04/12/2021

(AU The Guardian) Anthony Albanese Commits Labor To Emissions Reduction Target Of 43% By 2030

The Guardian

In opposition leader’s most significant policy announcement to date, Albanese also pledges to boost renewables share of grid to 82%



Anthony Albanese announces Labor's 2030 emissions target. 1min 46sec

Anthony Albanese will set an emissions reduction target of 43% by 2030 and boost the share of renewables in the national electricity market to 82% if Labor wins the coming federal election.

The ALP leader has unveiled Labor’s most electorally risky policy commitment since the 2019 election defeat, declaring a more ambitious target would spur $76bn in investment and reduce average annual household power bills by $275 in 2025 and $378 in 2030.

Guardian Australia revealed on Friday the shadow cabinet had signed off on a 43% target, which is lower than the 45% medium term target Labor promised at the 2019 election, but higher than the Morrison government’s Abbott-era commitment of a 26-28% cut on 2005 levels.

The primary mechanism Labor will use to reduce emissions faster than current projections will be the Coalition’s existing safeguard mechanism. Improvements to that scheme are expected to deliver emissions reductions of 213Mt by 2030.

Ahead of the Cop26 summit in Glasgow, the Business Council of Australia urged the Morrison government to overhaul the existing safeguard mechanism, including reducing baselines to drive an orderly transition to net zero by 2050.

The government rejected that proposal, but Labor has adopted it as a core component of its policy.

The safeguard mechanism currently applies to 215 of Australia’s heaviest polluters – businesses that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide or equivalent greenhouse gasses.

The shadow climate change minister, Chris Bowen, said Labor would overhaul the scheme but not extend coverage to new entities – and businesses will also be permitted to use offsets to achieve their emissions reductions.

Bowen said Labor would not subject any Australian trade-exposed business to any more onerous climate regulation than their international competitors.

In electricity, Labor will significantly upgrade transmission infrastructure to hasten the transition to renewables, invest in solar banks and install 400 community batteries.

These measures are projected to see renewables make up 82% of power generation in Australia’s national electricity market by 2030, instead of 68% under current projections.

Albanese has dumped a 2019 pledge to introduce more efficient fuel standards to reduce transport emissions – a policy the Coalition falsely badged as a “war on the weekend”.

But Labor will remove import tariffs and the fringe benefits tax from electric cars below the luxury car tax threshold to drive consumer take-up of electric vehicles, and will develop a more comprehensive EV strategy if it wins in 2022.

The policy commitments were accompanied by modelling by market analysts Reputex. The analysis says Labor’s transition plan will generate 604,000 direct and indirect jobs compared to a business-as-usual scenario, include $24bn in new public investment, and drive 440Mt of emissions reductions between 2023 and 2030.

The Morrison government limbered up for another scare campaign on the higher 2030 target before the policy was unveiled.

Scott Morrison – who attempted unsuccessfully to boost his own 2030 target before being thwarted by the National party – declared on Friday that Labor’s 43% target was not a “safe” transition for workers in the Hunter Valley, or in the Queensland regional city of Gladstone, or for manufacturing jobs.

While the major parties now agree Australia should reach net zero emissions by 2050, and current emissions projections indicate Australia will cut emissions by 35% by 2030, the Coalition will continue to use Labor’s higher medium-term ambition as a political weapon in seats in Queensland and regional New South Wales.

Bowen told reporters in Canberra on Friday he expected the Coalition to lie about Labor’s policy.

“These guys are liars, and they will continue to lie,” he said.

“We are up for a good strong debate about Australia’s future”.

Albanese said the pre-emptive strike showed the prime minister will just “attack anything”. He said it suggested the government was “out of puff”.

“We see a government that doesn’t have a plan for today, let alone any concept of a vision for tomorrow,” the Labor leader said.

Labor’s policy was largely welcomed by stakeholders. The Business Council of Australia said it was “sensible and workable”. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said it was “encouraging to see updated 2030 targets that push the frame towards more ambitious action on climate change”.

The Climate Council welcomed the target but urged Labor to strengthen ambition.

