28/02/2022

(USA NYT) Will The Supreme Court Frustrate Efforts To Slow Climate Change?

New York Times - Jody Freeman

Sophia Deng




Author
Professor Jody Freeman teaches environmental and administrative law at Harvard University.
She was counselor for energy and climate change in the Obama White House in 2009 and 2010 and advised the Biden transition team.
Professor Freeman is an independent director on the board of ConocoPhillips, a producer of oil and natural gas.
With Congress doing little on climate change, President Biden must use his executive authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions across the U.S. economy.

The Supreme Court appears determined to thwart him.

In a case to be argued on Feb. 28, the court seems poised to restrict the Environmental Protection Agency’s legal authority to limit carbon pollution from power plants and, by doing so, frustrate the country’s efforts to slow the pace of climate change.

The justices went out of their way to take the case brought by coal companies and Republican-led states even though no federal rule in effect regulates greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, and no company or state is required to take any action to control those emissions.

No power company petitioned the court for its review, and in fact, several of the nation’s biggest power companies opposed the justices’ adding the case to their docket.

The Biden administration argues that the court should wait until the E.P.A. issues a rule, as it plans to do; otherwise, any decision would be an advisory opinion based on a hypothetical, which the court has said repeatedly the Constitution does not allow.

But the State of West Virginia and its fellow petitioners, including 17 other states and coal and mining companies, argue that any agency rule to cut carbon from the electric power sector will have such enormous consequences that the court should act now to curtail the agency’s authority.

In a brief to the court, those states warned in alarmist language against empowering the agency “to reorganize American industry.” The plaintiffs want a sweeping ruling to neutralize the E.P.A.’s power to set any meaningful emissions standards.

Just by accepting the case, the court has suggested where it is headed — which is toward curbing the E.P.A’.s flexibility. The court’s conservative majority has been deeply skeptical of federal regulatory authority unless Congress has been extremely explicit in its instructions on what agencies can do.

But Congress cannot anticipate every possible situation and for good reasons often delegates broad authority to agencies, letting them make expert judgments in technical domains.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Clean Air Act authorizes the E.P.A. to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, including those from power plants. Congress told the E.P.A. to choose the best system to reduce emissions.

Yet the court might be so eager to restrict climate regulation under the Clean Air Act that it may be willing to overrule its own precedents, disregard foundational constitutional principles requiring plaintiffs to show concrete harm and ignore the business needs of the affected industry.

In doing so, the court may inadvertently harm the power sector more than it helps it, by ruling out practical, inexpensive or flexible strategies that the industry and many states support to reduce emissions.

Burning fossil fuels to generate electricity is responsible for about 25 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, behind only transportation. Substantial reductions in power plant emissions are critical if the United States is to meet its pledge in the Paris Agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions economywide by 50 percent to 52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

Mr. Biden has set a goal of eliminating those emissions from electricity generation by 2035.

The case is complicated but the question underlying it boils down to this: Is the E.P.A.’s regulatory authority over power plant emissions narrowly limited to requiring only negligible improvements at each source, which would produce minimal if any emission reductions? That is what the coal companies and the states bringing this case want.

Or can the agency use a broader approach based on other things power plants can do to cut emissions, for example, by combining coal with other, less-polluting fuels like natural gas, biogas and hydrogen; integrating renewables; using technology that captures the emissions before they leave the smokestack; and by allowing companies to trade emissions credits or average emissions reductions across a company’s fleet?

That is what the E.P.A. and many power companies want. They also want the states to be free to consider such measures when deciding how best to achieve federal emissions limits.

The legal saga leading to this point goes back to the Obama administration, when the E.P.A. adopted what was known as the Clean Power Plan. This rule required power plants to cut emissions 32 percent from their 2005 levels by 2030.

But the Supreme Court temporarily blocked it, and the Trump administration later repealed it, substituting a much weaker rule. Then, before Mr. Trump left office, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the Trump rule, saying its cramped view of what the E.P.A. could do under the Clean Air Act was wrong.

The court also ordered, and all parties agreed, that no power plant regulation would take effect until the E.P.A. issued a new rule.

Normally, the case would have ended there. The Biden administration is now developing its own power plant standards with input from industry and others with a stake in the outcome.

The Supreme Court typically does not review a hypothetical or proposed regulation until it is final, and for good reason.

Without the benefit of an agency’s thinking and a detailed administrative record of how it reached its decision, the court runs the risk that its abstract ruling will have unintended consequences, including harming the affected industry.

The court has a way out. It can dismiss the case because, with no rule in place, no one is suffering any legal harm — a requirement known as standing, which is necessary for the court to assert jurisdiction. That would preserve everyone’s right to litigate in the future while allowing the E.P.A. to develop a new rule.

