20/12/2016

India Announces Plan To Step Away From Coal, Casting Doubt On Approved Queensland Adani Mine

ABC NewsStephen Long


Key points:
  • The plan says no need for additional coal fired energy capacity in next decade
  • Six-fold rise in energy from renewable sources key part of national electricity plan
  • Josh Frydenberg said the Adani mine had to go ahead because India desperately needed it for energy
India has released a new power plan promoting a dramatic increase in renewable energy and raising doubts about the Indian-owned Adani Group's massive coal mine in Queensland.
The new national electricity plan says India will not need any additional coal-fired energy capacity in the next decade.
India's Energy Minister Piyush Goyal alluded to a renewables pivot when he spoke to Four Corners last year.
"I hope in the years to come we can see an explosion of renewable energy on the back of cheaper storage," Mr Goyal said.
Tim Buckley from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analytics told AM the development was bad news for the Australian coal industry.
"They [India] say that they have 50 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants under construction already, so it's far better to complete those than write them off as stranded assets," he said.
"But no new coal-fired plants in India in the next decade."
Mr Buckley said the plan had left the Adani proposal "totally stranded".
"It is a white elephant, and it is six years past it's use by date," he said.
However, Adani rejects Mr Buckley's argument, saying it needs to coal for itself.
"What happens to the market has no implication for Adani because we are supplying our own power stations with our own coal," an Adani spokesman told the ABC.

Plans to fund billion-dollar railway to mine
DOWNLOAD (pdf)
Despite these doubts, the Australian Government plans to give a $1 billion subsidised loan to Adani to build a railway to the planned mine.
When the then Minister for Resources Josh Frydenberg approved the Adani mine in north Queensland 14 months ago, he argued it had to go ahead because India desperately needed it for energy.
"I think there is a strong moral case here, it will help lift hundreds and millions of people out of energy poverty, not just in India but right across the world," Mr Frydenberg said.
Mr Buckley said the International Energy Agency (IEA) had forecast that hundreds of gigawatts of new coal-fired power plants would be built in India in the next few decades.
"The Indian Energy Ministry is saying that is absolutely wrong," he said.
"He instead articulates a plan that involves building 215 gigawatts of renewable energy, building another 20 gigawatts of hydro, building five gigawatts of nuclear, building a bit more gas, and dramatically elevating the importance of energy efficiency and grid efficiency in order to diversify India rapidly away from coal."

Links

Leonardo Dicaprio: Climate Fight Is US History's 'Biggest Economic Opportunity'

The Guardian - Reuters

Actor and environmental activist tells UN awards ceremony that truth about climate change has spread like ‘wildfire’ despite prominent science deniers
Leonardo Di Caprio received a prize from the UN for his work as a global citizen. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images
Tackling climate change is the “biggest economic opportunity” in the history of the US no matter who holds political office, the Hollywood star and environmental activist Leonardo DiCaprio said on Friday.
“There are a few very prominent people that still deny the overwhelming conclusions of the world’s scientists that climate change is largely human-caused and needs immediate urgent attention,” he told a United Nations awards ceremony.
But “the truth” about climate change has spread like “wildfire”, he said.
DiCaprio’s comments, as he received a prize for his work as a global citizen, did not refer to the US president-elect, Donald Trump, by name but were a thinly-veiled reference to his views and nominations of climate sceptics with oil industry ties for cabinet posts.
Earlier this month, 42-year-old DiCaprio and the head of his foundation met Trump and his team, reportedly arguing that support for renewable energy could create millions of jobs.
Trump has suggested climate change is a hoax and raised the possibility of withdrawing US support for a new global accord to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which most scientists believe are driving up sea levels and causing more droughts and violent storms.
“In less than 100 years of our pollution-based prosperity, we humans have put our entire existence in jeopardy,” said DiCaprio, who released his own documentary, Before the Flood, on the impacts of global warming two months ago.
DiCaprio, who won an Oscar this year for playing a fur trapper battling nature in The Revenant, said his documentary was the most viewed “in history ... [showing] just how much the world cares about the issue of climate change”.
But he said the battle to address it was far from over, calling on the world to implement the Paris agreement on climate change, which came into effect in November, and to “go further”.
People everywhere are acting to curb the damage to humans, nature and wildlife from a warming planet, DiCaprio said – from putting a price on carbon emissions to buying cleaner cars, eating less meat, and businesses vowing to be carbon-neutral.
“To those who may be discouraged by naysayers, let me remind you, the environmental awakening is all over the world and the progress we have made so far … has always been because of people, not governments,” DiCaprio told the United Nations correspondents association event in downtown New York.
DiCaprio, who has worked closely with outgoing UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, on climate action, congratulated him for “elevating the significance of climate change to one of fundamental global sustainability and peace”.
Without Ban’s persistence, the world would never have made so much progress on climate change, culminating in the Paris agreement sealed in December 2015, DiCaprio said.
Earlier on Friday, Ban said acting on climate change meant “jobs, growth, cleaner air and better health”, adding that leaders of top companies, governors and mayors understood this.
The Paris agreement was “a precious achievement that we must support and nurture”, he told his final press conference at the United Nations. “There is no turning back.”

Links

Australia Leads Way In Fossil Fuel Divestment

Saturday PaperBill McKibben

La Trobe University will phase out its investments in listed companies with a strong  involvement in fossil fuels.
It  looks as though 2016 will go down as the year that Western democracies were torn open to reveal the growing disconnect between citizens and governments. A year when many felt trust in government had fallen so low that it was better to try to burn it all down than continue on our current course.
Next month, Donald Trump will become the president of my country. Britain is destined to leave the European Union. In Australia, the political malaise is so strong that no prime minister has made it through a full term in almost 10 years. But even as the major parties scramble to find a popular face to put on their unpopular policies, many voters are abandoning them for the empty promises and scapegoating of far-right populism.
Take note Australian politicians: while you dither, the money is moving out of fossil fuels.
Riding that wave is Pauline Hanson, who brought a swag of One Nation senators with her to the Australian parliament – including a climate change denier and conspiracy theorist of an ilk I thought only existed in fossil-fuel-loving America.
But there is a much greater disconnect that is plaguing global democracies, and nowhere more so than in Australia.
More than 75 per cent of Australians believe the climate is changing and the vast majority agree that humans are driving this change. Yet despite this overwhelming consensus, the Australian government is currently the biggest pariah nation in the world when it comes to action on climate change.
This was highlighted at the recent United Nations climate meeting, where Australia faced more questions than any other country on its lack of climate policy and action. Indeed, things look pretty bleak down under: both your federal government and the Queensland Labor government are pushing for Indian company Adani to open the world’s largest coalmine in the Galilee Basin – against the wishes of the land’s traditional owners, who are fighting back in the courts. The federal government is bullying the states to drop renewable energy targets and pressuring them to open up gas exploration on farmland; they are scrapping funding to renewable energy bodies, while pouring money into new fossil fuel ones. On the climate sanity front, it’s not a pretty sight.
It is a sad indictment that your federal government perceives climate change to be an effective wedge to score cheap political points off its opposition. It is a dangerous game in which no one wins.
Indeed, it’s becoming manifestly clear that all of us around the world stand to lose from this retrovision, including such short-sighted politicians as your environment and energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, and former prime minister Tony Abbott, who would seemingly see the world burn before they were willing to take genuine climate change action.
Well, the world is burning. As 2016 grinds to a close, we now know it has been the hottest year on record – meaning 16 out of the hottest 17 years on record have happened this century. The Great Barrier Reef is still ghostly white, and a record drought grips much of Australia. The Arctic is experiencing extraordinarily hot sea surface and air temperatures, which are expected to see record lows of sea ice at the North Pole next year.
But as your government sleepwalks, Australians – like growing numbers of people everywhere – are taking effective climate action on a scale not seen anywhere else on the planet.
This week, a new report was released – by global financial outfit Arabella – charting the global trajectory of the fossil fuel divestment movement. Divestment, quite simply, is the opposite of an investment – it means getting rid of stocks, bonds or investment funds that are unethical or morally ambiguous. And the numbers are astonishing: more than 690 institutions representing almost $A7 trillion and countless individuals worldwide now make up the fossil-free movement.
