It May Be Winter In Australia, But July Was The Hottest Month Ever Recorded On Earth

New Matilda

Depending where you live, July might have seemed like a chillier month than normal in Australia. It saw strong snowfalls in Victoria and NSW, even in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney, and as far north as Queensland.
According to the Bureau of Meterology, temperatures for the southeast mainland were cooler than average. But the weather in NSW and Victoria – and parts of south east Queensland – were the exception to the rule.
Nationally, maximum temperatures were almost half a degree warmer than average in Australia, and rainfall was down nationally about 35 per cent.
That’s inline with the explosive news released by the USA’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration earlier today – the world just experienced the hottest month since they started keeping records 136-years ago.
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2015 was 16.6 degrees celsius– that’s almost a full degree (0.81) above the 20th century average, and slightly higher than the previous record set in July 1998.

More broadly, scientists predict that it is “very likely” 2015 will knock off 2014 as the hottest year ever recorded on earth.
Professor Will Steffen from the Climate Council noted that 9 out of the 10 hottest months recorded since records began in 1880 have occurred since 2005.
“The scientific basis for urgent action to tackle climate change has never been stronger,” Professor Steffen said.
“The escalating risks associated with a rapidly warming climate underscore that Australia’s emission reduction targets are not enough. Australia must make its fair contribution to the worldwide effort to bring climate change under control, and protect Australians from worsening extreme weather events.”
Professor Steffen noted that the formation of a “powerful El Nino that could break records increases the likelihood of another angry Australian summer”.

Two Degrees Or Four? It's A Personal Choice For Survival In The Near Future

Sydney Morning Herald - Elizabeth Farrelly

Four degrees. It doesn't sound like a lot. Four degrees is the difference between a spring day and early summer, right? It's almost nothing.
Wrong. Four degrees, as an earth-surface average, is the difference between a full-on ice age like the one at the end of the Pleistocene and now.
It's also the difference between now and a future where the northern half of Australia is over 40°C half the year, and 80 per cent of Australia – including Adelaide, Perth and most cropping land across three states – has over 40 days over 40 degrees a year. (In 1990 this was less than 10 per cent).
You know what 40°C feels like. At 40 you start to feel you're being cooked. Imagine a week of it monthly, from September to March. Imagine what that will mean for food supply. Water. Schools. Disease.
Four degrees is huge. Four degrees is runaway climate change, all the tipping points. It's business as usual - but not for long.
Because chances are it won't get to four degrees. As someone noted at the IPCC scientists' panel organised by 350.org Australia in Sydney last week, it won't hit four degrees warming because once it hits three, the economic cataclysm will be so intense that productivity will plummet, taking greenhouse gas production with it. (Then again, carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a century, so maybe, maybe not.)
I went to hear the IPCC guys with a certain dread. Part of me wants not to hear. My inner primate wants to hide in a cupboard labelled Normal Life.
Complacency is so tempting. Look around. Everything's pretty much OK , yeah? It's spring. We go to school and work and dinner. Change might come but not for us, not now, not here.
We think climate change is mostly about poor people in distant countries. And up to a point that's true. We cause it, they suffer it.
But make no mistake. We will still suffer. The coastal houses of the rich will be suddenly worthless. There'll be no more Barrier Reef holidays. By mid-century, current trajectory, the great reefs will be dead grey stumps. No more kilos of prawns for the barbie. As oceans warm and acidify beyond most species' tolerance, seafood will become an expensive rarity and oysters almost unheard of. In fact, the barbie will become a dangerous pastime, as Sydney mozzies start to carry dengue and Ross River fever, and beetles carrying chagas disease - a terrible unvaccinatable disease dubbed the Aids of the Americas - also start to spread. And that's before the homeless hordes decide that Australia looks big and empty.
Sea-level rise alone means land loss, salination of soils and potable water (including, in some cases, aquifers) and massively increased flooding. The IPCC's expected rise of 0.6 - 1.0m by 2100 puts a salt-lake in Marrickville by 2100 and, globally, implies an annual flooding of 200-300 million people from their homes. That's some tide.
In 35 years, some 1500 of Indonesia's islands will be under water. By 2100, 42 million Indonesians living within 3km of the sea may be homeless. Jakarta airport will drown. What does it mean for Australia? Suffice it to say, "stop the boats" won't be an option.
So sure, it's scary. But you can't fix it by looking away. Climate change is not like God. You can't just decide you don't believe in it and that's it, sorted.
The evidence is in. We have not just a second and third opinion. We have 2500 scientific opinions, expert across a dozen disciplines, in agreement – not to mention the Smithsonian, every world university, the Pope, the Queen and the Church of England (which in June passed the Lambeth Declaration calling for urgent action on climate change) all in furious agreement.
This is not some bunch of hippies or communist nut jobs. This is an extraordinary colloquy of sober and conservative voices acknowledging that, sadly, climate change is real, anthropogenic and already, in part, irreversible. Yet we can still choose to survive. Or not.
Four degrees is one of three "stabilisation" scenarios in the IPCC's latest, 1450-page report. Two degrees is the preferred option. It defines as a 66 per cent or higher probability of maintaining the global surface temperature increase to less than 2° C above pre-industrial levels. It's a lot less than perfect but, given that the carbon to get us there is already 65 per cent emitted, it's probably the best we can hope for.
So the questions become: what must we do to cap it at two? When? And who gets to emit the remaining 35 per cent of the carbon?
The only fair answer to the last bit is the poor countries, which must drag billions from poverty. This makes our answer to the other two questions, everything and now.
Under 2° means a 70 per cent reduction of 2010 greenhouse levels by 2050 and zero or negative emissions by 2100. Which is why Tony Abbott's 26-28 per cent by 2030 looks derisory, even compared with the developed nations' average of 36 per cent.
Simply, we have to become fossil free. No more oil. No more gas. And not just no new coalmines. No coal, period.
This requires an immediate and universal switch to renewables, evs, organic farming, intensive reforestation, efficiencies, walking and cycling. Not just for the believers. For everyone.
Like the French, we should require all new roofs to be planted or solar. Like the Germans, we must pledge 85 per cent reduction on 1990 levels by 2050.
This conjures improbable fantasy of an honest, principled and backboned Australian political leadership. Imagine the panic that would cause among the policy-rorters and trough-guzzlers.
But on the comfort side is Cuba which, in 1990, with Russia's connivance, became the no-oil test case. Everyone expected disaster but found, when forced to walk, work and cycle more, to mend and invent, to produce bio-fuel and farm organically, they lived healthier, longer lives and formed stronger, more energised communities.
Two degrees or four? It's our choice but it'll be more successful and way more fun, if we jump before we're pushed.

Islamic Leaders Call For Rapid Phase Out Of Fossil Fuels

The Guardian

Islamic leaders have issued a clarion call to 1.6bn Muslims around the world to work towards phasing out greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and a 100% renewable energy strategy.
The grand mufti’s of Lebanon and Uganda endorsed the Islamic declaration on climate change, along with prominent Islamic scholars and teachers from 20 countries, at a symposium in Istanbul.
Their collective statement makes several detailed political demands likely to increase pressure on Gulf states ahead of the Paris climate summit in December.
“We particularly call on the well-off nations and oil-producing states to lead the way in phasing out their greenhouse gas emissions as early as possible and no later than the middle of the century,” it says.
Clear emissions reductions targets and monitoring systems should be agreed in Paris, the statement says, along with “generous financial and technical support” for poorer countries to help wean them off fossil fuels.
So far, Morocco is the only Middle Eastern country to present an emissions-cutting climate pledge ahead of the summit. But Hakima el-Haite, the country’s environment minister said that the declaration could help to change mindsets and behaviours around climate change in some Gulf states.
“It is an emotive call for a spiritual fight against climate change that will be very important for Muslims,” she told the Guardian. “It speaks to issues of fairness, accountability, differentiation and adaptation in the Paris agreement. I think that the right way to make this sort of call is through the Qur’an.”
El-Haite predicted that Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries would sign up to a climate agreement in Paris but said that international support would first be needed to address the “financial gap” involved in transiting from fossil fuels to renewables-based economies.
The Istanbul declaration was made by Islamic figures from Bosnia to Indonesia and follows a ground-breaking Papal encyclical last month. Heads of state, corporations, and all peoples are addressed in the Istanbul call, which carries a universal and startlingly bleak message.
“We are in danger of ending life as we know it on our planet,” the statement says. “This current rate of climate change cannot be sustained, and the earth’s fine equilibrium (mīzān) may soon be lost.”
“What will future generations say of us, who leave them a degraded planet as our legacy?” the religious leaders ask. “How will we face our Lord and Creator?”
Din Syamsuddin, the chairman of the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) which represents 210 million Muslims welcomed the statement, saying: “we are committed to to implementing all [its] recommendations. The climate crisis needs to be tackled through collaborative efforts.”
The MUI has already issued one environmental fatwa against rogue mining operations and Syamsuddin reportedly consulted with Indonesia’s environment minister Siti Nurbaya Bakar over the weekend, before attending the symposium.
Unlike the Catholic church, Islam is a decentralised religion with no unitary authority, and the final statement addressed a range of secular concerns with calls for divestment, a circular economy, and tempered growth rates.
“To chase after unlimited economic growth in a planet that is finite and already overloaded is not viable. Growth must be pursued wisely and in moderation,” one passage reads.
Another calls for corporations and the business sector to “shoulder the consequences of their profit-making activities and to take a visibly more active role in reducing their carbon footprint and other forms of impact upon the natural environment”.
The United Nations’ climate chief, Christiana Figueres said that overall, the declaration showed how a clean energy future rested on a shift in the value attached to the world’s environment and people. “Islam’s teachings, which emphasize the duty of humans as stewards of the Earth and the teacher’s role as an appointed guide, illuminate pathways to take the right action on climate change,” she said.
The declaration on climate change was also welcomed by Cardinal Peter Turkson, the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “with great joy, and in a spirit of solidarity”. Turkson pledged that the Catholic Church would work with the declaration’s authors to protect their common earthly home.
Organisers say that one religious scholar from Saudi Arabia was among the 60 participants at the meeting but that none of the invited Shia leaders attended.

LINK
Islamic declaration on climate change

Australia’s Weak Climate Pledge Draws Instant Derision

Inside Climate News

 Australia has submitted a modest emissions-reduction pledge to the United Nations negotiating body on climate change.  It was met by a disparaging chorus of critics who said it did not shoulder a fair load in the world’s struggle to keep global warming within safe limits.
Australia, a leading producer of coal with an unusually high per-capita output of carbon dioxide, has been viewed as a laggard in the climate fight for decades, especially since its government reversed course and abandoned a tax on carbon last year.
It now says it will reduce emissions 26 to 28 percent below the levels of 2005 by 2030, a rate of reduction that is less than promised by most leading industrial nations.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who led the charge to end the carbon tax, sought to defend what was widely derided as a half-hearted effort. He was quoted by the Guardian as saying,  "It’s better than Japan. It’s almost the same as New Zealand. It’s a whisker below Canada. It’s a little below Europe. It’s about the same as the United States. It’s vastly better than Korea. Of course, it is unimaginably better than China."
But climate experts, noting that each nation ought to be striving to meet ambitious targets given their own particular circumstances, said Australia owes the world much more.
The Climate Council, an Australian policy group, said in a detailed fact sheet that Australia’s goals "simply don’t represent a fair contribution to the world effort to bring climate change under control."
Australia would also be cutting back more slowly than most. Europe’s cuts are much deeper, and U.S. emissions would drop much more quickly, according to their pledges. Australia’s goals are even weaker than Canada’s, another straggler.
"Other countries will have to pick up Australia’s slack to tackle climate change -- including many developing countries with fewer resources," said David Waskow, international climate director with the World Resources Institute.
Tony de Brum, foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, put it even more bluntly in a scathing statement.
"If the rest of the world followed Australia’s lead, the Great Barrier Reef would disappear," he said. "So would my country, and the other vulnerable atoll nations on Australia’s doorstep."
Some Australian newspaper pundits were nearly as harsh.
The goal "looks like it has been based largely on what the government thinks is the minimum it can get away with in the international community and among the Australian public," wrote Tom Arup, environment editor of The Age. "But it falls short on three key measures: the science, the pace of international action and what can technically be achieved."
Laura Tingle, political editor of the Financial Review, chimed in: "As the Abbott Government seemingly unravels before our eyes, the Prime Minister has released a climate policy which must be the dodgiest bit of public policy in years."
Writing on ABC’s The Drum blog, University of Melbourne economist Warwick Smith explored another common criticism of the Abbott policy: by choosing approaches other than a price on carbon to attack climate change, the government is wasting money and falling short of its emissions targets. He cited evidence that the nation could be achieving much more ambitious goals at little additional economic cost – although the deeper the cuts, the harder its coal industry would be hurt.
"It is clear that this low commitment is purely about protecting Tony Abbott's beloved coal industry at everyone else's expense," he wrote. "The sad news for Tony Abbott is that no matter what he does, the coal industry is living on borrowed time."

Australia’s 2030 Emissions Target: Preliminary Analysis and International Comparisons

Frank Jotzo, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University
12 August 2015

Summary
Australia's proposed emissions target is a 26% to 28% reduction in national emissions compared to 2005 levels. This initial analysis provides a comparison with the post-2020 targets of the United States, EU, Canada and Japan. It translates targets into several metrics, including per capita emissions and emissions intensity of the economy.

• Australia's 2030 target falls far short of what would be a commensurate Australian contribution to the internationally agreed 2 degree goal. Most other developed countries' targets also fall short, but generally by less than Australia's target.
• In contrast to most other major developed countries, Australia currently has no credible plan announced of how the target could be achieved.
  • To achieve reductions in domestic emissions will require significant and sustained policy effort. For reductions to be achieved cost-effectively, a consistent, broad-based policy effort is needed. Investors need to regain trust.
  • The target announcement opens the door for stronger action domestically, and will force a renewed debate about policy instruments.
• Internationally, the target is likely to be perceived as falling short in its ambition relative to Australia's opportunities to cut emissions. But it does not fall catastrophically short, and is not an active obstruction of the international process.
• Australia's target is relatively weak in comparison with other developed countries, across a number of dimensions. But it is not out of the ballpark of the pledges other major developed countries have made.
  • A full analysis would include modelling of the economic effects of Australia's emissions target including a detailed representation of different ways of meeting it, in comparison to other countries' targets.
  • However such modelling is not available, and in practice assessments of adequacy of countries' targets are rarely based on modeled economic costs.
• Australia's target for absolute emissions is weaker than the United States' and the EU's, slightly weaker than Canada's and slightly stronger than Japan's.
  • However, the annual rate of emissions reductions to meet the target steps up during the 2020s, to 1.9% per year (for a 28% reduction). This is slightly higher than the comparator countries, except the US which are targeting a reduction of 2.8% per year during the first half of the 2020s.
• In per capita terms, Australia's target implies a halving of per capita emissions over a 25-year timespan, a similar reduction rate as expected in the US and Canada, and a much faster reduction than in the EU and Japan where populations are stable.
  • Emissions levels per capita however are the highest among all major countries. Per capita emissions would remain higher than the main comparator countries at 2030 under the targets, assuming population growth continues at the rates observed over the last decade.
• The emissions intensity of Australia's economy (ratio of emissions to GDP) is also the highest among the comparator countries and - given assumptions about future GDP growth - is expected to remain highest alongside Canada.
  • The targeted rate of reduction in emissions intensity reductions through the 2020s however is rapid at over 4% reduction per year, on par with annual targeted reductions in the United States and China.

The target relative to the 2 degree goal
Australia's national interest is in strong global climate change mitigation. As spelt out in the issues paper by the government's UNFCCC task force, "a strong and effective global agreement, that addresses carbon leakage and delivers environmental benefit, is in Australia's national interest." The context is the goal to limit global temperature increase to two degrees, a goal supported by the world community and re-iterated by the Australian government.
The adequacy of national targets in the global context of strong climate action can be judged in many different dimensions. There is strong justification for deriving it from principles. A principled approach can consist of defining a global carbon budget, then apportioning Australia's share of the global carbon budget on the basis of considerations such as equity and capacity, and defining a trajectory of emissions through time that is in line with the budget.
This approach was taken by the Climate Change Authority, in its Targets and Progress Review (2014), which had Australia's emissions levels reduced by 40 to 60% at 2030 (relative to 2000). The modelling done for Australia's Deep Decarbonisation Pathways study (ClimateWorks and ANU 2014), with an emissions budget over time compatible with the Authority's analysis, showed a halving in Australia's emissions at 2030 compared to 2005.
In this light the announced target clearly falls short of a commensurate contribution to the global effort under a 2 degree scenario.
Most other developed countries' targets also fall short, yet generally by less than Australia's target.¹

Policy frameworks for achieving a reduction target
The target announcement raises the question how a reduction target could be achieved.
Most analyses suggest that significant policy action will be needed to achieve reductions in absolute reductions in Australia, in the face of an underlying growth trend.
The present policy framework is not geared to deliver on the target. The Renewable Energy Target has been slashed, and the Emissions Reductions Fund (ERF) in its present form will only have a marginal effect, at a big cost to the taxpayer. It is far-fetched for the ERF subsidy mechanism to achieve significant absolute emissions reductions, and there have not been any announcements about new policies.
Broad-based, consistent policy approaches such as emissions trading can achieve emissions reductions at least cost. Composite policy approaches that do not have carbon pricing at their core can also deliver outcomes, but at higher cost.
The costs of achieving emissions cuts and ultimately decarbonisation are likely to be lower than thought. It has been a frequent experience that low carbon technologies become better and cheaper fast than expected, and economic change is not as painful as feared. By contrast, perpetuating investments in fossil fuel assets such as new coal mines risks locking into industrial structures that will turn out to be obsolete in a world that acts strongly on climate change.

International expectations and perceptions
If Australia is to avoid being an obstacle the international climate change action, the post-2020 target needs to be a meaningful contribution to the global effort, underpinned by a credible blueprint for how to achieve emissions reductions in Australia.
International expectations of Australia's actions will take into account that Australia is among the richest countries in the world and the highest per capita emitter among the major countries. It is also well understood that Australia has better opportunities to cut emissions than many other countries, because Australia's energy system still relies heavily on coal, there are large and relatively low-cost opportunities for renewable energy, and energy efficiency is often still low.
In addition, Australia has a particularly strong interest in strong global climate change action, because of the continent's exposure to climate change impacts and the vulnerability of countries in the region.
These considerations argue for a relatively strong target for Australia. Despite expectations having been lowered through the recent political discourse in Australia about climate change policy, the benchmark is high for other countries accepting Australia's pledge as an adequate one.
That said, the target is likely to put Australia at the table in the international climate negotiations leading into the Paris conference. It will likely be seen as a relatively weak commitment, however it is also likely not to be seen as an active obstruction of progress in the climate negotiations.

Quantitative comparisons with other countries' targets
The closest international comparison for Australia's emissions target among developed countries are the United States and Canada. All three are high-emitting countries, have
relatively high population growth rates and tend to have relatively high GDP growth rates.
All three rely heavily on fossil fuels for their energy systems, and Australia and Canada have comparatively high levels of emissions intensity (ratio of emissions to GDP).
The EU and Japan by contrast have much lower emissions levels per person and per unit of GDP, which in turn means lesser opportunities to reduce emissions.

 Indicators at 2012

See below for data sources.

Absolute emissions
Australia's target in direct comparison is significantly weaker than that of the United States (if extrapolating the US target to 2030) and the EU, slightly weaker than Canada's, and slightly stronger than Japan's.²
The 2005 base year is particularly favourable for Australia, because it was the high water mark in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.³ Comparison of future targets to this high 2005 level yield relatively higher percentage reductions. Conversely, the targeted reduction at 2030 is a lesser reduction when compared to either 2012 or 2000 levels (a 19% reduction in either case).
The targeted annual rate in Australia's emissions reductions steps up to 1.9% per year during the 2020s compared to the historical average of 1.2% per year from 2005 to 2014 (same number for 2005 to 2012).
By contrast the required annual rate of reduction to meet the currently endorsed 5% reduction target at 2020 (compared to 2000 levels; this is equivalent to a 13% reduction compared to 2005 levels) is well below 1% per year.
By comparison, the US are targeting an annual reduction of 2.8% per year during the first half of the 2020s. However, Australia's targeted annual reduction through the 2020s is higher than that of Canada, the EU and Japan.

Targeted absolute emissions at 2030, relative to different base years

US target extrapolated from upper range of 2025 target (28% reduction at 2025 relative to 2005)
by assuming same annual rate of reduction targeted from 2020 to 2025. Historical emissions data
from WRI CAIT (see below), except for Australia where government provided data is used.

Targeted annual change in absolute emissions

US targeted rate from 2020-2025.

Per capita emissions
A striking feature of Australia's target is that because of relatively high population growth, the targeted annual percentage reduction in per capita emissions is the largest among the comparator countries, together with the United States. Assuming population growth continues at average rates observed during 2000 to 2012, the target would result in a halving of per capita emissions levels from 2005 to 2030.
However, Australia has the highest per capita emissions among the major countries, and would continue to have the highest per capita emissions at 2030, under the targets.
Australia's per capita emissions are now more than double those in the EU and Japan's and would be around double those countries' in 2030 still.
A significant share of these comparatively high per capita emissions is due to emissions intensive activities for export, including mining, minerals and metals processing and agriculture. However, process improvements and the decline in Australia's competitiveness in some traditional energy intensive manufacturing industries will make it possible to reduce emissions also from export-oriented activities.

Per capita emissions levels, actual and implicit in targets

Assumptions about population growth: future annual growth rates same as from 2000-2012.
US 2030 value assumed continued reduction at 2020-25 annual rate.

Annual changes in per capita emissions, actual and implicit in targets

Assumptions about population growth: future annual growth
rates same as from 2000-2012. US targeted rate 2020-2025.

Per capita emissions levels, actual and implicit in targets

Assumptions about population growth: future annual growth rates same as from 2000-2012.
US 2030 value assumed continued reduction at 2020-25 annual rate.

Emissions intensity
A similar picture as for per capita emissions emerges for the comparison of emissions intensity, the ratio of emissions to GDP.
The emissions intensity of Australia's economy is the highest among the comparator countries, on the basis of purchasing power parity adjusted GDP. Given assumptions about future GDP growth, it is expected to remain highest alongside Canada's.
The targeted rate of reduction in emissions intensity reductions through the 2020s however is rapid at over 4% reduction per year, on par with annual targeted reductions in the United States. This targeted rate is also closely similar to China's. China has pledged a 60 to 65% reduction in emissions intensity from 2005 to 2030, equating to 3.6% to 4.1% per year.

Emissions intensity levels, actual and implicit in targets

Assumptions about GDP growth: see below.
US 2030 value assumed continued emissions reduction at 2020-25 annual rate.

Annual changes in emissions intensity, actual and implicit in targets

Assumptions about GDP growth: see below.
US 2030 value assumed continued emissions reduction at 2020-25 annual rate.

Data and assumptions
Emissions data:
World Resources Institute CAIT database of Annex I emissions for all countries except Australia. Australia: Australian Government 2015, 'Australia's emissions projections 2014-15', Department of Environment.
Population data and assumptions:
Historical data from IEA Carbon Dioxide Indicators database.
Assumption: annual population growth rates post-2012 equal to average annual growth rates during 2000-2012.
GDP data and assumptions:
Analysis uses purchasing-power parity adjusted GDP in US$.
Historical data from IEA Carbon Dioxide Indicators database.
Assumptions: annual GDP growth rates from 2012-20 according to IMF World Economic Outlook (April 2015); annual GDP growth rates from 2020 onwards according to IEA World Energy Outlook assumptions, except Australia and Canada where a 2.5%pa growth rate is assumed.

Frank Jotzo
Associate Professor | Deputy Director, Crawford School of Public Policy | Director, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy | Australian National University
frank.jotzo@anu.edu.au
Views in this document represent are the author's, not the institution's.
--------
¹Relevant analyses can for example be found at Carbontracker.org.
²For the purpose of this analysis, the upper end of the target ranges is assumed for Australia and the United States (a 28% reduction target at 2030 and 2025 respectively, relative to 2005).
³Australia's total national emissions are reported by Australia's government as 608.7 MtCO2-equivalent in the financial year 2004-05 (taken here as 2005), compared to 558.8 Mt in 1999-2000, 559.4 Mt in 2011-12 and 547.7 Mt in 2013-14. The peak was at 614.1 Mt in 2005-06.
Source: Australian Government 2015, 'Australia's emissions projections 2014-15', Department of Environment.

Beyond The Spin: Climate change

ANU and 666 Canberra
 

666 ABC Canberra and the Australian National University present Beyond the Spin, a federal election series on the issues that matter. The climate change panel included: Professor Will Steffen, Executive Director of the ANU Climate Change Institute. Professor Warwick McKibbin, Director of the ANU Research School of Economics. Dr Frank Jotzo, Economist at the ANU Crawford School and deputy director at the ANU Climate Change Institute. Dr Liz Hanna, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health.  Bernard Keane, Canberra correspondent for Crikey. Andrew MacIntosh, Associate Director of the ANU Centre for Climate Law and Policy.

Economists and scientists have urged governments to make a start on a long term, meaningful carbon policy because human survival is at stake.
Dr Liz Hanna says while individual events such as droughts, heat waves and fires cannot be attributed to climate change, rural communities are already collapsing as a result of the trends.
"There is no doubt large numbers of people will be moving because of lack of food and water," she said. "When resources become scarce, there will be conflict ... it will be very difficult to maintain civil society."
Dr Hanna told the audience that while behaviour change may seem difficult, "people never thought we were going to change slavery or smoking".
Professor Will Steffen says the cost of allowing the temperature to rise by two degrees celcius, is much larger than the most ambitious carbon scheme.
To keep below a two degree temperature rise, the world needs to cut emissions by three per cent until 2050. A four year delay would mean annual cuts of five per cent. If the world waits until to 2020 for carbon reduction, cuts of 9.5 per cent are required.
Dr Frank Jotzo said the best way to take carbon out of the economy is by a market mechanism which allows businesses to do the right thing for reasons of profit.
And Professor Warwick McKibbin discusses his proposal that shares are issued in the atmosphere to give everyone a stake in the environment.
"Whoever has the political will should lock it into the economic system through property rights and then the people react to the bottom line, you have to make everyone believe it's in their own interests.

Packing Our Target For Paris

ABC

The Federal Government has announced the emissions reduction target Australia will take to the Paris climate summit at the end of the year.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has signed off on a target to cut emissions by 2030 by 26-28% below our 2005 levels.
The Prime Minister says the target is credible, and sets Australia in the middle of the pack out of comparable countries going into Paris.
But Labor and the Greens have both slammed the target as "pathetically weak".
Director of the Centre for Climate Economics and Policy at ANU, Frank Jotzo, told Hack that the target may have exceeded some expectations, but only because expectations were so low.
"I think there will be a sigh of relief that Australia is in fact coming to the table with a meaningful target, however it is equally clear that that target will fall short of international expectations."

Australia's target is lower than the US (26-28% by 2025), Canada and NZ (30% by 2030), and Europe (40% by 2030).
China is the world's top emitter in total and of the top 15 emitters, but Australia produces the most carbon emissions per capita.