“Right now, our country is the worst-performing of all developed countries when it comes to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and moving beyond fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas,” said Climate Council chief executive Amanda McKenzie.

“Labor’s plan is a major improvement, but it will need to be strengthened significantly to genuinely tackle climate change,” she said.

That sentiment was echoed by progressive think tank the Australia Institute. “An increased 2030 target is a good first step, however, the world has moved beyond first steps,” said Richie Merzian, climate and energy program director at the Australia Institute.

“Australia needs a long-term plan to end fossil fuels.”

A number of countries increased the ambition of their 2030 targets in the lead up to Cop26. Australia was the only developed country not to adjust its 2030 commitment ahead of the Glasgow conference.

Labor’s pre-election commitment compares with 40% in South Korea, 40-45% in Canada, 50-52% in the United States, and 46-50% in Japan.

Links

(Vox) Venus Could Have Been A Paradise But Turned Into A Hellscape. Earthlings, Pay Attention.

Vox

900 degrees Fahrenheit, crushing pressure, and acid clouds. Venus, what the hell happened?

Courtesy of NASA/JPL

“Hellscape” is the most appropriate word to describe the surface of Venus, the second planet from the sun. At 900 degrees Fahrenheit, it’s the hottest planet in the solar system, thanks to an atmosphere that’s almost entirely made up of carbon dioxide.

Clouds made of highly corrosive sulfuric acid are draped over a volcanic landscape of razor-sharp lava flows. Most crushingly, the pressure on the surface of Venus is about 92 times the pressure you’d feel at sea level on Earth.


 “It’s really almost entertainingly, comically horrible, like some sort of cosmic deity had a really, really grumpy day and just went ‘Nope, I’m gonna ruin this planet,’” Robin George Andrews, a science journalist and volcanologist, says.

Andrews compares it to being in a pressure cooker a mile underwater. “If you stood on the surface, you would be pancaked and you would melt,” he says. Your eyes would explode due to the pressure — “which would be gross,” he adds.

Yet as Andrews relays in his new book, Super Volcanoes: What They Reveal about Earth and the Worlds Beyond, some scientists suspect Venus was once much like Earth, with a liquid water ocean like the ones that support life on our planet.

For Andrews, the question of what happened to ruin Venus is captivating and even existential.

“Venus and Earth are planetary siblings,” he says. “They were made at the same time and made of the same stuff, yet Venus is apocalyptic and awful in every possible way. Earth is a paradise. So why do we have a paradise next to a paradise lost?”

Scientists know something on Venus triggered truly catastrophic levels of climate change, causing surface temperatures to shoot up hundreds of degrees. But they don’t know exactly what.

I spoke to Andrews for an episode of Unexplainable, Vox’s science podcast about unanswered questions, about what could have triggered Venus’s apocalypse and why we should care about it.

Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

The podcast episode also features a discussion with Sara Seager, an MIT planetary scientist and an expert on exoplanets, or planets outside our solar system, who raises the tantalizing question: What if, despite the cataclysm, something is still alive on Venus?

The origins of Venus could tell us a lot about our place in the universe

On the left, Venus as it is today. On the right, an artist’s interpretation of where oceans could have lain on the surface in the past. NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory-Caltech (left) and NASA (right)

Brian Resnick: You say the question of “what killed Venus” is existential. What makes it so?

Robin George Andrews:
It really is a question about why are we here. Answering it will help us answer the question: How lonely are we? Are there other Venuses or Earths out there?

If Earth is the odd one out, how lucky are we to exist? If Venus is the odd one out, then maybe we’re not so special after all.

Brian Resnick: So Earth and Venus started off as similar planets, and then went down different paths. You want to know what path is more common out there in the cosmos?

Robin George Andrews: When you hear in the news that scientists have discovered an Earth-like exoplanet, they might as well be saying, we found a Venus-like exoplanet. We don’t know if this is like a habitable world by our human, surface-dwelling standards, or if it’s gone through this sort of apocalyptic climate change like Venus.

A good way to work out what may be more common in the cosmos is to study Earth and Venus, because they are siblings.
We don’t know how often it is that volcanoes decide to trash the planets they’re on
Brian Resnick: How do scientists know, or suspect, Venus used to be more pleasant, habitable even?