This is all from a small movement that started on United States college campuses barely four years ago. The divestment campaign was initially based on the apartheid divestment campaign, grounded in the moral case. But what we’ve found in four years is that it is now about real money. Take note Australian politicians: while you dither, the money is moving out of fossil fuels.
Indeed, removed from the highly charged and partisan federal space, your local institutions are actively working behind the scenes to strip the fossil fuel industry of its funding and the social licence it needs to operate.
Australia has more divested institutions per capita than any other developed country, and is second only in number of divestments to the US. Of this, 30 local councils have divested from fossil fuels and one in 10 Australians now live in a fossil-free council. These councils range from progressive, inner-city councils such as Moreland and Leichhardt, to former coal towns such as Newcastle, and rural councils such as Mount Alexander and Ballina.
In the mining state of Western Australia, about one-quarter of all residents now live in councils that have divested – that is 2.5 times the national average.
But the fossil-free movement goes beyond councils. Superannuation funds, universities, churches and health institutions have also pledged to shift their investments away from coal, oil and gas.
The campaign for universities to divest is rapidly picking up speed. Already six Australian public universities have divested, with the University of Technology Sydney recently announcing its intention to divest in the new year.
As the intellectual compass of our society, universities are a particularly strong plank of the divestment movement. The ideas and debates that happen within university walls often seep into society and shape the issues of the day. So it makes sense that students and staff are calling on the world’s universities to put their money where their morals are and stop funding an industry that is destroying the climate.
The question they raise is a good one, and one all world governments would do well to consider: How can you purport to care about our future when our own actions and investments are driving the biggest threat to that future? At a time when the Australian government is refusing to take serious climate action, divestment signals a very real way forward.
Take your Big Four banks, for example, who have lent $70 billion to new fossil fuel projects since 2008. They and other global lenders can help decide the future of such projects as the Adani coalmine – a climate time bomb. To go ahead, that mine will almost certainly need funding, and lenders have a choice as to whether to be part of a project that threatens a safe climate future.
This is where the power of divestment is manifest: as more and more institutions move away from banks such as Commonwealth, which has handed $2.2 billion to the fossil fuel industry since publicly committing to align its lending with a 2ºC world, the pressure it places on these institutions will, I believe, make fossil fuels as toxic to investors as tobacco. Add to this the ever-increasing risk of fossil fuels becoming stranded assets.
If your government won’t be accountable on climate, we can force financial institutions to take note. And some already have. The NAB has ruled out funding Adani’s mega coalmine; Australia’s biggest super fund has felt the wind of change and is now offering a “fossil-free option”; La Trobe University and Queensland University of Technology have dumped their investments in the worst coal, oil and gas companies; dozens of local governments have favoured banks that don’t lend to fossil fuels over those that do.
While it’s disheartening to see climate change deniers taking centre stage in the political arena, it’s inspiring to see what people, communities, universities, churches can do on their own. Every day the momentum is growing – politicians must either heed the call or risk becoming irrelevant as the world moves from polluting fossil fuels to the clean energy future.

Links

19/12/2016

Climate Change And The NSW & ACT Bushfire Threat

Climate CouncilLesley Hughes

NSW and the ACT are bracing for another severe bushfire season, as climate change continues to drive extreme conditions, our new report has revealed.
The ‘Climate Change and the NSW and ACT Bushfire Threat’ report finds the economic cost of bushfires in the NSW and ACT is approximately $100m this year, with annual bushfire costs projected to more than double by 2050.

KEY FINDINGS
DOWNLOAD
1. Climate change is already increasing the risk of bushfires in New South Wales (NSW) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).
  • Since the 1970s, extreme fire weather has increased across large parts of Australia, including NSW and the ACT.
  • Hot, dry conditions have a major influence on bushfires. Climate change is making hot days hotter, and heatwaves longer and more frequent, with increasing drought conditions in Australia’s southeast.
  • The 2015/16 summer was Australia’s sixth hottest on record and in NSW and the ACT the mean maximum temperatures were 1.4°C and 1.9°C above average, respectively. February 2016 was also the driest that NSW has experienced since 1978. Hot and dry conditions are driving up the likelihood of dangerous fire weather in NSW and the ACT.
2. In NSW and the ACT the fire season is starting earlier and lasting longer. Dangerous fire weather has been extending into Spring and Autumn.
  • 'Above normal' fire potential is expected in most of NSW for the 2016-17 bushfire season, because of high grass growth experienced during spring and predicted above average temperatures during summer.
  • In the ACT, predicted hotter and drier weather during summer will produce conditions conducive to bushfire development.
3. Recent severe fires in NSW and the ACT have been influenced by record hot, dry conditions.
  • Record-breaking heat and hotter weather over the long term in NSW and the ACT has worsened fire weather and contributed to an increase in the frequency and severity of bushfires.
  • In October 2013, exceptionally dry conditions contributed to severe bushfires on the Central Coast and in the Blue Mountains of NSW, which caused over $180 million in damages.
  • At the beginning of August in 2014, volunteers were fighting 90 fires simultaneously and properties were destroyed.
4. The total economic costs of NSW and ACT bushfires are estimated to be approximately $100 million per year. By around the middle of the century these costs will more than double.
  • Bushfires cost an estimated $375 million per year in Australia. With a forecast growth in costs of 2.2% annually between 2016 and 2050, the total economic cost of bushfires is expected to reach $800 million annually by mid-century.
  • These state and national projections do not incorporate increased bushfire incident rates due to climate change and could potentially be much higher.
  • In 2003, abnormally high temperatures and below-average rainfall in and around the ACT preceded bushfires that devastated several suburbs, destroyed over 500 properties and claimed five lives. This also had serious economic implications for the ACT with insured losses of $660 million.
5. In the future, NSW and the ACT are very likely to experience an increased number of days with dangerous fire weather. Communities, emergency services and health services must keep preparing.
  • Fire severity and intensity is expected to increase substantially in coming decades, especially in those regions currently most affected by bushfires, and where a substantial proportion of the Australian population lives.
  • Increased resources for our emergency services and fire management agencies will be required as fire risk increases.
6. This is the critical decade to protect Australians.
  • Australia must strive to cut emissions rapidly and deeply to join global efforts to stabilise the world’s climate and to reduce the impact of extreme weather events, including bushfires.
  • Australia’s very weak target of a 26-28% reduction in emissions by 2030 compared to 2005 levels – and we are on track to miss even this target – leaves Australia lagging well behind other OECD countries. 
Links

Scientists Confirm That Warm Ocean Water Is Melting The Biggest Glacier In East Antarctica

Washington PostChris Mooney

A Conductivity-Temperature-Depth profiler being deployed near the front of the Totten Glacier. (Credit: Steve Rintoul CSIRO and ACE CRC)
Scientists at institutions in the United States and Australia on Friday published a set of unprecedented ocean observations near the largest glacier of the largest ice sheet in the world: Totten glacier, East Antarctica. And the result was a troubling confirmation of what scientists already feared — Totten is melting from below.
The measurements, sampling ocean temperatures in seas over a kilometer (0.62 miles) deep in some places right at the edge of Totten glacier’s floating ice shelf, affirmed that warm ocean water is flowing in towards the glacier at the rate of 220,000 cubic meters per second.
These waters, the paper asserts, are causing the ice shelf to lose between 63 and 80 billion tons of its mass to the ocean per year, and to lose about 10 meters (32 feet) of thickness annually, a reduction that has been previously noted based on satellite measurements.
This matters because more of East Antarctica flows out towards the sea through the Totten glacier region than for any other glacier in the entirety of the East Antarctic ice sheet. Its entire “catchment,” or the region of ice that slowly flows outward through Totten glacier and its ice shelf, is larger than California. If all of this ice were to end up in the ocean somehow, seas would raise by about 11.5 feet.
“This ice shelf is thinning, and it’s thinning because the ocean is delivering warm water to the ice shelf, just like in West Antarctica,” said Don Blankenship, a glaciologist at the University of Texas at Austin and one of the study’s co-authors. Blankenship was not on the research vessel, but he and his colleagues helped the Australia-based researchers with understanding the contours of the seafloor so they could plan their field investigations into where warm and deep waters could penetrate.
The lead author of the research, published Friday in Science Advances, was Stephen Rintoul, a researcher with the University of Tasmania in Hobart and Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, or CSIRO. Totten glacier is, more or less, due south of Australia and relatively close to one of Australia’s bases of operations on the ice continent, Casey Station.
Rintoul and his colleagues, on board the government vessel Aurora Australis, were able to navigate extremely close to the Totten ice shelf edge in January of 2015, when an opening in the sea ice allowed the ship to get in closer than one ever has before. This is how they were able to gather the required ocean observations — and to detect the warm water.

A view of the Totten Glacier from RSV Aurora Australis in January 2015. (Australian Antarctic Division (Photo: Paul Brown, Australian Maritime College))

The researchers took ocean measurements at 10 separate points along the floating Totten ice shelf. And at two of the stations, they found that the ocean underneath was extremely deep. There was a six-mile-wide canyon at a depth of 600 meters (nearly 2000 feet) that then branched into two narrower canyons, each reaching greater depths. One of them was over 800 meters deep (more than 2,500 feet) the other was 1,097 meters deep (3,600 feet). Each was about one to two miles wide.
It was in these deep undersea canyons, and a few shallower areas as well, that warm ocean water, called modified circumpolar deep water, was flowing inward powerfully towards Totten glacier. And the previously measured loss of ice from the ice shelf matched closely with the amount of heat that the ocean was delivering, the paper found.
Granted, calling the waters reaching Totten at great depths “warm” is a bit of a misnomer —they are slightly below the freezing point. However, at the extreme pressures and depths involved, the freezing point of ice itself lowers, making these waters more than warm enough to melt ice.
Measuring the warm water reaching Totten was, until now, a missing puzzle piece in determining what’s happening with the glacier. Prior research, for instance, had shown the presence of cavities that warm water could enter, and scientists believed this was occurring because they had observed Totten thinning and lowering in the water. But as NASA glaciologist Eric Rignot put it to the Post at the time, “it is one thing to find potential pathways for warm water to intrude the cavity, it is another to show that this is actually happening.”
Now, scientists are showing that it’s actually happening.
The researchers are interested in Totten not only because of the massive global consequences were it to be destabilized, but also because it could help solve a riddle from the Earth’s past. Researchers have calculated that during previous warm eras, such as during the Pliocene, about 3 million years ago, global temperatures not too much higher than those that exist today led to radical amounts of sea level rise. It’s too much of an ocean surge for the loss of West Antarctica, alone, to explain — so they’ve been going looking to East Antarctica to close the sea-level budget from those eras.
And it turns out that like West Antarctica, East Antarctica features several regions — including Totten — where massive amounts of ice rise above the ocean level, but are grounded deep below it. In the case of Totten glacier, its so-called “grounding line,” which is where the glacier begins to lift off the seafloor and to float, forming an ice shelf with an ocean cavity beneath it, is nearly a mile and a half deep.
Granted, none of this means that Totten is contributing much to sea-level rise — yet. The large loss of ice from the ice shelf doesn’t raise seas because that ice is already afloat. But the weakening of the ice shelf is troubling because the shelf holds back Totten’s more dangerous ice, and when it goes it will allow that ice to flow more easily into the ocean.
For Blankenship, the new study, combined with past aircraft and satellite research on Totten, puts the remaining piece in place and suggests an increasingly clear picture of ocean-driven melt that could lead to growing instability.
“The whole process is here and going on,” he says. “This is the biggest potential contributor in East Antarctica. It needs to be understood.”

Links

Climate Scientists Fear Trump May Fatally Undermine Their Work

Time

Scientists say some of the transition team's moves are unprecedented
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wears a coal miner's protective hat while addressing his supporters during a rally at the Charleston Civic Center on May 5, 2016 in Charleston, WV. Ricky Carioti—The Washington Post/Getty Images


Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election shocked climate scientists and policymakers after a campaign in which Trump had suggested—falsely—that climate change was a hoax and vowed to largely undo federal and international measures aimed at addressing global warming.
Nonetheless, climate advocates took solace in the days following the election, noting that the market forces largely responsible for the shift away from coal and the incontrovertible science supporting climate regulations would remain true regardless of who was President. But in the six weeks since the election, Trump’s transition team has suggested that the incoming administration will not simply challenge the Obama administration’s policies but will also launch an attempt to undermine the years of science underpinning them. Such an effort could have major implications for the credibility of U.S. government data—and the ability of the world to fight global warming.
“It’s very damaging because it undermines the public confidence in scientists and government,” says Christine Todd Whitman, who served as EPA administrator under George W. Bush from 2001 to 2003, of Trump’s approach to science. “When you start to undermine that public confidence, it can have long-term damaging consequences.”
Trump is still more than a month from taking office, but his team has already sought to undermine basic facts on energy and environmental issues in a number of agencies using a variety of means. Senior Trump adviser Bob Walker said in November that the incoming administration would eliminate NASA’s Earth sciences division, calling its work “politicized.” That department operates satellites to monitor the Earth’s climate and provides data on the changing atmosphere.
The transition team sent a questionnaire to the Department of Energy asking for the names of individuals who worked to calculate the social toll carbon dioxide takes on the atmosphere or attended United Nations climate conferences, stoking fears that career staffers might lose their jobs for working on climate issues. Trump’s choice to lead the agency—former Texas Governor Rick Perry—has described the science of climate change as an open question. The Trump transition team told TIME that the questionnaire was “not authorized” and the sender had been “counseled.” (The transition team did not respond to other questions for this article).
Officials at the non-partisan Energy Information Administration (EIA) were asked if their data had been subject to political influence during the Obama years. That is, Trump’s team asked whether the EIA—a federal agency that tracks and makes forecasts in the energy industry—presented too a rosy view of the growth of renewable energy while discounting coal to encourage renewable investment. This accusation, described as “nonsense” by Rosenberg, was particularly surprising the high regard given to the agency across the aisle and in the energy industry with oil, gas, coal and renewable companies alike.
These steps by Trump’s team represent a dramatic escalation in fights over energy and environmental policy. Many Republicans—think President George W. Bush—have acknowledged the science climate change while arguing that certain demanded by environmentalists would damage the economy. That conclusion is still grounded in a belief and respect for science, no matter how much it might frustrate green advocates.
“People can come to different conclusions about what society should do in light of the evidence in front of them—natural sciences, social sciences, public sentiment and so on,” says Andrew Rosenberg, Director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “People here are saying, ‘we don’t care what that scientific evidence is, we know better’ or they’re trying to directly corrupt the scientific evidence by attacking the scientists.”
But in 2016 disputing the fundamentals of science may be the only way Trump can enact an agenda that disregards climate change. Policymaking—particularly with rules issued by agencies like the EPA—requires troves of evidence from a variety of disciplines to back it up. Reversing the slew of Obama-era policies will require agencies to come up with a scientific justification, something that is increasingly difficult as the science of climate change becomes more clear by the day. But if the Trump administration tosses decades of data and federal research or only seeks advice from industry the policy rationale for reversing regulations becomes legally defensible.
“Just as you have 97% of scientists who say climate change is real and humans have an impact on it, you can find the other 3% who say, ‘no it’s not happening,'” says Whitman, explaining how a Trump administration could enact its agenda. “You can find people who say no and then that’s all you listen to.”
Whitman, who quit the Bush administration because she felt that her agency had been hampered, said that indications from the incoming Trump administration suggest it will be far worse.
One of Trump’s first targets—and one of the most challenging ones—will likely be Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Obama described the measure, which pushes states to shift away from coal-fired power plants, as the most significant step the U.S. has taken to combat climate change. The rule, the product of years of study and litigation, is justified on the basis that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and, therefore, need to be regulated by the EPA. The so-called endangerment finding was upheld in federal court. If Trump were to get rid of the Clean Power Plan, he would need to replace it with something else—unless he gets rid of the endangerment finding. And the only way to do that we be to rethink years of scientific research.
Scientists have responded to Trump’s statements with increasing alarm. Some have begun downloading government data onto independent servers fearing that the incoming administration might remove it from the public domain. Others have begun to reframe crucial research as a matter of jobs rather than environmental concerns.
Of course, it remains early days. Trump is yet to take office and could yet offer a radical shift in direction. Maybe his daughter Ivanka or another meeting with Al Gore will change his mind. Or maybe he will just operate as a replica of Bush. “Anybody who says they know what’s going to happen is reading out of a broken crystal ball,” says Jonathan Levy, who served as deputy chief of staff in the Department of Energy.

Links

18/12/2016

Our Bright Future Can't Have Black Heart Of Coal

Fairfax - Elizabeth Farrelly

So we're driving from Jaipur to Agra – slowly, because northern India's December fogs are earlier than usual, and chewier. They're also smellier because – let's be frank – this is more smog than fog; weeks-long pea-soupers that seem like a hangover from industrial revolution London. Perhaps, indeed, they are – and perhaps if I'd seen it this way, more Hogarthian satire than sci-fi future, it wouldn't have scared the tripe outta me quite as it did.
Along the road, for hundreds of kilometres, people burn rubbish and crouch for warmth around small roadside fires. In stacks and house-sized mounds, on hayricks, rooftops and median strips, millions of cow-dung patties are drying for burning. In the fields, tall-chimneyed brick kilns belch black smoke into air already viscous with particulates. And then there are the vehicles, in their teeming, honking millions.

Adani mine project moves forward
Jobs, regional investement, and the battle against climate change... all will benefit, say Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk and Adani CEO Jeyakumar Janakaraj at an announcement in Townsville. Vision courtesy ABC News 24

As we cross from majestic Rajasthan to Uttar Pradesh, our driver, the stoic, blue-turbaned Mr Singh, welcomes us to the crime capital of India. If there's irony here it doesn't translate, but the shift is palpable. Suddenly, after Rajasthan's straight-backed, saried elegance, there are beggars, everywhere. Rag-clad people scrabble in the dust with pigs, monkeys, mangy dogs. Nature, what there is, looks beleaguered. The fog writhes with sirens, and massive black SUVs emblazoned with UP Police insignia swarm the streets like predatory megafauna. I have the impression we've driven onto some post-apocalypse movie set.
The previous day, India time, news hit that this week's Australia India Leadership Dialogue in Brisbane would see Malcolm Turnbull meet Gautam Adani to discuss a $1 billion subsidy for Adani's immense Carmichael coal mine. Subsidy, mind you, on top of the already controversial approvals, despite the already parlous state of the Great Barrier Reef and notwithstanding Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg's election promise that the project would need to "stand on its own two feet".
Illustration: Simon Bosch 
In  my mind, as we drive, the subsidy, the scrabble for existence and the hellish fog coagulate into the thought that scares me witless: is this the future? Is this the world's Lorax moment come to life, or at least to living death? Is this the extreme end of income disparity, where the unconscionably rich take all, leaving the inconceivably poor to squat in the dirt at their gates, unable to drink the water or breathe the air: unable even to cook food without making their own plight worse?
I'm reflecting that India is way ahead of us in this. We Australians get to behave like the world's irresponsible schoolboys because we have the gift (or theft) of a big clean continent that takes a lot of screwing up. But India has been at it for aeons. Throughout most of that time – arguably still – the rich have created vast and indescribable beauty by creating clearings in the forest of the ubiquitous poor. Using the poor to build the massive walls – the forts and palaces, villas and compounds – designed to keep their own filth and sound and stink at bay, the rich then shut the gates.
Now, although the clearing mentality persists still, it can no longer work. "This winter," declares an aircon ad in the Hindustan Times, "no matter how high the pollution is, the healthiest air is in your room". Do they not see that the "me-now" solution only makes everything worse for us-later? That even the grandest sultan can no longer wall his oasis. Eventually even Adani, even Turnbull, and their children and grandchildren, must breathe the air and drink the water.
This is the future that whacks me. I feel poisoned by it, infiltrated, sickened, as though a grime of death had covered the world, blocking all sunlight. Later that evening I discover that I have, in fact, been poisoned, not by smog or dystopia (although probably neither helped) but by a much more treatable gastritis, that earns me a stern talking-to from a handsome Brahmin doctor.
Australian coal is exported to India. Photo: Glenn Hunt
But the fog, and the dystopia, signal a real malaise, one for which there's no miracle antibiotic. Indeed, climate change is the world's superbug, bred from a billion unthinking me-now cures; just make it OK for me, for now, for here.
Australia, even in selling coal to countries like India, is acting like the worst kind of irresponsible patient, pretending – as Frydenberg has for years – that "most importantly" our purpose is to "help lift millions out of energy poverty" when it can only worsen their plight, and ours, while making the mega-rich richer. That's bad enough. Then to subsidise that racket, using public money to PAY the rich to destroy our reef, and our climate, is plain bonkers. What are they thinking?
It's especially bizarre given Adani Group's track record at a project in Gujarat which, according to a 2013 Indian Ministry of Environment report, has involved persistent and flagrant breaches of permit conditions, large-scale destruction of mangrove forests and creek systems, groundwater salination and unapproved reclamations.
Queensland law now requires mining licensees to be a "suitable person". Adani's licence was bought from another company before the suitable person test was in place, so it has never had to face scrutiny in this regard.
But regardless of fouling Australia's environment, there's the fouling of India, and the world, as all that coal is burned. And, yes, there are alternatives. Consider, for example, Pollinate Energy in Bangalore, co-founded by young Sydney law graduate Emma Colenbrander. In four years, Pollinate has quietly shifted more than 80,000 of India's 300 million without access to electricity onto solar LEDs.
Think what $1 billion could do in such a forum. Surely, if we really wanted to lift India's poor from the dust without worsening the grey scrabble of their lives, that would be the way to go?

Links

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative