‘Disaster Alley’: Australia Could Be Set To Receive New Wave Of Climate Refugees

The Guardian - Ben Doherty

US defence expert warns people fleeing low-lying Pacific islands a precursor to ‘climate-exacerbated water insecurities’ that could trigger wider conflict

A king tide crashes through the sea wall, flooding Pita Meanke’s family home on the low-lying South Pacific island of Kiribati. Photograph: jeremy Sutton-Hibbert/Alamy

Australia could be on the frontline of a new wave of “climate refugees” displaced by extreme weather events, droughts and rising seas, a US expert on the national security impacts of climate change has warned.
Sherri Goodman, a former US deputy undersecretary of defence, argues the impact of climate change – rising seas, extreme weather, prolonged droughts – will be a “threat multiplier” for security challenges, and could be the spark that ignites conflict and drives new waves of mass forced migration.
The Asia-Pacific region was acutely vulnerable, she said.
“You may be on the frontlines here in Australia for climate refugees,” she told the Guardian in Sydney. “The first wave will be those who have to flee the low-lying Pacific islands, because many of them will be uninhabitable, even in our lifetimes.”
“But you’re also in ‘disaster alley’ here in the Asia-Pacific region and while there have begun to be efforts to reduce risks of disasters, I’m concerned that we’re not acting as quickly as we should to protect our societies from those risks, which is going to mean more migration.”
Goodman cited the example of the ongoing civil war in Syria, which has produced more than five million refugees over six years of fighting.
But the political conflict in Syria was exacerbated by a long-running drought which drove people into food insecurity, poverty and rapid, unsustainable urbanisation.
“From 2006 to 2010, 60% of Syria had its worst long-term drought and crop failures since civilisation began,” Goodman says. “About 800,000 people in rural areas lost their livelihood by 2009. Three million people were driven into extreme poverty, and 1.5 million migrated to cities.”
“Those conditions enable terrorists like the Islamic State of Boko Haram in parts of Nigeria or al-Qaida in Iraq to rise and take advantage of desperate people in desperate circumstances.”
Goodman is careful not to posit climate change as the sole cause of future conflicts, but argues it will be a contributory, compounding factor.
“Climate is a threat multiplier because it aggravates others tensions and conflicts that already exist.
“Climate-exacerbated water insecurities could eventually become a tipping [point] to wider conflict or instability in the region. We see this now playing out in various ways around the world, but particularly here in the Asia-Pacific region.”
Regionally, Goodman sees the example of Pakistan and India, where historical enmity, long-running religious, political and cultural fractures, and territorial disputes over Kashmir, could be reignited by conflict over water or other resources.

Sherri Goodman, a former US deputy undersecretary of defence, describes climate change as ‘a threat multiplier’. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Low-lying Bangladesh, the eighth-most populous country in the world with more than 160 million people, has been identified as being extremely vulnerable to climate change, on some measures the most vulnerable country in the world.
“Another extreme weather event, combined with sea-level rise and storm surge, could send upwards up 10 million people or more along that low-lying coastline in Bangladesh fleeing towards higher ground, which is towards India, which is building a massive wall to keep Bangladeshis out.
“I think that could create consequences for which we’re currently unprepared. India shows no signs of wanting or being able to absorb those numbers of refugees. And then where do they flee? These are mostly people who can’t afford to get on a cruise ship and leave. And if they can’t flee by land into India does that mean they, there’s either a massive loss of life or head off in rickety boats, where they might lose their lives at sea.”

Mousuni, an island in the Bay of Bengal, is sinking due to climate change and tidal flooding, leaving thousands of its inhabitants homeless. Photograph: Sushavan Nandy / Barcroft Images

