Finkel Power Review Should Look Into Climate Policies

Fairfax - Mark Ludlow

The Turnbull government's new power review should have been expanded into climate change, says energy experts. Phil Carrick

The Turnbull government's review of energy security is duplicating existing inquiries but missing a key piece of the puzzle – the nation's climate change policies, according to energy experts.
State and federal ministers on Friday agreed to establish the new independent review headed by chief scientist Alan Finkel – which will deliver its preliminary report before Christmas – in the wake of the disastrous blackouts in South Australia last month.
But experts said there were already multiple reviews on the National Electricity Market being done by the Australian Energy Market Operator, Australian Energy Market Commission and the Australian Energy Regulator looking into energy security and adapting rules to deal with the influx of renewable energy. The missing piece of the puzzle is how to marry this to climate change policy.
"This is really a review of the reviews. I don't think it makes sense to do a review of the NEM without including climate change policies," Grattan Institute energy program director Tony Wood told The Australian Financial Review.

"Sadly, the [Finkel] review's terms of reference fail to recognise the elephant in the room – the absence of a federal policy to reduce electricity emissions in line with Australia's committed 2030 target." 

The Turnbull government has committed to a 2017 review of its Direct Action climate change policies, including the $2.5 billion Emissions Reduction Fund and so-called safeguard mechanism for big polluters.
But Mr Wood said the pace of change in the NEM, including problems with the integration of renewables into the nation's energy mix, meant the Turnbull government should consider bringing the review forward.
Other energy observers believe last Friday's "extraordinary" Council of Australian Governments energy council meeting was more about political positioning than genuine action.
The agenda for the meeting, including looking at battery storage, interconnectors and issues arising from more solar and wind projects in the NEM, was essentially the same as the last COAG energy council meeting in August.

Kobad Bhavnagri, head of Australia for Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said the fact energy security had become a paramount concern for federal and state governments demonstrated "the cost of nearly 10 years of shambolic energy policymaking".
"Renewables undoubtedly make system management more complex. However, opposing or limiting the uptake of renewables is, in our view, a retrograde response, which ignores the imperative to decarbonise," he said.
Mr Bhavnagri said the energy sector was concerned Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull had used the aftermath of the South Australian blackout to attack state-based renewable targets saying it had re-politicised the debate.
"Notwithstanding the cause, the statewide blackout shows the need for management of the electricity system to evolve. Instead, work needs to be done to evolve and improve the current system to facilitate technological change," he said.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance's report on the SA blackout found that while the focus has been on wind power disconnecting from the grid, fossil-fuel generators also failed.
"The two back-up generators that are paid to provide emergency power to restart major suppliers failed. Notably, the fact that these fossil-fuelled facilities failed to provide reliable supply and fulfil their primary function has received little media scrutiny," it found.

AEMO's preliminary review of the SA's "system black" found the destructive storms critically damaged the state's transmission network, but it has yet to find the reason why this triggered a statewide blackout.
Meanwhile, SA network company Electranet said the restoration of damaged transmission lines in the state's mid-north was nearly complete. The delays had caused major headaches for big industrial users, including BHP's Olympic Dam mine.
ElectraNet said it expected one of the damaged circuits will be back up by Monday, provided weather conditions remain stable. Another circuit will follow a few days later.

Links

• Climate Change Must Be Part Of Australia’s Electricity System Review
• Could Household Battery Storage Have Prevented SA Blackout?
• Chief Scientist To Lead Review Into Australia's Energy Security
• Finkel to lead NEM review, but states hold to renewable targets

We Have Money To Fight Climate Change. It's Just That We're Spending It On Defense

The Guardian - Kenneth Pennington

Stopping one fighter plane program would save enough to build wind farms to power 320,000 homes. We need to drastically reassess our priorities

'The F-35 fighter plane program is a prime candidate for big cuts. It's the most expensive weapon ever designed, complete with massive cost overruns.'  Photograph: Lockheed Martin/AAPIMAGE