It is sensible to wait. Economic conditions and technology have evolved considerably in the past decade. The court should allow the E.P.A. to conduct a fresh assessment of what power plants can reasonably do to cut carbon emissions using available technologies at an acceptable cost.

Many in the electricity industry support this approach. Ten power companies, with operations in virtually every state, sided with the Biden administration. The trade association representing all U.S. investor-owned electric companies filed a brief urging the court to retain the E.P.A.’s authority.

These companies need stable, predictable federal rules to make economic decisions and plan investments.

The coal industry likes to argue that without the court’s intervention and direction, the E.P.A. will run amok. But the record shows that if anything, the agency tends to underestimate what business can do to control pollution.

The power sector exceeded the targets in the Clean Power Plan years ahead of time, even without a rule in place, showing that those standards were neither too costly nor transformative.

The justices should restrain themselves and let the regulatory process play out.

Links
at No comments:

(AU The Conversation) Like Rivers In The Sky: The Weather System Bringing Floods To Queensland Will Become More Likely Under Climate Change

The Conversation - |

Flooding in Gympie, Queensland, February 26, 2022. AAP Image/Supplied by Brett's Drone Photography

Authors
  •  is a PhD Researcher in Atmospheric Science, The University of Melbourne
  •  is Senior Lecturer in Climate Science, The University of Melbourne
The severe floods in southeast Queensland this week have forced hundreds of residents to flee the town of Gympie and have cut off major roads, after intense rain battered the state for several days. The rain is expected to continue today, and travel south into New South Wales.

We research a weather system called “atmospheric rivers”, which is causing this inundation. Indeed, atmospheric rivers triggered many of the world’s floods in 2021, including the devastating floods across eastern Australia in March which killed two people and saw 24,000 evacuate.

Our recently published research was the first to quantify the impacts these weather systems have in Australia, and another study we published in November looked closely at the floods in March last year

We found while atmospheric rivers bring much-needed rainfall to the agriculturally significant Murray-Darling Basin, their potential to bring devastating floods will become more likely in a warmer world under climate change. What are atmospheric rivers?

 Atmospheric rivers are like highways of water vapour between the tropics and poles, located in the first one to three kilometres of the atmosphere. They are responsible for about 90% of the water vapour moving from north to south of the planet, despite covering only 10% of the globe.

When atmospheric rivers crash into mountain ranges or interact with cold fronts, they rain out this water with potentially disastrous impacts. Mountains and fronts lift the water vapour up in the atmosphere where it cools and condenses into giant, liquid-forming bands of clouds. Intense thunderstorms can also form within atmospheric rivers.

A snapshot of water vapour in the atmosphere. Atmospheric rivers are the narrow streamers branching off the equator. Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Three atmospheric rivers last year were particularly devastating.

In January, California was hit with a strong atmospheric river that caused record-breaking rainfall and blizzards. It also triggered a landslide on California’s iconic Highway 1.

In November, British Columbia, Canada was battered with record breaking rainfall that left Vancouver isolated from the rest of the country.

And in March, Eastern Australia copped a drenching that led to widespread flooding and A$652 million worth of damage. All mainland states and territories except WA faced simultaneous weather warnings. What we found

Our recently published research provides the first quantitative summary of atmospheric rivers over Australia. It’s not all bad news – most of the time, atmospheric rivers bring beneficial rainfall to Australia. About 30% of southeast Australia’s rainfall comes from atmospheric rivers, including in the Murray-Darling Basin.

Rainfall is vital to this region. The Murray-Darling Basin supports over 500 species of birds, reptiles and fish, and around 30,000 wetlands. Agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin contributes A$24 billion to the Australian economy.

However, we also found that 30-40% of the heaviest rainfall days in the Northern Murray-Darling Basin, where towns such as Tamworth, Dubbo and Orange are located, were associated with atmospheric rivers.

A heavy downpour in Australia’s bread basket might lead to happier farmers during a dry period, but following a wet summer – such as from La Niña – these days are less welcome.

Queensland residents are facing one of the most severe weather systems in a decade. AAP Image/Jono Searle

La Niña saturates soil

La Niña can play a big role in flooding, as it exacerbates damage wrought by atmospheric rivers.

A La Niña was declared in spring in 2020 and fizzled out by March in 2021. A second La Niña arrived in the summer of 2021 and 2022.

During a La Niña, winds that blow from east to west near the equator strengthen. This leads to cold, deep ocean water rising up to the surface in the East Pacific, near South America, and warm ocean waters to build near Australia.

Warm sea surface temperatures promote rainfall, which is why La Niña is associated with rainier weather over much of Australia.

Soil is like a kitchen sponge. It absorbs water, but once it becomes saturated it can no longer soak up any more. This is what happened to eastern Australia in the months before the March floods – and when the record-breaking rain fell, the ground flooded.

On March 23, 2021, 800kg of water vapour flowed over Sydney every second. Shutterstock

Our recent research found that in March 17-24 last year, NSW experienced an almost constant stream of high water vapour in the atmosphere above from both an atmospheric river that originated in the Indian Ocean and a high pressure system in the Tasman Sea.

On March 23, over 800kg of water vapour passed over Sydney every second - that’s 9.6 Sydney Harbours of water in one day.

Likewise, soil moisture in south-east Queensland has been above average since October last year. Last November was Australia’s wettest November on record with south-east Queensland receiving very-much-above average rainfall.

This meant the ground was already sodden. So when the heavy rain fell this week, Queensland flooded.

The soil in Queensland was already saturated due to higher than average rainfall since October last year. AAP Image/Jono Searle
What’s the role of climate change?

We also calculated the likelihood of future atmospheric rivers as big as the one in March 2021 flowing over Sydney using the latest generation of climate models.

Earth is currently on track for 2.7℃ warming by the end of the century. Under this scenario, we found the chance of a similar weather event to the March floods will become 80% more likely. This means we are on track for more extreme rainfall and flooding in Sydney.

We also know climate change will increase the occurrence of atmospheric rivers over the planet, but more research is needed to determine just how often we can expect these damaging events to happen, including in southeast Queensland.

However, this path is not final. There is still time to change the outcome if we urgently reduce emissions to stop global warming beyond 1.5℃ this century. Every little bit we do to limit carbon emissions might mean one less flood and one less person who has to rebuild.

Links
at No comments:

(AU ABC) Politicians Rated On Climate Credentials As Environment Is Front And Centre For Voters Of Today And Tomorrow

ABC Central Victoria - Jo Printz

Castlemaine school children striking for action on climate change as part of a previous schoolstrike4climatechange. (Twitter @StrikeClimate)


Key Points
  • Environmental issues and the climate crisis could be major election issues
  • Community environment groups and students want voters to make informed decisions
  • They say understanding candidates' policies and environmental credentials are important
While coronavirus and other global issues may have put the climate crisis on the backburner recently, activists say the upcoming federal election is an opportunity to put the state of the planet back on the agenda. 

Elsie L'Huillier is part of the Bendigo United Climate Challenge Alliance, a group of community members and organisations that rate local political candidates on their environmental position and policies.

"It's a reasonably long tradition now, particularly for environmental groups trying to target the information, to work out what are the things we really need answers to," she said.

"Instead of waiting to go through all the policy guff that comes out, we're asking the hard questions.

"[We're] also setting up some sort of a system whereby you can ask the same questions of everyone and rank them according to those particular topics.

Elsie L’Huillier says the Bendigo United Climate Challenge Alliance is providing information that can be relied upon. (ABC Central Victoria: Jo Printz)
"In terms of the federal government cycles, this will be the first one where there clearly is evidence that the greater majority, not just the majority, believe there is a problem with climate change and that we need better legislation around how we're protecting the environment."

Ms L'Huillier believes the group is providing information people in the community can trust.

"It's come from fellow locals; they can eyeball us and go what's the basis for that?" she said.

Climate at the forefront of young voices

Harriet O'Shea Carre, a 17-year-old student activist from Castlemaine isn't yet old enough to vote but that hasn't stopped her from holding politicians to account on climate change.

One of the founding members of the School Strike for Climate movement in Australia, Harriet says it's easy to become complacent, particularly during a pandemic, but every vote really does count.

"One thing about this pandemic is that it's shown us ... when our leaders are committed to making changes and protecting society, we can take really urgent action, which is what is necessary with climate change."
"We really need policies that are moving towards 100 per cent renewable energy and prioritising future generations and the planet over profit."
Castlemaine’s Harriet O’Shea Carre (centre) with School Strike for Climate in Australia co-founders Milou Albrecht (left) and Callum Neilson Bridgfoot (right) at a Melbourne rally in 2021. (Supplied: Harriet O’Shea Carre) 
She said it can be frustrating that some people have that attitude of complacency when there is plenty of information and resources available on the issues we're facing, but they don't take the time and effort to do a little research.

"All votes are important for future generations; it's young people now and in the future who will be inheriting this planet and these policies ... so if you're going into this system thinking you can't make a difference, we're never going to get anywhere."

Euan Ritchie, a professor in wildlife ecology and conservation at Deakin University, knows more than most the imperatives of how we deal with the climate and extinction crisis in the next few years and agrees voters can't be complacent.

"No vote in Australia is ever wasted because we have a preference system; by exercising your values by whoever you choose to vote for, you're absolutely having a really important contribution to the democratic process," Dr Ritchie said

Voters need to ask the tough questions

Dr Ritchie says there's a whole range of questions voters should be asking themselves in trying to gauge the environmental credentials of an aspiring politician or political party.

"We know from reviews around the world that Australia is underspending by a large amount what it should be spending on conserving its threatened species, so how much money is being committed is really important," he said.

Thousands attend climate protests
"The next part of that is whether that money is being targeted on the right things; so planting trees is really important, but it may not conserve some threatened species if it's done in the wrong places."
"We know that the climate and extinction crisis are probably the two big crises that we face globally right now, so they absolutely should be front and centre at the next election."
He added that transparency in political donations and policy alignment were also very important.

"If we have ambitions to restore and conserve the environment, but continue with policies supporting fossil fuels, for example, that is obviously in direct contradiction to conserving the environment," Dr Ritchie said.

He finds it frustrating that these aren't the main issues being discussed or addressed by politicians.

"The environment is our only home — it keeps us alive and happy — and if we take care of the environment, we know it has immense value, whether that's socially, culturally, economically with things like tourism, and of course environmentally.

"So investing in the environment is one of the best things we could possibly do and will come back and pay us off many times over."
"If we don't (take care of the environment) there's going to be really broad-reaching problems both for these species being affected, but also for humanity, whether it's food shortages, or floods or storms, it's going to have a big, negative impact so we need to be addressing it."
Links
at No comments:

27/02/2022

(The Conversation) Wealthy Countries Still Haven’t Met Their $100 Billion Pledge To Help Poor Countries Face Climate Change, And The Risks Are Rising

The Conversation -

Several countries, including Bangladesh, are facing increasing flooding as sea levels rise. AP Photo/Mahmud Hossain Opu

Author
is Assistant Director, Global Economic Governance Initiative, Global Development Policy Center, Boston University
After another year of record-breaking temperatures and extreme weather disasters, wealthy countries are under pressure to make good on their commitment to mobilize US$100 billion a year to help poorer countries deal with climate change.

Developed countries now project that they won’t meet that pledge until 2023 – three years late and still woefully short of the real need.

A report due Feb. 28 from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is expected to provide more evidence of what billions of people are facing: Developing countries that have contributed the least to climate change are suffering the most from it, and the damage is escalating.

Small island states and low-lying coastal areas are losing land to rising seas. Flooding from extreme storms is wiping out people’s livelihoods in Africa and Asia. Heat waves are harming people who have no access to cooling, killing crops and affecting marine life communities rely on.

Documents from the United Nations suggest that the cost for low-income countries to adapt to these and other climate impacts far exceeds the promised $100 billion a year.

What’s less clear is how much impact the climate finance already flowing to these countries, estimated at $79.6 billion in 2019, is having.

There is an overwhelming lack of data, as well as evidence that countries have been supporting projects that could harm the climate with money they count as “climate finance.”

Part of the problem is how that money gets from donors to projects in countries in need. I have worked closely with developing countries seeking help to deal with climate change.

I believe that by paying closer attention to the strengths and weaknesses of climate finance delivery channels and matching them to countries’ needs, the international community can make a real difference in the fight against climate change.



How does climate finance flow?

Donor countries have three major channels through which they can route climate finance: bilateral agreements between small groups of countries, international funds like the Green Climate Fund and development banks like the World Bank. Each has benefits and drawbacks.

Bilateral agreements: First, countries can directly negotiate financing commitments, also known as bilateral agreements.

These arrangements allow donors to target specific areas of need and are often more efficient than multilateral agreements, since they involve fewer entities.

For example, at the Glasgow climate conference in November 2021, South Africa and a group of donor countries announced an $8.5 billion effort to help South Africa transition away from coal while increasing renewable energy generation. This deal allowed four national governments and the European Union to come together and craft a package around what South Africa wanted.

Groups of donors have also come together to support national-level financing, though new research suggests these arrangements are underused.

A major drawback of bilateral arrangements is that they can be sensitive to the ebbs and flows of political attention. While issues in the news can attract funding, some countries struggle to get help.

Climate funds: It is precisely to ensure that countries have regular and consistent access to climate finance that a second option exists: international climate funds.

For example, the U.N.-backed Green Climate Fund is one of the largest and offers universal eligibility. The GCF’s scope is also deliberately broad to allow room for programming based on what countries actually need, rather than what is politically attractive at any given moment.

However, the GCF has received pledges totaling only about $18 billion. Developed countries are more likely to route contributions through their own bilateral channels or major development banks than through climate-focused funds.

Farmers sort through fast-maturing beans harvested in Uganda. Agriculture projects receive a large share of finance for adapting to climate change and increasing sustainability. AP Photo/Rodney Muhumuza

Development banks: Finally, major development banks manage significant amounts of climate financing, though there are two key barriers to fully using them.

First, many of these banks have not ambitiously incorporated climate change into their programming. In fact, some came under scrutiny when their joint statement at the Glasgow climate conference did not include specific targets and timetables for ending financing for fossil fuel projects.

Second, most development banks have not been able to effectively mobilize finance from the private sector, in part because of their business models.

Development banks tend to prefer projects with lower risk and like to operate in settings where the cost of doing business is not very high.

Private-sector funding is crucial to filling the climate finance gap, which means that development banks also need to use instruments that are better able to mobilize private capital such as equity instead of relying too heavily on lending.

Ultimately, splitting climate finance across these different channels is helping to render financing largely ineffective, with developing countries receiving a fraction of the resources necessary to make an impact.

Spreading finance thinly across delivery channels means the international community is neither learning from experimentation nor betting on bold ideas.

Getting serious about impact

Currently, the efforts to track the $100 billion are focused on counting how much money has actually flowed and where, not what impact has been achieved. Two key issues are complicating efforts to measure the impact.

First, there is no agreed-upon definition of what climate finance is, and countries use their own definitions. For example, in the past Japan counted money for new coal plants that are more efficient than old ones, but still highly polluting, as “climate finance.”

Second, some projects focus on helping countries put in place plans and policies. For example, countries have been receiving support to create national adaptation plans. The impact of these planning efforts really relies on how well the plans are implemented.

If the global community is serious about rising to the climate challenge, I believe the conversation needs to move forward in three ways:

  1. The scale of financing should far surpass $100 billion.
  2. The international community should be more targeted about which sources and channels best meet specific needs.
  3. More research is needed to assess the impact of international climate finance so far and establish a sound understanding of which delivery channels work best for which purposes.
The $100 billion in promised funding is much-needed glue that helps hold the U.N. climate process together – it reflects the responsibility borne by countries that have been emitting greenhouse gases for years for driving climate change and the harm to countries that emit little.

Links - The Conversation Climate Change Articles
at No comments:

(AU The Guardian) Greens Unveil $19bn Plan To Subsidise Coal Workers To Transition Away From Fossil Fuel Jobs

The Guardian -

Adam Bandt says Australia must quit coal and take advantage of ‘enormous opportunities’ in critical minerals and green metals
Adam Bandt says the Greens’ plan to transition from fossil fuels to clean energy aims to give local communities control over their future. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP
The Greens have proposed a $19bn plan to diversify fossil fuel-reliant towns and subsidise the wages of coal workers who transition into new jobs, saying employees can stay in mining but should seek employment in critical minerals or green metals.

Workers would get a decade or more support under the plan, with the Greens’ idea seeing the government pay half the wage of their new job in “non-polluting industries” outside the coal, oil and gas sectors.

The focus on transitioning mining towns into new industries comes as the Greens stress their belief that “coal workers haven’t caused the climate crisis”, three years after former party leader Bob Brown’s anti-Adani convoy through Queensland was partly blamed by some for a cratering of the progressive vote in that state.

“Australia is sleepwalking into the closure of the coal industry, but every single worker is being told by the Liberal and Labor parties that they have nothing to worry about,” the Greens leader, Adam Bandt, said.

“We owe coal workers a debt of thanks for powering our country. We don’t need to choose between taking urgent climate action and supporting coal communities. We can do both.”

Bandt will travel to the Hunter coal region to announce the ‘looking after coal workers’ policy.

He claimed resource communities were “being lied to” by the major parties, noting the Australian Energy Market Operator (Aemo) had forecast the closure of more than half the nation’s coal generation capacity by 2030, and virtually all capacity by the early 2040s.

Bandt said the Greens’ policy would support that rapid transition away from coal by underwriting half the wage of affected workers for a decade, under a “job for job guarantee” planned to encourage employees to seek new positions – particularly in related fields such as energy and rare metals.

“In many places around the country the best job for a coal worker is another mining job,” he said.

“There are enormous opportunities in developing critical minerals and green metal processing. Australia doesn’t need to shut down the mining industry, we’ve just got to get out of coal.”

A $2.8bn fund to diversify coal communities would give out grants to towns to encourage new start-ups, clean industry or upgrade infrastructure to aid in transitioning from fossil fuel reliance.

The Greens also propose setting up new local authorities in resource-heavy regions including the Hunter Valley, Collie, Bowen Basin and Gladstone, plus expanding an existing authority in the LaTrobe Valley, to help develop such transition or revitalisation plans.

The party’s policy documents set out the plan in a conciliatory tone, claiming that “coal workers haven’t caused the climate crisis”.

“Workers are doing what they can to support themselves and their family. The Greens want to preserve the contributions they have made into their communities over decades,” the document continues.

“Instead of leaving their fate in the hands of overseas boardrooms of big corporations, the Greens plan gives local communities control over their future.”

The latest tranche of Greens election policy comes as the party looks to differentiate itself at the coming election against the Climate 200 independents campaigning on environmental and accountability policies.

Any substantial vote swing to Labor and against the Coalition government could also see some Greens votes sucked away, in the possibility of a consolidation of support behind the major centre-left party.

The Greens are targeting 10 seats in Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales, and Bandt claims they are “very close or have our noses in front” in five – the Labor-held Griffith, Macnamara and Richmond, plus the Coalition seats of Ryan and Brisbane.

Bandt denied the Climate 200 independents had taken oxygen from the Greens, saying his party would continue to campaign strongly on environmental issues, but that there would be a stronger push on issues of social democracy – headlined by a renewed push to force the very wealthy and big corporations to “pay their fair share of tax”.

Bandt claimed the tax push, plus calls to end subsidies to fossil fuel companies, would raise nearly $100bn over the next decade, which he said was enough to fund other core Greens calls such as extending Medicare to cover dental and mental health.

Bandt said the Greens wanted to see a change of government to Labor. His most optimistic campaign outcome would see them win an extra three Senate seats – in NSW, South Australia and Queensland – to take their upper-house representation to 12.

This could give the party the sole balance of power, a position Bandt said he would use to “push” a Labor government to adopt more progressive positions on climate and social issues.

“As well as kicking the Liberals out, we need Greens in balance of power to keep Labor honest,” he said.

“We will push the next government to go further and faster on coal and gas, and inequality.”

Links - Greens Party Relevant Climate Policies
at No comments:

(Washington Post) Brazil Mudslides: Climate Change Turns Favelas Into Disasters Waiting To Happen

Washington Post - Terrence McCoy

Priscila Neves, 38, searches the wreckage of her favela for her father's body after last week's landslide. (Terrence McCoy/The Washington Post)

REPORT
AUDIO
8min 49sec
PETRÓPOLIS, Brazil — High above the city, in a wash of mud and rubble, Priscila Neves stood where her parents’ house should have been, waiting for her fears to be confirmed.

At her feet was a mess of clothing, lacquered in mud and half-buried. “My mother’s blouse,” she said, pointing at one item. Then at another: “My father’s shirt.”

Her mother’s body had been found the day before, far from the broken vestiges of her red-brick house.

The avalanche of mud that came through here last week, destroying everything in its path, had arrived with such force that it had carried her body hundreds of yards, depositing it far below, at the base of the mountain. Neves now had little hope that her father had survived. She just wanted to find his body.

She closed her eyes and took an accounting of loss: Gone were 10 relatives, many more friends and her childhood home. But she had already decided she wouldn’t leave this cliffside community where she herself had narrowly missed being killed.

“Where would I go?” said Neves, 38. “You could decide to leave this neighborhood because of a landslide, only to arrive in another, just in time for another landslide.”

Brazil, like much of the world, is increasingly being forced to reckon with the everyday impacts of climate change. Scientists say it is largely responsible for the extreme weather events that have recently struck the country — first intense droughts, then punishing rains, and now flooding from north to south that has left hundreds dead.

Late on the afternoon of Feb. 15, in the cloud-cloaked mountains of Petrópolis, a historic city 44 miles northeast of Rio de Janeiro, there began a downpour. Within hours, a month’s worth of rain had saturated the city.

The surge unleashed floods and mudslides that killed nearly 200 people, disappeared hundreds more — and made starkly clear how defenseless the favelas of Brazil will be in a new era of destabilizing climate change.

Alex Sandro Conde's house stands next to the devastation caused by a landslide at Morro da Oficina, a hillside portion of Alto da Serra in Petrópolis. Conde lost his son Kaique, 18, when the place where they both worked was destroyed by a landslide after heavy rains last week. (Silvia Izquierdo/AP)


The precarious, impoverished communities, which often spill across sheer ridges, in defiance of geography and gravity, are the country’s most distinguishing architectural feature.

They have always suffered disproportionately during natural disasters. But as rains and floods increase in frequency and ferocity, scientists expect them to become still more vulnerable to tragedy.

“This is a ticking time bomb,” said Marcelo Fischer Gramani, a geologist at the Institute for Technological Research in São Paulo. “And it’s already beginning to explode.”

Brazil now has a problem that many here fear is impossible to solve. In a country of profound inequality and widespread poverty, the poor have long been locked out of the formal housing market, clustering together in often unsafe locations.

The nation does not have the resources, the logistical capacity or the political will to relocate the estimated 4 million Brazilians in areas of risk, housing analysts say, let alone adresss the underlying social issues that first gave rise to the favelas.