Robin George Andrews:
So even though Venus today looks and is apocalyptic in every meaning of the word, probes have looked at its atmosphere and found there’s a lot of “heavy water” in the atmosphere. Heavy water is exactly what it sounds like.

The water we’re used to, this classic H2O, which is found commonly everywhere on Earth, is a more common type of water throughout the cosmos. Heavy water just kind of switches out that hydrogen for something called deuterium, which is like a heavier version of hydrogen.


Brian Resnick: What does finding heavy water mean?

Robin George Andrews: If you measure how much heavy water exists somewhere, you can make a reasonable guess as to how much classic water there is or was on that planet. It suggests that there once was a lot of classic water on Venus, at least an ocean’s worth of water on Venus.

If that water existed in liquid form, what are the odds that Venus was habitable at some point? It’s not unlikely, even though today it looks impossible.


Brian Resnick: How long ago must this have been, this habitable Venus?


Robin George Andrews: I think there is a possibility that water was always steam, and it might have never been liquid water. But if it was, then it could have been habitable for billions of years. Maybe right up until the last billion years.

Brian Resnick: So that’s what we’re talking about when we say Venus used to be “alive.” What do we mean by “killed”?

Robin George Andrews: Death, in this case, is runaway climate change. Absolutely irreversible, world-ending climate change. The average temperature of the planet shot up by something like several hundred degrees Fahrenheit. It really sort of cooked itself to death.

Suspect No. 1 for the death of Venus: The sun

Plasma spewing out of the surface of the sun. NASA/Solar Dynamics Observatory

Brian Resnick: So the question, I imagine, is how Venus cooked itself.

Robin George Andrews: There’s kind of two leading theories as to what killed Venus. Option No. 1 is the sun. From what we know of our sun and other stars, when they’re kind of in their teenage years, they get hyper-excitable, and they get hotter and brighter quite quickly.

If the sun actually gets brighter and hotter too quickly, even though you might have that water sitting on the surface, the sun can boil it off. And that is a fate that lots of exoplanets, or planets outside our galaxy, are presumed to have gone through.

Brian Resnick: And once Venus’s water gets vaporized...


Robin George Andrews: That steam is a greenhouse gas that would have kicked up the greenhouse gas effect. And then the carbon dioxide coming out of Venus’s embryonic volcanoes would have just sealed the deal. That could explain why we see Venus as it is today.

Brian Resnick: If this young, very excitable sun is what killed Venus, the Earth would have been fine, right?

Robin George Andrews: Yeah, the Earth would have been fine. It seems that Earth was spared the worst of it.

Suspect No. 2 for the death of Venus: Tectonic plate-breaking volcanoes

An artist’s depiction of a volcanically active Venus. NASA/JPL-Caltech/Peter Rubin

Brian Resnick: So that’s one suspect in our whodunit. What is the other suspect?

Robin George Andrews: The other suspect just happens to be my favorite thing: volcanoes.

Brian Resnick: How could your fave, volcanoes, kill a planet?

Robin George Andrews: Two hundred and fifty-two million years ago, Earth experienced its worst mass extinction, something called the Great Dying. At least 90 percent of all life was wiped out, and the primary suspects were these volcanic fissures that opened up in Siberia. It produced a continent-sized flood of lava that took about 2 million years to erupt.

So it causes giant explosions and also unleashed all these greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and it created a global warming effect that raised the temperature by a dozen degrees [Celsius]. That caused 90 percent of all the life on Earth to die. Earth had to kind of reset itself. And the idea is, well, what if that happened on Venus, but worse?

Brian Resnick: That could kill the planet?

Robin George Andrews: If you just have one [Great Dying-scale] eruption, it might be okay, because Venus had plate tectonics. Plate tectonics is essentially a planet’s thermostat.

Brian Resnick: Plate tectonics — that’s how continents kind of float around and smoosh into each other. How do those act like a thermostat?