One year ago this week, I was sitting in a cramped hotel room with 15 other staffers in Las Vegas for Bernie Sanders' first debate for the presidential nomination. The question came from CNN: "What is the greatest national security threat?" Pundits criticized and mocked him for weeks after he answered "climate change". But he was right.
And it's not just Sanders pointing out the imminent threat posed by climate change to global and national security. CIA analysts and our nation's military strategists are rightfully naming it as a contributor to refugee flows, the spread of disease, and conflicts over basic resources like food and water.
In 2014, 17.5 million people were displaced by climate-related disasters. Those numbers will continue to rise dramatically in the coming decades, according to climate displacement program manager Alice Thomas of Refugees International.
Our nation's defense officials know global warming's destructive forces could undermine fragile governments in unstable regions of the world where extremist ideologies can take root. Yet mainstream Republican avoidance of reality on the science of climate change impedes the necessary reassignment of resources to meet the challenges posed.
Now a new report from the Institute of Policy Studies provides the most accurate calculation of government spending on climate security to date. The picture isn't pretty. We're spending 28 times as much on military security than climate security. A public sector investment of $55bn per year is required to meet the challenge, according to the study. With $21bn in the 2017 budget, a shortfall of $34bn is left.
That may seem like an insurmountable hill to climb. It's not! As the IPS report points out, plenty of money lies untouched in the nation's bloated military budget.
The F-35 fighter plane program is a prime candidate for big cuts. It's the most expensive weapon ever designed, complete with massive cost overruns. The sad cherry on top: the military admits that this plane just doesn't work. If we turned back now, IPS says we could build enough offshore wind farms to power 320,000 homes for millions of people.
Savings from gutting a Navy program designed to build close-to-shore combat ships would provide enough funds to retrain more than 150,000 coal industry workers. The ships have been plagued with mechanical errors. Our own Government Accountability Office says the "actual lethality and survivability performance of LCS is still largely unproven through realistic testing". Others have called the ships an outright "waste". Retraining and redistributing our fossil-fuel workforce to green jobs would be a welcome reprioritization.
Congress could harness additional savings by reducing service contracting and canceling other wasteful or unnecessary weapons programs. But one party largely stands in the way. Republicans are hell-bent on leading our country down an unforgivable road with grave consequences. Their party's nominee for president believes that global warming is a hoax engineered by the Chinese. That would be comical if it weren't so dangerous.
Rich Americans justify inaction by dismissing climate change as a far off problem that will affect others. But climate change is here and now. And while the sharpest edge of its destructive forces will sadly hurt people of color and lower-income the hardest, we're all in deep trouble.
In an unusually forceful public service announcement, The Weather Channel this week warned Floridians that Hurricane Matthew would lead to a heartbreaking loss of life. Florida governor Rick Scott said: "This storm will kill you." These un-natural weather occurrences are becoming more and more frequent.
My home state of California faces its worst drought in 1,200 years. When I traveled home for the holidays two years ago, I saw the devastating impact of climate change firsthand. Where boats once sat docked in my hometown marina, only dust remained. Climate scientists are telling us that the United States is not immune to the instability and infighting that will occur when populations are forced to fight over food and water. They need only look to California for confirmation, where northerners and southerners argue fiercely over water access.
The only practical solution to curb unrest, suffering and death here and abroad is a massive redistribution of government money. This week's new report from IPS serves as a thoughtful blueprint.
Republicans should take heed of former GOP President Dwight Eisenhower's words of wisdom:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

Let's steward our resources wisely. Let's choose climate over combat.

Links

• Sanders on Climate Link to Terrorism
• Report: Combat Vs. Climate
• Military Admits Billion-Dollar War Toy F-35 Is F**ked
• U.S. Defence Experts And Military Officers Sound Alarm About Climate Change
• Climate Change 'Significant And Direct' Threat To U.S. Military: Reports
• The Elephant in Paris – Guns and Greenhouse Gases
• Climate Wars: Is The Sahel The First Battle Zone?
• Climate Change Increases The Risk Of War, Scientists Prove

Removing CO2 From the Air Only Hope for Fixing Climate Change, New Study Says

InsideClimate News - Zahra Hirji

Without 'negative emissions' to help return atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm, future generations could face costs that 'may become too heavy to bear,' paper says.

Scientist James Hansen, lead author of a new study urgently calling for removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, poses next to a mock grave stone declaring "Climate change a matter of life or death" in 2009 in Coventry, England. Hansen, a prominent climate researcher, has dismissed criticisms that his recent papers blur the line between advocacy and research. Credit: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

The only way to keep young people from inheriting a world reeling from catastrophic climate change is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions dramatically and immediately, according to a new paper. Not only that, but it's also necessary to aggressively remove greenhouse gas that's already accumulated.
"If rapid emission reductions are initiated soon, it is still possible that at least a large fraction of required CO2 extraction can be achieved via relatively natural agricultural and forestry practices with other benefits," the authors wrote.
"On the other hand, if large fossil fuel emissions are allowed to continue, the scale and cost of industrial CO2 extraction, occurring in conjunction with a deteriorating climate with growing economic effects, may become unmanageable. Simply put, the burden placed on young people and future generations may become too heavy to bear."
The study's 12 authors, led by prominent climate scientist James Hansen, the former head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, call for bringing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels down to levels not recorded since the 1980s: 350 parts per million, a long standing goal of Hansen's.
The level is now above 400 ppm, up more than 40 percent since before the Industrial Revolution. Many scientists reckon that 450 ppm is the safe limit to avoid the worst effects of global warming.
The paper, called "Young People's Burden: Requirement of Negative CO2 Emissions," was published Tuesday in the journal Earth System Dynamics Discussions.
It was written to support litigation by Hansen and a group of young people (including Hansen's granddaughter) seeking to force more ambitious climate action. And it is the latest in a string of scientific analyses showing that nations are far from reining in dangerous warming, despite the imminent entry into force of a comprehensive treaty negotiated last year in Paris.
The Paris deal aims to limit warming to 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees Celsius, in line with the 450 ppm level. That would require bringing emissions to "net zero" sometime in the second half of this century through a swift clean energy transformation. Any CO2 spewed into the air—be it from a coal plant, an SUV or an airplane—would have to be completely offset, or "zeroed," by increasing the growth of forests and other carbon sinks.
But according to the paper, even a net-zero world wouldn't be enough to prevent burdening future generations with an impossible task.
To attain Hansen's bolder goal, countries have to achieve "negative emissions," by removing more accumulated CO2 from the atmosphere.
The paper lays out five possible scenarios. In the worst-case scenario, emissions continue to rise by at least 2 percent a year after 2015, and CO2 levels more than double to 864 ppm by 2100. To prevent that dire outcome, which assumes countries aren't reducing their emissions to net zero, 768 ppm of CO2 would have to be sucked out of the atmosphere by that time.
That would be enormously expensive for future generations—perhaps impossible.
In the most optimistic scenario, CO2 emissions stay flat until 2020, and then emissions drop by a steep 6 percent a year. This implies the world is rapidly transitioning to a clean energy economy and producing net-zero emissions before mid-century. But even this scenario requires pulling 72 ppm of CO2 out of the air by 2100—a more plausible, but still difficult burden.
Hansen, now an adjunct professor at Columbia University, has long warned that global warming inaction would lead to dire consequences. Nearly 40 years ago he developed one of the world's first climate models, and was among the first scientists to conclude that the burning fossil fuels was to blame for modern climate change.
Eleven other scientists contributed to the paper from academic institutions across the globe, including the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Australian National University and the University of Paris-Saclay in France.
It was published in a discussion journal, where research is published and sent for peer review at the same time.
Last year, Hansen and a team of 16 international scientists similarly publicized a paper in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics before it was peer reviewed. The move was criticized by some as blurring the line between advocacy and research. The study, timed to influence the Paris climate talks, warned that even 2 degrees of warming is "highly dangerous" and could cause sea level rise of "at least several meters" this century. The peer-reviewed version was published earlier this year.
"Some people might object to discussing such a paper before it has gone through the peer-review process. But again I'm going to do that, simply because we are running out of time on this climate issue," Hansen told reporters this week.
As part of the paper, the scientists analyzed how today's warming compares to the rest of the Holocene period, which covers the previous 11,700 years, and an even warmer period of history called the Eemain period, which occurred 130,000 to 115,000 years ago. During the warm Eemian, sea-level rise was between 20 and 30 feet higher than it is today. Today's global temperatures are already at the level expected during the Eemian, or possibly above them, the paper says.
The authors recommend aiming for temperature and CO2 levels observed during the 1980s because they're more in line with conditions during the early Holocene period, which did not experience catastrophic sea-level rise.
"A danger of the 1.5 degree C and 2 degree C temperature targets is that they are far above the Holocene temperature range," the authors wrote. "If such temperature levels are allowed to long exist they will spur 'slow' amplifying feedbacks, which may have potential to run out of humanity's control. The most threatening slow feedback likely is ice sheet melt and consequent sea level rise, but there are other risks in pushing the climate system far out of its Holocene range."
To achieve negative emissions the study recommends using forestry and agricultural practices that increase the carbon-sucking ability of soil and trees, with the goal of pulling 100 gigatons of carbon out of the atmosphere. Even if that's achieved, more expensive and intensive methods for emissions extraction would be needed, such as carbon capture and sequestration. One such approach would burn biomass as fuel while capturing the CO2 emissions and burying the pollutant deep in the ground.
"We assume that improved practices will aim at optimizing agricultural and forest carbon uptake via relatively natural approaches, compatible with delivering a range of ecosystem services from the land," the authors wrote. "In contrast, proposed technological extraction and storage of CO2 does not have co-benefits and remains unproven at relevant scale."
Hansen, his 17-year-old granddaughter Sophie Kivlehan and 20 other young people are suing the federal government to take more action on climate change. The Department of Justice and fossil fuel industry groups have opposed the lawsuit, but a judge ruled in April that it could proceed. Oral arguments were made in Oregon on Sept. 13, and U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken plans to rule within 60 days on whether the case will proceed.
"If the case goes to trial, we do expect that we can introduce this paper into the considerations," Hansen told InsideClimate News via email.
The study's chief conclusion on negative emissions "is hardly new or surprising or controversial," said Michael Mann, a Penn State climate scientist who was not involved in the study. "That's well known."
But the fact that it's being publicized prior to peer review and submitted in a legal case "will certainly raise eyebrows about whether or not this breaches the firewall many feel should exist wherein policy agenda should not influence the way that science is done," he said.
Typically, scientific papers are subject to peer review when they're submitted. If journal editors and outside commenters have any questions or concerns, the authors revise their work to address them before publication.
For this paper, scientists and others can now submit comments online and Hansen's team must respond.

Links

• Dr. James E. Hansen Climate Science Awareness and Solutions Program Earth Institute Columbia University
• CO2 at NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory reaches new milestone: Tops 400 ppm
• Young People's Burden: Requirement of Negative CO2 Emissions
• Scientists Warn Drastic Climate Impacts Coming Much Sooner Than Expected
• Judge greenlights Oregon climate change lawsuit against federal government
• As Oceans Continue to Warm, Consequences Grow More Dire, Study Says
• Historical Data Shows Arctic Melt of Last Two Decades Is 'Unprecedented'
• Save the Animals, Save the Planet?

10 Countries That Have Ratified The Paris Climate Deal (Australia Still MIA)

Climate Council

Australia is once again late to the climate action party.
As of today, 74 countries representing over 55% of global emissions have ratified the Paris Climate Agreement, putting it into effect. The agreement requires signatories to do everything possible to limit global warming to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, with an aspirational target of 1.5°C.
The historic deal required ratification by at least 55 countries representing 55% of global emissions for it to become operational – which it now is!
Sounds like good news, right? Well unfortunately Australia remains one of the largest emitters to delay ratification.
But while Australia lags behind the rest of the world, many other nations are stepping up – here are 10 countries that have been pro-active in the ratification of the landmark climate agreement!

China

When the world's two biggest carbon emitters ratified the Paris Climate Agreement together, it was kind of a huge deal.

China and the US ratified in a joint statement, collectively totally 38% of global emissions.

China has pledged to cap their total emissions limits by 2030, reducing the carbon intensity of economic output by 60-65%, with 20% non-fossil fuel energy, and forest stock by 4-5 billion cubic metres!

USA

The United States is the world's second largest producer of GHGs
The country has pledged a reduction of 26-28% on 2005 levels, and aims to reach its targets by placing restrictions on power producers' emissions levels, while offering incentives to renewable energy producers.
However, the result of the US election has worried some about the United States' ability to maintain the pledge, as a little known part of the agreement is a four-year wait required to abandon the pledge – exactly the length of a US presidential term!

India

The fourth largest emitter of GHGs ratified the Paris Agreement this week, on Mahatma Gandhi's birthday.
The government has pledged to reduce the emissions intensity of their economic output by 33-35% by 2030, on 2005 levels with 40% non-fossil fuel based power, an ambitious pledge in the coming decades where hundreds of millions will access energy for the first time.
Additionally, 2.5-3 gigatons of CO2 will be stored through additional forestation by 2030.
India has faced several devastating heatwaves in recent years, with a long coastline leaving it exposed to sea-level rise, storms and floods – threats heightened among vulnerable populations.

European Union

Ratification this week by the EU, representing around 12% of global emissions, pushed the agreement past the 55% threshold and led to the Paris Agreement coming into effect.
EU negotiators were among leaders in the "high ambition coalition", a pact formed 6 months ahead of the Paris negotiations to spur more ambitious change.
The parliament has a formal, binding target of a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030 on 1990 levels.

Brazil

Latin America's biggest emitter, Brazil, has been an early and active part of the ratification process.
Brazil intends to reduce its GHG intensity by 37% by 2025 on 2005 levels, with a further attempt to reach a 43% reduction.
Significant emissions reductions have already been achieved in the country through reforestation efforts in the Amazon, hydropower and other renewable energies.

Canada

Canada has pledged a 30% drop in emissions by 2030 on 2005 level.
Along with ratifying Canada's portion of the agreement, the government has announced a national price on carbon, at C$10 per ton, rising $10 each year until 2022, when it will be reviewed.
This is an extension of different carbon pricing programs in four of Canada's most populous provinces.

Mexico

Mexico is the 13th largest emitter in the world.
Mexico has pledged a 36% reduction of GHGs by 2030, by increasing their mix of renewable energy and stopping deforestation by 2030.
Conditional on some international support, the government has signalled an ambition of making a 40% reduction.

United Arab Emirates

The UAE is the first Middle Eastern country to ratify the Paris agreement.
The UAE's pledges involve a 24% mix of non-fossil fuel energy production by 2021, a fast but small contribution for a large oil producer.
Efforts to increase renewable energy, water efficiency, sequester carbon, and achieve an economic diversification away from oil will contribute to the country's targets.

Morocco

Ahead of the next UN climate change conference in Marrakesh this November, Morocco has ratified the Paris agreement.
With some international assistance, Morocco has pledged to reduce their emissions by 32% by 2030, and to stop any emission growth along with 42% renewable energy by 2020

New Zealand

Even our neighbours across the ditch have ratified the Paris Agreement, pledging a 30% reduction of GHGs by from 2005 levels.

So what about Australia?
Australia's former Environment Minister signed the agreement in April but it is yet to be approved by Parliament.
"If the pledges are honoured promptly, and then deepened, this could be the turning point in tackling climate change," the Climate Council's Chief Councillor Professor Tim Flannery said.
"Around the world, we have seen leaders act swiftly in acknowledging the huge task ahead of us. Unfortunately, here at home in Australia, we continue to bicker and drag our feet."
Climate Councillor Professor Lesley Hughes, who last week appeared before a Parliament committee considering the Paris agreement, said Australia had so much work to do to reduce its emissions, and no time to lose.
"The severe storms that recently hit South Australia and other states, disrupting electricity supply and flooding our agricultural heartland, illustrates once again that Australia is on the front line of climate change," Professor Hughes said.
"Without drastic and deep emissions reductions we will face even more severe climate impacts, which could cripple the nation's major infrastructure and seriously affect our economy and way of life. Now is the time to get to work."

Links

• Australia worst among G20 on climate action: new report
• On the Frontline: Climate Change & Rural Communities
• A timeline of Earth's average temperature: in comic form
• Climate Change Authority Special Review: Minority Report
• VIDEO: South Australian storms – blaming the solution

Climate Change Must Be Part Of Australia’s Electricity System Review

The Conversation - Tony Wood

Australia's electricity network is going through a period of major transformation. Indigo Skies Photography/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

On  Friday, Australia's federal and state energy ministers met for an extraordinary meeting following the complete loss of power in South Australia on September 28. The COAG Energy Council announced a wide-ranging independent review to provide advice to governments on a coordinated, national reform blueprint. The review will be chaired by Australia's Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel.
Dr Finkel has been challenged with steering Australia's energy system around some big potholes while keeping his eye on the horizon. And all in about six months.
The review will consider work already being done around maintaining the security, reliability and affordability of electricity as delivered by the National Electricity market (NEM) (which covers all states except Western Australia and the Northern Territory).
The state-wide blackout became a political opportunity for Australia's politicians. Yet it is certainly too early and hopefully wrong to say if this is just a reactive response.

What's in the review?
The review has three timeframes. The immediate priority will be to systematically assemble existing processes and work programs initiated over the last year by the energy council and identify any major gaps in the context of energy security and reliability in the NEM. Some of these processes, such as a review of market governance arrangements, have been completed but not fully actioned.
Others have only recently been announced. These include analysis of the impact of federal, state and territory carbon policies on energy markets and the reviews of the South Australian blackout. They will not all be complete by the December council meeting.
The review is expected to deliver a blueprint via a final report early in the new year. It is likely to include specific actions, both physical and financial, that respond to recent events such as South Australia's price shock in July and blackout in September. These two issues should not be conflated. To do so, would risk solving neither.
The council has highlighted the significant transition underway in the Australian electricity market. The drivers include "rapid technological change, the increasing penetration of renewable energy, a more decentralised generation system, withdrawal of traditional baseload generation and changing consumer demand". The blueprint will address all of these issues in a comprehensive and coordinated way not previously a feature of the council's output.
There is much uncertainty to how some of these drivers will evolve over the next two decades. To be really effective, the blueprint will need to consider a range of plausible long-term scenarios but focus on near-term options that can be adapted to evolving developments on all fronts.
The Chief Scientist will, amongst other things, bring to the review his knowledge of current and likely future developments in energy technologies. This will be important in considering policy, legislative and rule changes that favour the adoption of technologies that could address both low-emissions and reliability but are otherwise technology-neutral.
The federal energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, and his state and territory counterparts are to be applauded for the speed and cohesiveness they have shown in instigating the review. This follows a similar approach that permeated their August meeting where considerable progress was made on key energy market reforms across several fronts.

Get climate policy right
There are two critical areas of concern. The fundamental driver behind the issues listed in the review's terms of reference is climate change and the policy response to it.
The federal government is committed to a 2017 review of its domestic climate change policies against its 2030 emissions reduction target.
State and territory governments have announced or implemented their own climate change and renewable energy policies. It is not surprising that states such as Victoria remain committed to these policies even though they are open to criticism for being uncoordinated at a national level, or failing to consider implications for system reliability and security.
Primary responsibility must rest with the federal government to deliver a credible scalable climate policy. Much can then flow from there, including agreement from states and territories to truly act in the spirit of national coordination to which they committed.
Greenhouse gas reduction is best achieved by putting a price on emissions through one of several options that have been canvassed in 2016 and in a form that acts with the electricity market and not outside it. The review's terms of reference are silent on this issue, and yet recognise that the nature and structure of climate change policy have critical implications for the NEM.
Wind and solar power are intermittent. Their integration into the generation mix while maintaining reliability is best achieved by valuing flexibility either through the NEM or via complementary policies or regulations. The review is oddly silent on this issue. It is to be hoped that this is unintended and will be picked up in the course of the review.
There were high expectations for Friday's council meeting. A state-wide blackout does that. These expectations have been delegated to the review which the council must support and drive to outcomes.
Minister Frydenberg has strongly and repeatedly emphasised that the government will not compromise energy reliability and security in the transition to a low emissions future. Failure on this front will not be forgiven.

Links

• What caused South Australia's state-wide blackout?
• We don't know why South Australia's wind farms stopped working, so hold off on the blame game
• Power prices rising, time for politicians to act
• The real lesson from South Australia's electricity 'crisis': we need better climate policy

Climate Change Is Causing Earlier Springs in (US) National Parks

National Geographic - Becky Little

Three-quarters of parks surveyed are experiencing warmer weather earlier in the year, which could hurt their ability to manage invasive species.

Grinnell Glacier melts in Glacier National Park, Montana. A new report reveals that many national parks are experiencing earlier onsets of spring. Photograph by James Balog, National Geographic

The National Park Service was created to protect and preserve the United States' natural wonders. But what happens when climate change starts to alter these sites?
On Thursday, U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell announced a new report revealing that three-quarters of 276 national parks are experiencing an earlier onset of spring. Half of the parks studied are experiencing "extreme" early springs.
The report authors discovered this by looking at historical data dating back to 1901.
For the parks in the "extreme" category, they found that "the onset of spring is earlier than 95 percent of the historical range," says Jake Weltzin, an ecologist at the U.S. Geological Survey and one of the authors of the report.
"And we're talking on the order of weeks."

Good News for Invasive Species
Jewell made Thursday's announcement in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia, one of the sites that has experienced an early onset of spring. Weltzin says that, like many parks, Shenandoah is struggling to manage invasive species like kudzu—a scourge that can be exacerbated by earlier springs.
"Biological invasions are a really big deal in the national parks," he says. In Saguaro National Park, Arizona, near where Weltzin lives, one of the invasive species that park staff struggle with most is buffelgrass.
"The warmer the winter and the warmer the spring, the sooner it can start growing," Weltzin says of buffelgrass. "And so a lot of the other native plants are sort of sequestered in place."
Another problem that earlier springs present for parks is a mismatch between plants and pollinators.
"Not every organism is going to respond the same way to an early spring," Weltzin says. "Some plants might respond a certain way, but the hummingbirds or other pollinators might not be affected in part because of where the migration routes are taking them or when they start migrating.
"So they may be arriving and it may be too late for certain species," he says.

Looking Ahead
The Park Service's new report was actually initiated by the National Phenology Network, a science nonprofit of which Weltzin is executive director. For the report, the network used a tool that it had developed to assess the onset of spring in different locations.
"What we're doing really is producing maps of spring for the entire nation," he says. "The national parks is just sort of the first application. As we go along, we hope to be able to apply this to the national wildlife refuges and other protected areas."
The purpose of the current report is to give staff at individual parks a sense of how climate change is affecting their sites, rather than make prescriptions about how parks should deal with this change. Given the diverse ecosystems among the more than 250 parks surveyed, more research is needed to determine the more specific ways in which climate change is affecting particular parks.
"There's clearly more work to be done," says Weltzin. "And you know, we've got about a century behind us, and there's a century ahead of us."

Links

• Climate Change in Your Life
• President Obama Urges Swift Action on Climate Change
• Climate Change: Real, Serious, Fixable
• New Climate Change Report Warns of Dire Consequences
• Severe Weather More Likely Thanks to Climate Change
• Climate Change Is Making Your Allergies Even Worse

A Dramatic New Plan To Fight Climate Change: Sue The Federal Government

Christian Science Monitor - Joseph Dussault

A new federal lawsuit alleges that the US government 'violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights' by enabling climate change.

Chris Pietsch/ The Register-Guard via AP

If  you want something done right, sometimes you have to do it yourself.
That’s the mindset behind a new federal lawsuit, filed by climatologist James Hansen and legal advocacy group Our Children’s Trust. The suit alleges that the US government “violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights” by enabling climate change. On Tuesday, Dr. Hansen published a new research paper offering scientific support for the case.
Political affiliation plays a major role in the way Americans perceive climate issues, recent studies find, and that polarization holds true among the country’s highest legislative powers. Could citizen litigation cut a valid path forward?
Hansen’s latest study, which is still under review by the journal Earth System Dynamics, isn’t particularly significant for its specific findings. Instead, the paper's value lies in its scope – it compiles various sources of existing research into a single document – and its clear, simple language.
“Jargon is a real problem that we scientists have in communicating with the public in general. We just aren't very good at it,” Hansen tells The Christian Science Monitor in an email. “When I was the director [of NASA’s Goddard Institute], I required the scientists to try to write a short summary of their published papers such that their mother would be able to understand it.”
“This was not always successful,” he adds. But when it is, scientific clarity can give a considerable boost to legal arguments for environmental action.
And litigation can be a powerful tool for environmentalists. In 2007’s Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court found that the EPA was responsible for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The petitioners, which included 11 other states and several US cities, cited the 1963 Clean Air Act as the legal basis for their argument.
“The courts have been very important in implementing environmental policy – when Congress has passed a law they can apply,” Michael Gerrard, a professor of environmental law at Columbia University, tells the Monitor in an email. “The Supreme Court's 2007 decision … has been the foundation for most of the actions the Obama administration has taken on climate change.”
The approach wasn’t unique to the US court system, but its outcome was unusual. Only a handful of other cases, such as the 2015 Urgenda Foundation’s lawsuit against the Netherlands, have achieved similar success via the court system.
But a victory in court doesn't necessarily translate quickly into effective environmental results, says Justin Gundlach, a climate law fellow at Columbia’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, in a phone interview.
“Yes, the Bush administration EPA lost that case,” Mr. Gundlach says. “But what followed wasn’t a quick effort on the part of the EPA to go regulate greenhouse gas emissions. They promulgated an ‘Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking’ that sought input from stakeholders, and the administration left office before they got any further than that. There’s a lot of flexibility in government to hear what a court says and say, ‘Oh yeah, we’re working on it.’”
Meanwhile, Hansen and colleagues hinge their case on a lofty question: does the federal government have a constitutional responsibility to leave a “viable climate system” for future generations?
“It is the most fundamental concept in our Constitution and even our Declaration of Independence: all people have equal rights,” Hansen says. “They all have equal protection of the laws and cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without ‘due process’ of law.”
Climate scientists have long warned that warming trends continue, general quality of life will drop on the global scale. Coastal communities are particularly vulnerable, facing certain property loss if sea levels continue to rise. And the youngest generation, Hansen says, will be footing the bill.
But with few clear legal precedents to draw from, the odds may be stacked against Hansen and Our Children’s Trust.
“The courts have been much less willing to act when there is no clear statutory basis,” Mr. Gerrard says. “No federal court has found a constitutional right to a clean environment. If this lawsuit succeeds and survives appeals, it would be a revolutionary development. But I wouldn't bet the farm on that happening.”
Regardless of the outcome, Hansen and colleagues acknowledge that litigation isn’t the only solution. Sometimes it’s the debate, rather than the outcome, which holds the power to create change.
“I think that it is essential, because our Congress and even the executive branch of government are so strongly under the influence of the fossil fuel industry,” Hansen says. “However, it is not enough. People concerned about climate change need to affect the political process.”
“I would hope that people would look at this and find that it’s something worth paying attention to,” Gundlach says. “My concern, of course, is that it’s a court case. It’s one side versus the other, and the way such things tend to be covered is like a sporting event. That’s always the risk when you litigate over anything, that the substance of the argument falls by the wayside and the attention is paid to who’s in the lead.”

Links

• Our Children's Trust
• Young People Suing Their Government Over Climate Change Just Won Another Big Case
• A Flimsy Legal Attack on Clean Air
• Kids Win Again In Lawsuit Blaming Gov't For Not Fighting Global Warming