So instead, people wait for the next disaster.

This was the future Neves considered as she searched the muck for her father’s body.

“Nowhere is safe,” she said.

A housing crisis long ignored

The story of the favela always begins with need.

Without anywhere to go, the homeless and dispossessed descend upon a piece of land and, with little or no risk analysis, begin to fortify it. First comes an assembly of hovels. Then plumbing, electricity, cable television, brick houses and, eventually, schools and businesses.

Between 1985 and 2020, the amount of land occupied by favelas in Brazil nearly doubled as the country failed to address inequalities that, historians say, have grown out of its past as the principal destination of enslaved Africans in the Western Hemisphere.

Emergency workers pull the body of a man from the wreckage. (Terrence McCoy/The Washington Post)

In 1888, Brazil, the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery, freed enslaved Africans — but gave them nowhere to live.

Along the sheer hills surrounding the Rio de Janeiro wharf, where many of them first reached Brazil, rose the country’s first favelas. Those communities are still filled with people — many of whom have neither the capital nor the credit to enter the country’s formal housing market.

“Brazil has never given much of its population any type of access to land ownership,” said Isadora de Andrade Guerreiro, a professor of architecture and urbanism at the University of São Paulo.

“People live in the informal economy so there’s no way for them to get financing. So when you have vacant areas, people without anywhere to go will go and occupy them.”

Once people are settled, moving them out of their homes — even when the land on which they’re built is clearly not suitable for habitation — is extremely difficult. People assume the risk not because they’re unaware of it, housing analysts say, but because they have no other choice.

The neighborhood is close to work. Their kids are in school nearby. Even if they were to leave the house, someone else would move in.

“This isn’t someone who doesn’t know that there isn’t risk,” said Leonardo Freitas, who helped write a 2019 Rio de Janeiro city report on flooding. “This is someone who wants a home. They know something could happen one day, but hope it doesn’t.”

In January 2011, in the mountain range north of Rio, more rain fell in 24 hours than was expected for the entire month. Landslides and floods killed more than 900 people across several towns. In the years afterward, in flood-prone Petrópolis, officials released several risk assessment reports.

The findings were bleak: Nearly one-fifth of the city was either vulnerable or extremely vulnerable to additional disasters. More than 7,100 families should be resettled.

But few were ever moved — a failure now exacerbated by the mounting impacts of climate change. Rain itself has begun to change in Brazil — not in annual volume, but in the form it takes. Showers increasingly come down in machine-gun bursts — gushers that bring weeks’ worth of rain in hours.

In São Paulo, the largest city in the Americas, the number of days per year with four inches of rainfall has more than tripled in the past two decades. A similar trend has been seen in other state capitals.

“The rains are more intense, more rapid and stronger,” said Christovam Barcellos, a climatologist at the research institute Fiocruz. “This is a sign of climate change: It was once rare for it to rain this way, but it has become much less rare.”

‘I heard all of their screams’

At the top of a mountain above Petrópolis, a teenage girl was lying in bed listening to music when she noticed the downpour still hadn’t let up.

Eduarda Souza, 16, got up and went to the window. She could barely see the city far below, but she felt safe up here. The mountainside above the house looked sturdy and, she thought, unlikely to give way. She went back to listening to music. Then she heard a terrible noise.

It sounded as if the land was opening up. The ground shook. She ran outside for a better view. It was difficult to believe: The entire mountainside was sliding away. The ground had turned into a rush of mud, plunging toward her neighbors’ homes.

“I heard all of their screams,” she said. “But then the wave hit, and the screams stopped.”

Davidson da Silva Mello's house just missed being flattened. He swears he will never live on a mountainside again. (Terrence McCoy/The Washington Post)
Her father, Davidson da Silva Mello, 40, was down in the chaos of the city. He had been busy working his job, picking up cans to recycle at markets and restaurants, when the landslides began to cascade.

He called his wife, who was home with his three children.

In the background of the call, he heard a thunderous sound. His wife yelled: “What is happening, what is happening, what is happening?” Then the line dropped.

Convinced his entire family had just been killed, he raced up the mountain. When he got to his community, he felt a swell of relief. His wife and children were sheltering in a day-care center. The mudslide had come within feet of flattening the house, but had largely rushed past it.

Now, days afterward, he was approaching the structure, trying to gather the courage to go inside. He went to the door and struggled to open it. Mud had infiltrated the house. He turned away, unable to confront the scene: The mud had risen to three feet. The sofa, cabinets, television — all their possessions were either buried or destroyed.

“I can’t look,” Mello said.

Mello's home was overwhelmed by mud. (Terrence McCoy/The Washington Post)

He walked outside and struggled to gather himself. He was done with life on the mountainside. It didn’t matter if they had to move out of the city — he wasn’t putting his family in danger anymore. His only hope here was that the city would come and destroy what was left of this house.

“Or,” he predicted, “there will soon be someone else living in it.”

Links
at No comments:

26/02/2022

(AU ASPI) Defence ‘Acutely Aware’ Of Risks Posed By Climate Change: ADF Chief

Australian Strategic Policy Institute -

Image: Department of Defence
Author
Brendan Nicholson is executive editor of The Strategist.
Defence has a key role to play supporting the government’s climate and disaster resilience agenda by integrating climate risk into the planning and conduct of its activities and operations, says Australian Defence Force chief Angus Campbell.

In a video statement at the launch of a new ASPI publication, The geopolitics of climate and security in the Indo-Pacific, Campbell described as ‘outstanding’ the work of ASPI’s Climate and Security Policy Centre led by Robert Glasser and said it performed an essential role in driving discussion of the long-term strategic consequences of climate change.

‘Those of us in Defence are acutely aware of the significant impact climate risks will have on the future of our region,’ he said. ‘Both the 2016 defence white paper and the 2020 defence strategic update identify that climate risk will affect our operating environment.’

The strategic update stated that threats to human security such as pandemics and growing water and food scarcity were likely to result in greater political instability and friction within and between countries, and reshape Australia’s security environment.

These threats would be compounded by population growth and extreme weather events in which climate change played a part, Campbell said.

The update said that while Defence had made substantial progress in building a more potent, capable and agile defence force, adjustments to the plans in the white paper were required, including measures to enhance ADF support to civil authorities in response to national crises and natural disasters such as pandemics, bushfires, floods and cyclones.

The strategic update noted that disaster response and resilience measures demanded a higher priority in defence planning, Campbell said. The ADF was working hard on such a response. Many climate risks were most consequential and urgent in the Pacific region.

The ADF’s support to the region was guided by the Framework for Pacific Regionalism and the Boe Declaration on Regional Security with its values and vision of peace, harmony, security, social inclusion and prosperity, so that all Pacific people could lead free, healthy and productive lives, he said.

The declaration stated that climate change remained the single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security and wellbeing of the peoples of the Pacific.

It recognised an increasingly complex regional security environment driven by multifaceted security challenges and affirmed the peoples’ stewardship of the Blue Pacific and the need to strengthen and enhance capacity to pursue collective security interests in the region.

‘Defence stands ready to support the Pacific in these aspirations,’ Campbell said. Australia remained a principle regional partner supporting nations responding to disasters, especially in the Southwest Pacific.

Similarly, as a Center for Strategic and International Studies report identified, Southeast Asia would be one of the regions most vulnerable to climate change. A temperature increase of 1.5°C would cause rising seas, dangerous flooding and changing rainfall patterns, leading to violent typhoons and droughts.

These climate risks posed a threat to food security, hobbled economic growth, prompted political instability and catalysed pandemics.

‘As the contributors to this ASPI publication make clear, the impacts of climate risks on the geopolitics and security of the Indo-Pacific are complex, but undeniable,’ Campbell said. ‘They alter the context in which regional actors make decisions and influence the strategies they pursue to achieve their goals.’

These factors contributed to state fragility and the risk of strategic miscalculation, he warned. Defence considered climate and disaster resilience risk in its strategic guidance and planning for structure, preparedness and mobilisation, supply chain logistics, estate and infrastructure plans, joint force operations, technological innovations, and capability development.

Paying his respects to Indigenous Australians, Campbell noted: ‘Like all of us, … our Indigenous peoples are deeply invested in the future of this great continent and the planetary systems that support its continuing sustainability.’

The challenges were significant, as the new report highlighted, he said. ‘Sometimes it takes determination not to be disheartened by the scope and scale of the challenges our region faces, particularly when it comes to climate risks, especially as we manage other overlapping short-term risks and crises on a daily basis,’ he said.

‘But I am hopeful. Each challenge presents an opportunity for cooperation for the common good, helping us to overcome entrenched suspicions or rivalries through collective action. It may be in small ways at first, but enough small moments of cooperation can build into greater things. They form the foundation for a better future and a stronger community within the Indo-Pacific.’

Campbell said he was not disheartened by the challenges or the work ahead. ‘I hope you are not either. The Climate and Security Policy Centre has done an excellent job in outlining the challenges we face within the region, but they’ve also pointed the way forward and offered potential solutions or areas for cooperation to address these challenges.

‘It represents yet another step forward. Congratulations on the publication of The geopolitics of climate and security in the Indo-Pacific. It should be closely read, and I hope it will inspire many to take heart and to take action.’

Links
at No comments: