaspora is growing. I-Kiribati are moving now to Pacific countries higher above the water level such as Fiji, the Cook Islands, Niue, Samoa and Tonga.

Are we scared? Of course. We are on the front line of this crisis, despite having done amongst the least to cause it. It is difficult to leave the only home we have known. But science does not lie. And we can see the water coming.

Labour migration will not solve climate change, but it offers hope to those of us who will be displaced first.

This is a vital question of climate justice. This upheaval is caused by high-emitting economic powerhouses like the US, China, and the European Union. But the vulnerable are paying the full cost. That is not fair.

As climate change worsens, other global leaders must consider how best to support adaptation through labour mobility. Far better to plan for this now than to let climate change rage unchecked and trigger ever-larger waves of refugees.

The question of climate justice

Consider this: in 2018, each person in Kiribati was responsible for 0.95 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. By contrast, each person in the United States was responsible for 17.7 tonnes. Despite this imbalance, the US has taken little responsibility for what is happening to Kiribati and other low-lying nations.

We are hopeful this may change, given US President Joe Biden recently pledged to make his nation a leader in climate finance by supporting nations worst hit by climate change and with the least resources to cope.

It’s also encouraging that new laws have been proposed to allow people displaced by climate change to live in America.

We must work to slash emissions and devise solutions for the problems caused by the warming.

The highest point in Kiribati is 3 metres above sea level, with the average less than 2 metres. Erin Magee, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

International law must recognise climate displaced populations and create ways we can be rehoused.

While other solutions such as climate-proofing infrastructure or even floating islands have been proposed for Kiribati, these cannot happen overnight and are very expensive. By contrast, labour mobility is fast and advantageous to the host country.

Kiribati’s current government is working to increase skills and employability in our workforce. We are doing our part to get ready for the great dislocation.

When I-Kiribati have to migrate, we want them to be able to do so as first class citizens with access to secure futures rather than as climate refugees.

We are doing all we can to stay afloat in the years of ever angrier climate change. But it will take the global village to save our small village and keep alive our culture, language, heritage, spirits, land, waters and above all, our people.

Links

(The Guardian) Revealed: The Places Humanity Must Not Destroy To Avoid Climate Chaos

The Guardian - Damian Carrington

Tiny proportion of world’s land surface hosts carbon-rich forests and peatlands that would not recover before 2050 if lost

Greenpeace and local activists extinguish a peat fire near Novosibirsk, Siberia. Russia hosts 23% of irrecoverable carbon and has been hit by wildfires in recent years. Photograph: Alexander Nemenov/AFP/Getty Images

Detailed new mapping has pinpointed the carbon-rich forests and peatlands that humanity cannot afford to destroy if climate catastrophe is to be avoided.

The vast forests and peatlands of Russia, Canada and the US are vital, researchers found, as are tropical forests in the Amazon, Congo and south-east Asia. Peat bogs in the UK and mangrove swamps and eucalyptus forests in Australia are also on the list.

The scientists identified 139bn tonnes (139Gt) of carbon in trees, plants and soils as “irrecoverable”, meaning that natural regeneration could not replace its loss by 2050, the date by which the net global carbon emissions must end to avoid the worst impacts of global heating.

In the last decade alone, farming, logging and wildfires have caused the release of at least 4Gt of irrecoverable carbon, the researchers said.

New mapping shows the carbon-rich areas
humanity cannot afford to destroy if climate catastrophe is to be avoided

*to 30cm depth for forests and grasslands and to 100cm depth for peat and wetlands (reflecting the different depths of typical disturbance for different ecosystems). Guardian graphic. Source: Nature Sustainability.

Slashing fossil fuel burning is key to ending the climate crisis but ending the razing of forests is also crucial.

Major nations including Brazil, China and the US agreed to do this by 2030 at the Cop26 climate summit, although a similar pledge made in 2014 failed.

The Earth’s irrecoverable carbon is highly concentrated, the researchers showed. Half of it is found on just 3.3% of the world’s land, making focused conservation projects highly effective. Only half the irrecoverable carbon is currently in protected areas but adding 5.4% of the world’s land to these would secure 75% of irrecoverable carbon, they found.

Indigenous peoples are the best protectors of land but only a third of irrecoverable carbon is stored on their recognised territories. Irrecoverable carbon stores overlap strongly with areas of rich wildlife, so protecting them would also tackle the looming mass extinction of wildlife.

“We absolutely must protect this irrecoverable carbon to avert climate catastrophe – we must keep it in the ground,” said Monica Noon at Conservation International, the lead author of the study.

“These are the areas that really cannot be recovered in our generation – it is our generation’s carbon to protect. But with irrecoverable carbon concentrated in a relatively small area of land, the world could protect the majority of these climate-essential places by 2030.”

Prof Pete Smith, at the University of Aberdeen in the UK, said: “This research makes a convincing case for where, and how, to focus efforts for the ‘30 by 30’ initiatives already in existence” to protect 30% of land by 2030.

Note: maps are not shown to the same scale. *to 30cm depth for forests and grasslands and to 100cm depth for peat and wetlands (reflecting the different depths of typical disturbance for different ecosystems). Guardian graphic. Source: Nature Sustainability.

The research, published in the journal Nature Sustainability, found that 57% of irrecoverable carbon was in trees and plants and 43% was in soils, especially peat.

Global peatlands store more carbon than tropical and subtropical forests, it concluded.

The tropical forests and peatlands of the Amazon are the biggest store of irrecoverable carbon. These were recently reported as emitting more carbon than they absorb.

The boreal peatlands and forests of eastern Canada and western Siberia, and the rainforests islands of south-east Asia, are the next largest.

The temperate rainforest of north-west North America, mangroves and tidal wetlands around the world, and the Congo basin are also major stores.

Russia hosts the biggest store of irrecoverable carbon – 23% – and has been hit by wildfires in recent years.

Brazil is second, where Jair Bolsonaro’s government has allowed a sharp rise in deforestation.

Canada is third and the US fifth: together these two countries have 14% of the world’s irrecoverable carbon, but they have also lost forests to wildfires, pests and logging.

The wetlands of southern Florida are another important store of irrecoverable carbon.

Australia is home to 2.5% of the world’s irrecoverable carbon, in its coastal mangroves and seagrasses as well as forests in the south-east and south-west, which were hit by megafires in 2019-20.

In the UK, peat bogs cover 2m hectares and have stored 230m tonnes of irrecoverable carbon for millennia, but most are in poor condition.

Just 124 people own most of England’s deep peat – its largest carbon store. Read more

The scientists calculated the amount and location of irrecoverable carbon by first identifying at high resolution those areas where direct human activity could damage natural ecosystems.

These included forests and peat wetlands, but excluded permafrost regions and commercial tree plantations.

Next the scientists assessed the total amount of carbon stored in the trees, plants and soils in the included areas. Finally, they estimated how much carbon could be recovered by natural regeneration over 30 years if the forests or wetlands were destroyed.

The difference between the total carbon and recoverable carbon gave the amount of irrecoverable carbon. Losing this irrecoverable carbon would blow the carbon budget needed to have a two-thirds chance of staying under 1.5C of global heating.

Peatlands and mangroves are hotspots of irrecoverable carbon, due to their high carbon density and long recovery times of centuries or more. Tropical forests are less dense in carbon and regrow relatively fast, but remain critical because of the very large areas they cover.

The scientists said protecting irrecoverable carbon must involve strengthening the rights of indigenous peoples, ending the policies that enable destruction and expanding protected areas.

Rob Field, a conservation scientist at the RSPB in the UK, said: “Protection of irrecoverable carbon, coupled with widespread decarbonisation of the world’s economies, will make a safe climate more likely, at the same time as conserving important areas for biodiversity.”

Links

(AU AFR) Court Gives Student OK To Sue Government Over Climate Disclosure

AFR - Hannah Wootton

The Commonwealth has lost an attempt to have a landmark case alleging it misled or deceived sovereign bonds investors by failing to disclose climate change risk thrown out, with a judge slamming its claims as “exaggerated” and having “little force”.

The ruling allows 24-year-old student and bondholder Katta O’Donnell to proceed with her case – one of several sweeping Australian courts in a tidal wave of climate litigation – in which she is pushing for the government to declare climate change risk associated with bonds and for it to be banned from promoting or selling them until it does so.

The Commonwealth has lost its attempt to have Katta O’Donnell’s climate change case struck out. Josh Robenstone

It also paves the way for future cases by effectively ruling that investors can make a claim for misleading conduct before corrective disclosure or harm had occurred, which is at the core of climate change actions in which applicants try to improve the conduct of those they are suing before the alleged harm occurs.

The government was attempting to have the case struck out despite the Australian Office of Financial Management conceding that ratings houses will likely force greater climate disclosure from the state and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg admitting financial markets and lenders may sanction Australia if it does not move faster on cutting emissions.

The Commonwealth argued Ms O’Donnell had not sufficiently established what harm climate change would cause to the state’s finances, when that damage would occur or what the link between the loss and the planet warming was.

But Federal Court judge Bernard Murphy slammed the Commonwealth’s complaints as “exaggerated”, saying it was “straightforward to understand the basis of [Ms O’Donnell’s] claim ... that, in the likely event that the consequences of climate change have material adverse impacts on the Commonwealth’s financial position, the bond market is likely to factor that into the value of [bonds] on the ASX”.

He said that misleading and deceptive conduct was a “relatively straightforward” claim, especially as Ms O’Donnell was not claiming that there had been insufficient disclosure but rather that there had been “nothing at all”.

Justice Murphy also threw out the government’s claim that the case should be struck out because Ms O’Donnell had not explained what information about climate change risk it should have disclosed, saying the onus was on the government to provide this information as it was “uniquely placed ... to assess” it.

He ordered that Ms O’Donnell get access to internal government documents regarding these risks before filing a revised claim, citing a “substantial asymmetry of information” between the parties.

He rejected the government’s claim that requiring climate change risk disclosure would be the thin end of the wedge in requiring disclosure of “every possible event, economic change, or government policy that could ever occur over the space of 30 years” and influence bond prices, saying “that was not the applicant’s case”.

“Disclosure of a risk that the price [of bonds] ... may change for reasons which are unstated, is not the same thing as disclosing a risk that the market price might be materially reduced as a result of a particular identified risk, here, climate change,” he said.

Representative proceeding to go ahead

The Commonwealth also lost its challenge to stop the case being a representative proceeding – meaning Ms O’Donnell is suing on behalf of other bondholders – on the basis that climate change disclosure actually risked loss to investors in the future.

It said there was “no legitimate purpose” behind bringing the matter as a representative proceeding, suggesting Ms O’Donnell was trying to run a “pseudo climate change class action” to garner public attention even though she could have just sued the Commonwealth in a personal capacity.

But Justice Murphy also dismissed this as having “little force” and media attention was “neither here nor there”.

“These days, it is common place for the parties to large litigation to consider, and attempt to influence, the way the litigation is seen in the eyes of the public,” he said.

“There is little or no evidence as to how the applicant has sought to garner media attention regarding the proceeding. But to the extent that she may have done so, it carries little weight in deciding whether to order that the proceeding not continue as a representative proceeding.”

But he rejected Ms O’Donnell’s allegations that the Commonwealth, federal Treasury Secretary and the CEO of the Australian Office of Financial Management owed her a fiduciary duty, meaning the individuals are off the hook as only the misleading and deceptive claim against the state remains.

Links