Robin George Andrews: Carbon dioxide can get soaked up in the ocean, and that filters down to these tectonic plates. If tectonic plates dive down beneath each other, then you’re burying carbon [and slowing the greenhouse effect].

Brian Resnick: Okay, but how do you break this carbon-burying system?

Robin George Andrews: You have two of these epic, Great Dying-like eruptions at the same time.

That will immediately trigger quite an intense period of global warming. And the oceans will just start to boil off.

Now, plate tectonics could bury carbon for a while. But if you boil off your oceans, that carbon dioxide has nothing to dissolve into. And if you get rid of that water, plate tectonics itself shuts down.

If you dehydrate [tectonic plates], you make them brittle — they can’t bury the carbon anymore. That’s essentially game over. If you break plate tectonics you’ve broken the world.

The scientific jury is still out

Venus’s clouds captured in infared. JAXA/ISAS/DARTS/Damia Bouic

Brian Resnick: So we have our two suspects here. We have the sun and we have massive eruptions on Venus that broke Venus. Which one should we sentence here?

Robin George Andrews: The volcanoes seem more likely because we can see how that’s happened on Earth — just to a slightly lesser extent. But if this was put into a court of law, they would both be presumed not guilty, just because there isn’t a telltale bit of evidence yet.

Brian Resnick: So how do we solve this mystery?

Robin George Andrews: There’s basically a fleet of missions that is going to unravel the geologic makeup of Venus today. If it looks bone-dry and it was always bone-dry, then maybe the sun did it, because it’s been dehydrated for a long time.

But if it looks like there’s still some dehydration going on, that means you still have water somewhere. If Venus was still kind of soggy on the inside, and it’s still kind of belching water out, the volcanoes probably killed Venus.

Brian Resnick: Could the Earth pull a Venus one day?

Robin George Andrews: [Laughs.] Yeah, it could. Let’s not panic — I mean, these sorts of eruptions are like millions of years in timescales. So it’s not like no one would see this coming and we’d instantly be doomed. But it could happen. And the question is: Is it normal for a planet to have just one of these really epic, game-changer eruptions at one time? Or is it just a fluke?

The fact that no one knows the answer to this is weirdly, perversely exciting to me. We don’t know how often it is that volcanoes decide to trash the planets they’re on.

Brian Resnick: People sometimes bring up Venus in the context of climate change. It’s an example of how bad a planet can become when greenhouse gases start to accumulate in an atmosphere. Could we humans potentially be the volcano?

Robin George Andrews: The pace at which we’re putting carbon dioxide into the sky is worse than what was happening during the Great Dying, in terms of the amount of carbon per year.

Brian Resnick: But we would need to keep this up for millions of years to match, right?

Robin George Andrews: Right.

Brian Resnick: This is weirdly reassuring that humans are unlikely to break the Earth completely.

Robin George Andrews: Yeah. I think it would be a terrible idea to pay homage to what happened to Venus.

Links

(The Conversation) The Average Person’s Daily Choices Can Still Make A Big Difference In Fighting Climate Change – And Getting Governments And Utilities To Tackle It, Too

The Conversation

Reducing household energy use can contribute to slowing climate change. Westend61 via Getty Images

Author
 is Assistant Professor of Geography and Environmental Studies, Texas State University     
The average American’s everyday interactions with energy sources are limited. They range from turning appliances on or off, to commuting, to paying utility bills.

The connections between those acts and rising global temperatures may seem distant.

However, individuals hold many keys to unlocking solutions to climate change – the biggest challenge our species currently faces – which is perhaps why the fossil fuel industry spent decades misleading and misinforming the public about it.

I’m an assistant professor of geography and environmental studies at Texas State University. My research explores how geography affects the complex relationships between societies, energy and contemporary environmental challenges. I’ve found that the human element is critical for developing creative, effective and sustainable solutions to climate challenges.

There’s a large and growing body of evidence showing that individuals can have a major impact on climate change in a number of ways. Citizen action can compel utilities to increase renewable energy and governments to enact strong climate action laws. When enough individuals make changes that lower daily household energy consumption, huge emissions reductions can result. Consumer demand can compel businesses to pursue climate and environmental sustainability.

These actions combined could bridge the “emissions gap”: the significant difference between the greenhouse gas emissions expected globally and how much they need to drop in the next few decades to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Climate change is outracing government action

People have worked for decades to slow climate change by altering national energy policies. Several states, for example, have renewable portfolio standards for utilities that require them to increase their use of renewable energy.

But 30 years of evidence from international climate talks suggests that even when nations commit on paper to reducing emissions, they seldom achieve those cuts. The United Nations climate summit in Glasgow is the latest example. Researchers have found that many countries’ pledges have been developed using flawed data.

People are also increasingly talking about geoengineering solutions for climate change. The idea is that over the coming decades, researchers will find ways to manipulate the environment to absorb more carbon pollution. However, some experts argue that geoengineering could be environmentally catastrophic. Also, there’s significant doubt that technological “draw down” interventions can be perfected and scaled up soon enough to make a difference.

So if government, technology or geoengineering aren’t good answers, what are?

Citizen action

Pledges, goals and targets for shifting from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources are only as good as the efforts by utilities and governments to reach them. Citizen participation and action have proved effective at compelling decision-makers to act. For example, scholars studying the economic, political and social dynamics that led five U.S. municipalities to adopt 100% renewable energy found that grassroots citizen advocacy was one of the key factors that drove the change.

According to the Sierra Club, through citizen-driven action, over 180 cities, more than 10 counties and eight U.S. states have made commitments to transitioning to 100% renewable energy. Consequently, over 100 million U.S residents already live in a community with a 100% renewable energy target. Citizens have also been taking collective action at the ballot box. For example, in 2019, after New York City voters elected a more climate conscious City Council, the city enacted an ambitious emissions reduction law, and has since begun to enforce it.

Also in 2019, after voters similarly shook up the state legislature, New York state enacted the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. Among the nation’s strongest climate change laws, New York’s measure mandates that the state shift to 100% renewable energy by 2040 and that its emissions from all sources drop 40% by 2040 and 85% by 2050.

Consumer demand

How and where people spend their money can also influence corporate behavior. Companies and utilities are changing their products and production practices as consumers increasingly demand that they produce ecologically sustainable products and lower their carbon footprints.

Scholars have documented that consumer boycotts negatively affect the wealth of a corporation’s shareholders – which in turn can create pressure for a firm to change in response.

The Natural Resources Defense Council has reported that thanks to surging consumer awareness and demand, more than 565 companies have publicly pledged to slash their carbon emissions. Some of the world’s biggest brands have responded to this pressure with claims of already being powered by 100% renewable energy, including Google and Apple.

Google put its global economic might behind climate solutions when it announced in 2019 that it would support the growth of renewable energy resources by making solar and wind energy deals worth US$2 billion.

One drawback to consumer demand-driven action is that it’s often unclear how to hold these firms accountable for their promises. Recently, two impact investing experts suggested in Vox that since around 137 million Americans own stock in publicly traded companies, they could use their collective power as shareholders to make sure companies follow through.

Shifting household energy behavior

A substantial body of research shows that small changes to everyday behaviors can significantly reduce energy demand. This may be the biggest way individuals and families can contribute to lowering fossil fuel consumption and reducing carbon emissions.

These steps include weatherization and using energy-efficient appliances, as well as energy efficiency measures such as turning down thermostats, washing laundry with cold water and air-drying it rather than using a dryer.

So is shifting transportation behavior. Using public transportation, car pooling, riding a bicycle or walking can significantly reduce individual and cumulative emissions.

Choosing to ride a bicycle, walk or take public transit rather than drive can significantly lower a person’s greenhouse gas emissions. Sean Gallup/Getty Images

So since most governments aren’t acting quickly enough, and many technology and geoengineering solutions are still unproven or come with high risks, emission reduction goals won’t be achieved without incorporating additional strategies.

The evidence is clear that these strategies should include millions of average people factoring climate change into their everyday activities regarding their communities, purchases and personal energy use.

As the environmentalist Bill McKibben wrote in 2006 about dealing with climate change, “There are no silver bullets, only silver buckshot.”

Links