In 2008, the then president of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, speculated about buying land in Australia in order to house his country’s population when the archipelago nation was consumed by the rising Indian Ocean.
Under the global standard for refugee protection, the 1951 refugee convention, there is no such thing as a “climate change refugee”.
The refugee convention, written in the aftermath of the massive displacement caused by the second world war, only recognises refugees displaced from their home countries, and suffering a “well-founded fear of persecution” on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
Some regional treaties – such as Latin America’s Cartagena declaration – have a broader definition, recognising as refugees people displaced by “circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order”, which is taken to include natural disasters and food insecurity.
Goodman argues national governments, and supranational organisations, will need to redraw, or add to, the current global protection framework.
“We do need to rethink the governance for refugees better to reflect the types of refugees we face today. Current governance structures are just inadequate for the modern era.”
Governments and militaries around the world are becoming increasingly cognisant of the national security threat posed by climate change.
In his confirmation hearing in January, the US’s new secretary of defence, James Mattis, said climate change posed a current security threat to America.
“Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today. It is appropriate for the combatant commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.”
In 2015, Australia’s Climate Council released a report, co-authored by the former chief of the Australian defence force, Chris Barrie, that argued climate change “poses a significant and growing threat to human and societal wellbeing, threatening food, water, health and national security”.
In 2016, the army chief, Angus Campbell, made climate security a focus of the annual chief of army’s exercise. He said climate change was “immediately relevant” for militaries and “the scale of climate change problems, their unpredictability, and the level of support required from land forces are key issues for us to better understand”.
The Centre for Policy Development policy director, Rob Sturrock, co-authored a report in 2015 arguing that Australia’s struggle to deal with climate vulnerabilities domestically and across the region was the country’s “longest conflict”.
The report recommended the federal government appoint a climate security advisory council, connecting the defence, environment and foreign affairs departments to develop a national climate security strategy.
Goodman, founder of the CNA Military Advisory Board, is speaking this week in Sydney at the Lowy Institute, Canberra at the ANU, and Melbourne at the Breakthrough Institute at screenings of The Age of Consequences documentary, about the security threat posed by climate change.

Links

• Lives in the balance: climate change and the Marshall Islands
• On the climate change frontline: the disappearing fishing villages of Bangladesh
• Five Pacific islands lost to rising seas as climate change hits
• Climate change will stir 'unimaginable' refugee crisis, says military
• Australia must not be afraid of its obligations to Pacific climate migrants

Climate-Driven Species On The Move Are Changing (Almost) Everything

The Conversation - Gretta Pecl | Adriana Vergés |.Ekaterina Popova | Jan McDonald

When species are pushed to the top of the mountain, where else is left to go? Tero Mustonen, Author provided

Last year in Paris, for the very first time, English sparkling wine beat champagne in a blind tasting event. Well established French Champagne houses have started buying fields in Britain to grow grapes, and even the royal family is investing in this new venture.
At the same time, coffee-growing regions are shrinking and shifting. Farmers are being forced to move to higher altitudes, as the band in which to grow tasty coffee moves up the mountain.
The evidence that climate change is affecting some of our most prized beverages is simply too great to be ignored. So while British sparkling wine and the beginning of the "coffeepocalypse" were inconceivable just a few decades ago, they are now a reality. It's unlikely that you'll find many climate deniers among winemakers and coffee connoisseurs. But there are far greater impacts in store for human society than disruptions to our favourite drinks.
Dramatic examples of climate-mediated change to species distributions are not exceptions; they are fast becoming the rule. As our study published last week in the journal Science shows, climate change is driving a universal major redistribution of life on Earth.

Documented and predicted changes in species distribution are occurring all over the globe. Pecl et al. 2017

 These changes are already having serious consequences for economic development, livelihoods, food security, human health, and culture. They are even influencing the pace of climate change itself, producing feedbacks to the climate system.

Species on the move
Species have, of course, been on the move since the dawn of life on Earth. The geographical ranges of species are naturally dynamic and fluctuate over time. But the critical issue here is the magnitude and rate of climatic changes for the 21st century, which are comparable to the largest global changes in the past 65 million years. Species have often adapted to changes in their physical environment, but never before have they been expected to do it so fast, and to accommodate so many human needs along the way.
For most species – marine, freshwater, and terrestrial species alike – the first response to rapid changes in climate is a shift in location, to stay within their preferred environmental conditions. On average, species are moving towards the poles at 17km per decade on land and 78km per decade in the ocean. On land, species are also moving to cooler, higher elevations, while in the ocean some fish are venturing deeper in search of cooler water.

Why does it matter?
Different species respond at different rates and to different degrees, with the result that new ecological communities are starting to emerge. Species that had never before interacted are now intermingled, and species that previously depended on one another for food or shelter are forced apart.

Why do changes in species distribution matter?

This global reshuffling of species can lead to pervasive and often unexpected consequences for both biological and human communities. For example, the range expansion of plant-eating tropical fish can have catastrophic impacts by overgrazing kelp forests, affecting biodiversity and important fisheries. In wealthier countries these changes will create substantial challenges. For developing countries, the impacts may be devastating.

Knock-on effects
Many changes in species distribution have implications that are immediately obvious, like the spread of disease vectors such as mosquitoes or agricultural pests. However, other changes that may initially appear more subtle can also have great effects via impacting global climate feedbacks.
Mangroves, which store more carbon per unit area than most tropical forests, are moving towards the poles. Spring blooms of microscopic sea algae are projected to weaken and shift into the Arctic Ocean, as the global temperature rises and the seasonal Arctic sea ice retreats. This will change the patterns of "biological carbon sequestration" over Earth's surface, and may lead to less carbon dioxide being removed from the atmosphere.
Redistribution of the vegetation on land is also expected to influence climate change. With more vegetation, less solar radiation is reflected back into the atmosphere, resulting in further warming. "Greening of the Arctic", where larger shrubs are taking over from mosses and lichens, is expected to substantially change the reflectivity of the surface.
These changes in the distribution of vegetation are also affecting the culture of Indigenous Arctic communities. The northward growth of shrubs is leading to declines in the low-lying mosses and lichens eaten by caribou and reindeer. The opportunities for Indigenous reindeer herding and hunting are greatly reduced, with economic and cultural implications.

Reindeer in the Arctic are very important components of Indigenous and traditional ways of life. Snowchange 2016 /Tero Mustonen

Winners and losers
Not all changes in distribution will be harmful. There will be winners and losers for species, and for the human communities and economic activities that rely on them. For example, coastal fishing communities in northern India are benefiting from the northward shift in the oil sardine's range. In contrast, skipjack tuna is projected to become less abundant in western areas of the Pacific, where many countries depend on this fishery for economic development and food security.
Local communities can help forge solutions to these challenges. Citizen science initiatives like Redmap are boosting traditional scientific research and can be used as an early indication of how species distributions are changing. Having local communities engaged in such participatory monitoring can also increase the chances of timely and site-specific management interventions.
Even with improved monitoring and communication, we face an enormous challenge in addressing these changes in species distribution, to reduce their adverse impacts and maximise any opportunities. Responses will be needed at all levels of governance.
Internationally, the impacts of species on the move will affect our capacity to achieve virtually all of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, including good health, poverty reduction, economic growth, and gender equity.
Currently, these goals do not yet adequately consider effects of climate-driven changes in species distributions. This needs to change if we are to have any chance of achieving them in the future.
National development plans, economic strategies, conservation priorities, and supporting policies and governance arrangements will all need to be recalibrated to reflect the realities of climate change impacts on our natural systems. At the regional and local levels, a range of responses may be needed to enable affected places and communities to survive or thrive under new conditions.
For communities, this might include changed farming, forestry or fishing practices, new health interventions, and, in some cases, alternative livelihoods. Management responses such as relocating coffee production will itself have spillover effects on other communities or natural areas, so adaptation responses may need to anticipate indirect effects and negotiate these trade-offs.
To promote global biodiversity, protected areas will need to be managed to explicitly recognise novel ecological communities, and to promote connectivity across the landscape. For some species, managed relocations or direct interventions may be needed. Our commitment to conservation will need to be reflected in funding levels and priorities.
The success of human societies has always depended on the living components of natural and managed systems. For all our development and modernisation, this hasn't changed. But human society has yet to appreciate the full implications for life on Earth, including human lives, of our current unprecedented climate-driven species redistribution. Enhanced awareness, supported by appropriate governance, will provide the best chance of minimising negative consequences while maximising opportunities arising from species movements.

Links

• Climate change is hitting South Africa's coastal fish
• Arctic birds face disappearing breeding grounds as climate warms
• Temporary ban on fishing reflects how fragile Arctic ecosystem is
• Anglers have helped detect a shift in the habitat of black marlin
• Projected Shifts in Coffea arabica Suitability among Major Global Producing Regions Due to Climate Change
• Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being
• Changes in Ecologically Critical Terrestrial Climate Conditions
• Climate-related range shifts – a global multidimensional synthesis and new research directions
• Future change in ocean productivity: Is the Arctic the new Atlantic?
• The greening and browning of Alaska based on 1982–2003 satellite data

Adani's Carmichael Coal Mine Is Environmentally Reckless And Contrary To Today's Energy Markets

Fairfax - Julien Vincent*

"If at first you don't stack up economically, make the public pay for it."
This could be the mantra that delivers Adani's Carmichael mega coal mine in the Galilee Basin at the expense of the environment, culture, our prospects of a stable climate and in defiance of sound economics.

ABC spreading fake news: Canavan
Nationals MP Matt Canavan has had a bizarre spray on radio, accusing the ABC of reporting fake news over the Adani coal mine.

Since buying the coal tenements from Linc Energy in 2010, Adani has failed to secure a single private backer for the Carmichael mine.
In fact, since then, 17 banks have either publicly distanced themselves from Galilee Basin coal export projects or introduced policies that prevent them lending to the Carmichael mine.
This has left Adani increasingly dependent on the public purse.
At the centre is the Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility (NAIF). Since its inception, the NAIF has been something of a black box, giving no information about projects that could receive hefty public subsidies. Last month, former Treasurer Wayne Swan described the NAIF as being as "dodgy as Lehman Brothers", on account of its opaque governance.
We know almost nothing about the 100 applications that the NAIF has received for funding. But we do know that it has two proposals in front of it to connect Adani's Carmichael coal mine with ports on Queensland's coast.
On one hand, there's Adani's $1 billion bid, which I critiqued in December over a range of issues, including that the applicant would be owned by a company in the Cayman Islands and we'd need to take it on good faith that the money would not disappear into a tax haven.

Adani plans to build Australia's largest coal project in the Galilee Basin. Photo: Michael Mucci

And then Queensland rail haulage company Aurizon, an ASX top 50 company worth $11 billion, has made a $1.25 billion bid to NAIF to build the rail line.
Soon after Aurizon's bid went public it was reported that QIC, an investment firm wholly owned by the Queensland Government, would also consider backing the rail line.

Bob Brown returned to Parliament House in Canberra with Geoff Cousins and environmental groups to protest against the Adani coal mine. Photo: Andrew Meares

Since QIC manages money on behalf of super funds across the country, this would amount to a particularly crafty way for the Palaszczuk government to break off from its pre-election commitment in 2015 to not use public money to fund the project.

Indian billionaire Gautam Adani. Photo: Glenn Hunt

Rather than invest directly, the Government could use QIC to invest on behalf of the millions of superannuation fund members it manages money for, transferring the risk to the likes of retired Queensland public sector employees.

We should also not discount the prospect of Indian public funding. An understanding signed in November 2014 for the State Bank of India to finance Adani mine was reported to have been cancelled the following year, but nothing has been formally announced, and there is a real risk that the Indian taxpayer is still on the hook.
All in all, we could be looking at about half the $5 billion Adani needs to get their Carmichael mine up and running coming from public subsidies. But that still leaves a lot of private backers to persuade. Now, more than ever, we need sensible voices from the financial sector acknowledging that building one of the world's biggest greenfield thermal coal mines is environmentally reckless, but also incongruent with the direction of energy markets.
The context is abundant. Just in the past week, the Financial Times, The Economist and Bloomberg have all written about the global decline in thermal coal, the latter writing off Adani's Carmichael mine as uneconomic.

Adani protesters in Brisbane. Photo: Ben Bissett

These are statements we now need to see from prospective investors in the Carmichael mine, and in Australia, the big four banks remain crucial. Last year, ANZ signalled that funding Carmichael wouldn't square with their intent to scale down coal mining exposure. CBA walked away from their advisory mandate on the Carmichael mine in 2015 and later that year, NAB just ruled it out. Westpac, however, has remained silent on whether they would finance the mine.
Westpac turns 200 this weekend and some parts of their operations are showing their age. The bank's sustainability credentials for instance, once one of its prized assets, are looking a little worse for wear.
In recent years, customers and shareholders have questioned the hypocrisy of financing the expansion of the fossil fuel industry after committing to support the goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees. It also hasn't helped that after four years of asking, Westpac has failed to make a clear public statement about whether or not it would finance Carmichael.
In an industry where sentiment and market signals have a huge impact, leadership from private banks like Westpac can do more than just prevent a project like Adani's Carmichael coal mine, and its impacts on people, the environment and climate. It can help prevent Australians for having to pay for the privilege.

*Julien Vincent is executive director of Market Forces

Links

• Coal's dirty Australian secret? It's not coming back
• Adani head says Qld mega mine ready to go
• Adani Plans To Export Low Quality, High Ash Coal To India, Court Told
• Is This The Worst Mistake Australia Could Make?
• In The Battle For The Planet's Climate Future, Australia's Adani Mine Is The Line In The Sand
• Adani facing growing pressure on fears investors may have been misled
• Queensland Premier, mayors work to convince Adani to go ahead with $21.7b mine
• The Adani mine is this generation's Franklin River. People power can stop it
• Anti-Adani activists vow 'direct action' against mine contractor Downer
• Adani coalmine activists gear up to fight: ‘This will dwarf the Franklin blockade’
• Adani mine leases and national parks in doubt after native title court decision
• Adani coalmine 'covertly funded' by World Bank, says report

These Stunning Timelapse Photos May Just Convince You About Climate Change

Washington Post - Chelsea Harvey

Melting glaciers, from Greenland to Antarctica, have become symbols of global warming — and monitoring their retreat is one major way scientists are keeping tabs on the progress of climate change.
Now, scientists are trying to bring the issue a little closer to home by using time-lapse photos to show the effects of climate change are already occurring.
A paper published last week by the Geological Society of America presents dramatic before-and-after photographs of glaciers around the world over the last decade. Most of the photos were taken by photographer James Balog as part of a project called the Extreme Ice Survey, which began documenting changing glaciers around the world in 2007. The project was featured in the 2012 documentary “Chasing Ice.”
Below is a time-lapse video, using images captured by Balog and the Extreme Ice Survey team, documenting changes at Mendenhall Glacier in Alaska. Between 2007 and 2015, the glacier retreated by 550 meters, or more than 1,800 feet.

Photojournalist James Balog and the Extreme Ice Survey team travels the world to document vanishing ice. (Earth Vision Institute/ Extreme Ice Survey)

On-the-ground expeditions are “key to informing broad audiences of non-specialists,” note the paper’s authors, who include Balog and multiple other glacier and climate experts. “Science is grounded in observation, so science education will benefit from displaying the recently exposed landscapes.”
In an interview with The Washington Post, Balog suggested that ground-level photographs provide an immediacy that’s missing from other scientific tools, such as satellite images.
“I do think that our most dominant sensory apparatus is our vision,” he added. “So when you can deliver an understanding of the reality of what’s going on through vision, rather than numbers or maps, that also has the unique ability to touch and influence people.”
Below are before-and-after images of Switzerland’s Stein Glacier, which also retreated by 550 meters between 2006 and 2015.

Stein Glacier, in part of the Swiss Alps, on Sept. 17, 2011. (James Balog and the Extreme Ice Survey/GSA Today/Geological Society of America)

Stein Glacier on Aug. 20, 2015. (James Balog and the Extreme Ice Survey/GSA Today/The Geological Society of America)

For Balog, the location that’s had the greatest personal impact is Sólheimajökull Glacier in Iceland, which he described as his “first love.”
“It’s where I kind of first realized how quickly the ice is changing,” he said. “And it’s because of what the local scientists were able to show me by way of the change in the glacier in a shockingly short period of time.”
Reports suggest that the glacier has shrunk by more than 2,000 feet since 2007. Below is a time-lapse of its retreat between 2007 and 2015.

Photojournalist James Balog and the Extreme Ice Survey team travels the world to document vanishing ice. (Earth Vision Institute/ Extreme Ice Survey)

While the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets often receive the most press — and not without reason, thanks to the sheer amount of ice they contain — Balog’s photos include smaller mountain glaciers from places like Alaska and Europe. In many places around the world, these smaller glaciers are responding even more rapidly to their changing environments than their polar counterparts.
And while the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets may have the greatest long-term potential to raise global sea levels, melting mountain glaciers come with their own set of consequences as well. Nearby communities often rely on runoff from these glaciers for sources of fresh water. But as the glaciers shrink away, less water becomes available. Some experts have also raised the possibility that melting mountain glaciers could result in huge floods capable of destroying nearby homes and infrastructure.
“People who live in proximity to these things are really are quite acutely aware of how much things are changing and think about it, and the researchers in their areas study it,” Balog said. “These are important and immediate impacts.”
Below is Trift Glacier, which retreated by more than 3,700 feet between 2006 and 2016.

Trift Glacier in the Swiss Alps in 2006. (James Balog and the Extreme Ice Survey/GSA Today/The Geological Society of America)

Trift Glacier on Aug. 20, 2015. (James Balog and the Extreme Ice Survey/GSA Today/Geological Society of America)

Satellite measurements still provide some of the most precise information on glacial retreat all over the world, revealing the vulnerability of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. Scientists have used satellite data to estimate how much ice these sheets contain in total. (If the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melted away entirely, for instance, they could raise sea levels by more than 200 feet. But it would take tens of thousands of years for that to happen, even at current warming rates.)
On-the-ground imagery provides a different kind of service, presenting compelling visual evidence of the climate effects that are already occurring. And the photos have an added visceral effect because they come from places where human communities exist — it’s not just ice on deserted Antarctica that’s disappearing, but also glaciers from Europe and the Americas to Asia and Africa. And once they’re gone, they may never exist again.
“It is likely that these recently deglaciated landscapes will not be re-occupied by ice during foreseeable human timeframes,” the paper’s authors warn. “In other places, forests or other vegetation may rapidly colonize such landscapes. Photographic records, such as those included here, provide an outstanding avenue for education, because they display a record of ice that may never be seen again.”

Links

• Trump aims deep cuts at the clean energy agency that helped make solar affordable
• The White House calls climate change research a ‘waste.’ Actually, it’s required by law
• EPA chief, rejecting agency’s own analysis, declines to ban pesticide despite health concerns

Conservative Liberals Watching Trump's Lead On Climate, Key Backbencher Says

The Guardian - Katharine Murphy

Craig Kelly, who chairs backbench committee on environment and energy, says he thinks Paris agreement is ‘cactus’

Liberal MP Craig Kelly with Tony Abbott on the backbench during question time. Kelly says Australia should ditch the Paris climate agreement if the US does. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

Australia will need to review its participation in the Paris agreement on climate change if Donald Trump follows through with his threat to withdraw from the treaty, according to the chair of the Turnbull government’s backbench committee on environment and energy.
Craig Kelly told Guardian Australia on Wednesday he’d predicted immediately after Trump’s election that the Paris climate deal was “cactus” and he stood by that assessment.
Trump on Tuesday night Australian time signed a new executive order to unravel a number of Barack Obama’s regulatory measures to combat climate change, including eliminating the clean power plan, which sets limits on the amount of greenhouse gases that power plants emit.
The latest executive order is seen as a prelude to the US following through with the campaign commitment to withdraw from the Paris deal.

Donald Trump: I would end Paris climate deal

Australian conservatives are watching events in the US closely.
Kelly said he was aware of the new executive order, and if Trump went the extra step and withdrew from the Paris agreement: “I think we have to review it.”
The former Liberal senator Cory Bernardi, who now sits on the crossbench, holds the same view.
“It is clear America intends to withdraw from the Paris agreement and it would be folly for Australia to be part of it,” Bernardi said. “I don’t think we should subsume our national interest to international bodies.”
Bernardi this week sparked a rebellion inside the government by proposing to disallow an extradition treaty with China on the basis the country’s legal system was deficient.
The disallowance motion prompted a number of Liberals to express opposition to the extradition treaty.
If Trump withdraws from the Paris deal, Bernardi will likely use the development as a recruitment drive for his new Australian Conservatives movement, which will put pressure on conservative MPs in the government.
Kelly, who chairs the government’s backbench committee on climate and energy, has been campaigning internally for months, arguing that the federal renewable energy target should be frozen at its current level.
The Sydney Liberal backbencher said regardless of what the US ultimately did, he had concerns about what the Paris deal could achieve.
Kelly said even if you accepted that fiddling with “the CO2 knob” could influence climate change, he had doubts that countries could meet their Paris commitments “without a technological breakthrough”.
Asked whether a majority of his Coalition colleagues would be in favour of quitting the Paris deal in the event Trump pulled out, Kelly argued “it would be a close run thing”.
He said government MPs were under pressure from voters who believed renewable energy targets were responsible for higher power prices.
The prime minister has signalled Australia will stay the course if the Trump administration follows through with its threats to quit the Paris deal.

Malcolm Turnbull announces Australia has ratified Paris climate change agreement

Turnbull told reporters last November it would take four years to withdraw from the agreement after ratification.

Links

• In the battle for the planet's climate future, Australia's Adani mine is the line in the sand
• Tony Abbott says 'moral panic' about climate change is 'over the top'
• Turnbull signals Australia won't follow Trump's lead on Paris climate agreement
• Australia needs two emissions trading schemes, Climate Change Authority says

Senate Coal Inquiry's Split Result Blamed On 'Squabbling' Parties

The Guardian - Katharine Murphy

Australian Conservation Foundation says Coalition and Labor failing workers and risking the country’s energy security

A Senate inquiry into the retirement of coal-fired power stations towards lower-emissions energy sources split three ways. Photograph: Dan Himbrechts/AAP

A major environment group has blasted Australia’s political parties for squabbling while energy security suffers after a Senate inquiry into the retirement of coal-fired power stations split three ways.
The Senate’s environment and communications references committee has been inquiring into mechanisms for an orderly transition away from coal-fired power to lower emissions energy sources for several months.
At the conclusion of the deliberations, the Greens, Labor and the Coalition all produced separate reports about the best way to manage the change, which were tabled in the Senate on Wednesday evening.
The main report, authored by the Greens, called on the government to adopt a national energy transition plan and a mechanism for the orderly retirement of coal-fired power stations. It also recommended the establishment of an energy transition authority to manage the transition for affected workers and communities.
Labor produced a separate report calling on the government to establish mechanisms to support a “just transition” including a national framework for worker redeployment schemes modelled on the Victorian government’s Latrobe Valley worker transfer scheme.

The Coalition declared the majority report did not “adequately or fairly reflect the evidence presented to the committee”.
“Further, the Coalition senators object to the ideologically driven conclusions, which are counter to the government’s technology agnostic policy approach.”
The Australian Conservation Foundation blasted the rolling contention among Australia’s parliamentarians over climate and energy policy.
“The final report into the closure of the coal industry, with dissenting reports from both Labor and Coalition senators, highlights the squabbling that has characterised energy policy in Australia over the last decade,” said the ACF’s climate change program manager, Gavan McFadzean.
McFadzean said the ACF had “come to expect fossil fuel ideology and nonsense from the Coalition but we are also disappointed federal Labor have missed an opportunity to show courage and lead in the inevitable structural reform, by failing to agree the early and orderly closure of Australia’s coal-fired generation capacity”.
“Unless parties can start working together to ensure a just transition for workers, both they and Australia’s energy security will suffer.”

Links

• Barnaby Joyce says Coalition won't help Clive Palmer build new coal-fired power plant
• Coalition says it may change Clean Energy Finance Corporation rules to fund coal plants
• Scott Morrison brings coal to question time: what fresh idiocy is this?
• Why coal-fired power handouts would be an attack on climate and common sense
• How Malcolm Turnbull could ignore the facts and fund the myth of 'clean' coal
• Electricity from coal should be phased out in Australia – Senate report
• Australia dubbed 'fossil of the day' after lobbying for coal mine at climate talks
• Australian unions call for 'just transition' from coal-generated electricity

Labor To Drop Renewable Energy Target In Favour Of Emissions Scheme

The Guardian - Paul Karp

RET will come to a natural end as emissions intensity scheme can reach goal of 50% renewable energy by 2030, says Andrew Leigh

Australia’s shadow assistant treasurer said renewables accounted for the majority of new investment in electricity generation in the last decade. Photograph: Tim Phillips Photos/Getty Images

Labor will abandon the renewable energy target after 2020 because an emissions intensity scheme will be sufficient to reach the goal of 50% renewable energy by 2030, Andrew Leigh has said.
On Sky News on Sunday the shadow assistant treasurer confirmed the opposition’s plan to reach the 50% goal without a hard target in comments that appeared to rule out extending the existing renewable energy target (RET).
“We’ve committed to getting 50% renewables but the mechanism that we’ve used in the past has been a renewable energy target. That comes to an end and we believe an [emissions intensity scheme] EIS can take us to the point of having 50% renewables ... without the RET,” Leigh said.
Asked to confirm that meant Labor would not support the RET when it expired in 2020, Leigh responded: “We believe that the emissions intensity scheme does that job ... without a RET.”
The environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, seized on the remarks, saying they “injected more confusion” into Labor’s policy.

“It is already apparent that Labor doesn’t know what its policy is called, whether it will be legislated, how much it costs or what impact it will have on power prices and energy security,” he said.
Frydenberg said Leigh’s comments were in contradiction to an adjournment speech on Tuesday by the shadow assistant minister for treasury, Matt Thistlethwaite, in which he said Labor intended to “boost the RET”.

When Labor announced its policy for emissions trading in the electricity sector and for heavy industries before the 2016 election, the opposition said it would consult on what extra policies might be needed to achieve the 50% renewables goal, with a further RET not the favoured option.
As Labor faced pressure on the cost of sourcing 50% of electricity from renewables, Bill Shorten clarified the figure is an “aspiration” and not a hard target to be achieved through an RET.
Leigh’s pronouncement echoes Malcolm Turnbull’s statement that the RET was “never intended to be perpetual”, indicating there could be bipartisan support to abandon it after 2020.
But unlike Labor, the Turnbull government has ruled out a carbon price or EIS to achieve Australia’s Paris targets of reducing emissions by 26-28% on 2005 levels by 2030.
Pressure has been mounting on the Finkel review to recommend a market mechanism. A string of peak bodies have already called for market mechanisms, including the National Farmers’ Federation, the Investor Group on Climate Change and the Business Council of Australia, which explicitly called for an EIS.
Leigh noted that an EIS was supported by experts across the field, including the Business Council of Australia and many energy regulators. He noted renewables account for the majority of new investment in electricity generation in the last decade.
“One of the government’s favourite backers, Bjørn Lomborg, not somebody Labor would usually support, says that every $1 invested in renewables gives you a pay back of $11.”
Leigh said that Nick Xenophon, who abandoned his demand for an EIS in return for support for company tax cuts in favour of a payment to pensioners and a number of energy measures, had been “sold a pup”.
The measures include fast-tracking a solar-thermal plant in South Australia already promised, a study of a gas pipeline connecting the state with the Northern Territory, and a new national energy policy.
“[Xenophon] said he could get an EIS, which would bring down household power prices by $200, instead he’s got yet another report, yet another study,” Leigh said.
Leigh said the government had “absolutely” conned Xenophon, because the deal would not bring down emissions and energy prices.
On an earlier interview on Sky News, the Business Council of Australia’s chief executive, Jennifer Westacott, called for an end to state renewable energy targets and moratoriums on gas exploration and production.
Westacott said the RET had been introduced at a time when energy demand was falling, causing prices to increase, and the energy mix had not balanced renewables with base load power.
Bipartisanship was needed to give business a signal to invest in electricity production and extracting gas resources, she said.
“Most companies are not going to be willing to put very large licks of money, billions of dollars for projects that will go for 30 years, if they do not have a sense of the policy environment they are facing,” she said.
“Everybody knows that at some point, because of the global agreements we’ve done, some kind of price signal is likely to be put into the market.”

Links

• Renewable energy spike led to sharp drop in emissions in Australia, study shows
• Bill Shorten to accuse Coalition of 'vandalism over pragmatism' on energy policy
• Turnbull ignored advice that renewable energy not to blame for SA blackouts
• Tony Abbott rebuffed after attacking Turnbull government on renewable energy target
• Emissions trading backflip a recipe for price rises, say business groups
• Australia needs two emissions trading schemes, Climate Change Authority says
• If energy ministers bow to gas industry they'll be deciding in the dark
• Renewable energy target still in limbo after Labor rejects biennial reviews