What Should You Say To A Climate Change Skeptic?

Los Angeles Times - Mira Abed

Greenhouse gases are released from a factory in Australia. (Dave Hunt / European Pressphoto Agency)

We’ve all been there: The perfectly innocuous conversation you’ve been having at a friend’s party or your kid’s soccer game devolves into an argument about climate change. Suddenly, you realize you’re talking to a climate change skeptic.
You want to help your acquaintances see the light. But how?
We asked climate scientists and communicators how to have constructive discussions about climate change. They offered both general advice about how to engage and specific information to rebut doubters’ claims.
Start by looking for common ground. We all depend on the same planet for our survival, and all of us want a good outcome, said Richard Alley, a geoscientist at Penn State University who studies abrupt changes in the climate.
Also, recognize that there’s a grain of truth in most of the arguments put out by climate skeptics — or at least an intriguing question that climate scientists have considered at some point. Acknowledging the merits of these ideas often leads to more productive discussions, said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
Read on and you’ll be ready when the next unexpected debate comes your way.

Beware of cherry-picking
In many cases, so-called evidence against climate change is drawn from a zoomed-in picture, like data taken from a short time period or a single geographical location. It’s not that the information is wrong — it may just be taken out of context.
Climate scientists emphasize the need to look at global data over long periods to understand it in context and see larger trends. For example, it’s easy to pick an exceptionally hot year — like 1998 — and point out that the average global temperature was only 0.1° Celsius warmer than in 2008, a relatively cool one. But all this example shows is that there are fluctuations from year to year.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen exponentially in the last century. (NASA)

What really matters, climate scientists say, is that the global average temperature is on a rising trend. NOAA’s 2016 climate report shows that every year since 1977 has been warmer than the 20th century average. This means the Earth is retaining more heat over time.
Always ask skeptics about the data their argument is based on. If it’s from an isolated location or a small chunk of time, it may not be representative of the bigger picture.

Greenhouse gases are the key
When looking for something to blame for rising temperatures, skeptics tend to focus on natural factors that can shift over time, such as the intensity of the sun, the amount of volcanic activity or changes in Earth’s orbit. They may even acknowledge the role of certain man-made pollutants like ozone or aerosols.
But all of these factors are dwarfed by the impact of greenhouse gases.
When we burn fossil fuels in cars, planes and power plants, the hydrocarbon molecules in the fuel break down to produce carbon dioxide and water. Both are then released into the atmosphere.

Emissions spew from a large stack at a coal-fired power plant in Newburg, Md. (Mark Wilson / Getty Images)

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and some other small molecules, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxides (NOx), are known as greenhouse gases because they absorb and trap light from the sun as well as infrared radiation coming from the Earth’s surface. Both are converted into heat by these gases that warms the air — much like a greenhouse does.
Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas by far, Alley said. Every time the climate has changed in ways that scientists can measure, carbon dioxide has had something to do with it, he said.
The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York modeled the impact of a variety of natural and industrial factors on global temperature. They found that only carbon dioxide levels predicted the temperature increase we’ve seen in recent decades. This visualization from Bloomberg makes it easy to see.
Methane and nitrous oxides actually have more powerful greenhouse effects than carbon dioxide — but carbon dioxide has a larger overall influence because we’re releasing so much more of it. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, carbon dioxide accounted for 82% of all greenhouse gas emissions in 2015.

Humans are responsible for the surge in carbon dioxide
Where did all that carbon dioxide come from? When looking at the concentrations of CO2 over time, “nothing interesting happened until we started burning coal,” Schmidt said.
That’s when atmospheric CO2 really picked up — and it’s increased exponentially ever since.
According to data compiled by the Goddard Institute, carbon dioxide was at an atmospheric concentration of 291 parts per million in 1880. It had risen to 311 ppm by 1950 and to 370 ppm by 2000. NOAA’s reported global annual average reached 402 ppm in 2016.


Carbon dioxide concentration changes throughout the year. Shown here: September 2014 - August 2015 (NASA)

Climate change skeptics often point out that volcanic eruptions and decaying plants also send carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But multiple studies have shown that human activity produces at least 60 times more carbon dioxide than volcanoes do each year. And while it’s true that plants produce more carbon dioxide than humans, they clean up after themselves — and even pick up some of our slack.
This is one reason the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher in the winter than in the summer. Plants come with their own carbon sinks – they produce carbon dioxide when they die and decay, but new plants also absorb it from the air as they grow.

You can’t blame warming on the sun
Climate change deniers say the sun is the obvious source of the planet’s heat. After all, it’s constantly bathing us in 173,000 terawatts of energy. That’s about 10,000 times more than enough to meet the entire world’s annual energy needs.
But solar activity has actually decreased since 1950, experts said. This means that if nothing else had changed, we would be experiencing a cooling cycle right now.
Solar energy output varies slightly over an 11-year cycle, and that does have an effect on temperature. But these effects are much clearer in the stratosphere than in the lower atmosphere, Schmidt said, and the solar cycle doesn’t significantly affect surface temperatures on Earth.

A Salvation Army hydration station sign sits in the midday sun as the temperature climbs to a near-record high in Phoenix. (Ross D. Franklin / Associated Press)

 Typically, solar activity and temperature move together: When one rises, the other does too. So when we see solar activity and temperature moving in opposite directions, as has happened recently, we know that something else is going on.
Other factors are also encouraging cooling right now, several experts said, including an increase in reflective aerosols like sulfates and nitrates in the atmosphere. These block some heat from reaching the Earth’s surface.
If not for these cooling influences, our planet would be warming even more rapidly.

This is not a normal part of a natural cycle
Climate change has occurred naturally in the past. But that doesn’t mean natural causes are responsible this time.
Alley pointed out the logical flaw in this oft-repeated argument: It’s like saying that since wildfires sometimes begin with natural events like lightning strikes they can never be caused by a wayward campfire.
The climate doesn’t change unless it’s forced to change. And during the 20th century, there weren’t any natural events powerful enough to account for the changes scientists are documenting.
“Human fingerprints are all over this,” said John Cook, a cognitive scientist who studies beliefs about climate change at George Mason University.
And just because the climate has changed before doesn’t mean we want it to happen again — especially this quickly. In the past, rapid changes were usually pretty hard on living creatures that didn’t have enough time to adapt to their new conditions. That doesn’t bode well for us.

Don’t be fooled by Antarctic sea ice
For a several years in the early part of the decade, the amount of sea ice extending from Antarctica set new records, peaking at 7.72 million square miles (an area more than twice as large as the United States).
Climate change skeptics say this is inconsistent with a warming planet. But they ignore the fact that the vast majority of sea ice is decreasing. (Remember the warning about cherry-picking?) Even in Antarctica, it has been losing ground rapidly since 2014 and has now sunk to a record low.
Arctic sea ice hasn’t varied as widely in recent years. According to a report released in 2014 by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society in London, the yearly minimum Arctic sea ice extent in the summer has decreased by 40% since 1978. This could be the least icy the Arctic has been in almost 1,500 years, the report noted. Some researchers say that Arctic summers could be completely ice-free by 2030.

Finnish icebreaker MSV Nordica passes through Victoria Strait while transiting the Northwest Passage connecting the Pacific and Atlantic oceans earlier than had ever been recorded. (David Goldman / Associated Press)

Richard Somerville, a climate scientist who spent many years at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, points out that sea ice is highly variable.
“It’s not simple — the ice doesn’t just melt when the temperature falls below 32° Fahrenheit,” he said. “It gets blown around by the winds and carried around by the currents, and it gets blown or carried to regions that are either more prone to melting or less prone to melting.”
He likens sea ice trends to the stock market: Although it fluctuates from year to year, the overall trend can be seen when we look at long time periods — and now it’s a downward one. Focusing on short-term changes misses this bigger truth, he said.
The take-home message is that sea ice is complicated, so be careful not to jump to conclusions — in either direction. For example, the collapse of an iceberg that broke off from Antarctica in July has not been definitively tied to climate change.

Recognize that this is a political debate, not a scientific one
Skeptics like to say that scientists don’t agree on climate change, but the truth is that the consensus is overwhelming.
A whopping 97% of climate scientists share the view that climate change is happening now and that human activity is to blame.

Greenpeace activists in Spain protest President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. (Mariscal / European Pressphoto Agency)

It’s important to understand where science ends and politics begins. To boost your chances for success, make a point of separating the two, Somerville said. Many people are not suspicious of the science, but rather of the consequences associated with climate change.
“There’s no such thing as a Democratic or Republican thermometer,” Somerville said. We can agree on what the science says, even if we have different political ideas, he added.

Understand why people may be misinformed
According to a recent poll conducted by researchers at Yale and George Mason University, only half of the American public realizes that a majority of climate scientists agree on climate change. Only 13% of those polled were aware that the degree of scientific consensus is upwards of 90%.
A number of factors have led to this widespread misunderstanding, Cook said.
First, some industry groups who oppose environmental regulation have made a concerted effort to confuse the public about climate change.
Additionally, media reports tend to include two sides to every story, including those about climate change. But that implies that both sides have equal weight, even when they don’t.
Finally, the sheer volume of climate change information is daunting, and many Americans don’t have the time or energy to sort fact from fiction. “Because there’s so much noise, people tend to disengage,” Cook said.

And finally, know when to cut your losses
As with any contentious issue, you have to realize when you’re talking to someone who just wants to argue.
“If that’s the case, just stop.” Schmidt said.

Links

• Climate Change Skepticism Fueled By Gut Reaction To Local Weather
• These Are The Best Arguments From The 3% Of Climate Scientist 'Skeptics.' Really.
• Why Climate Skeptics Are Wrong
• Climate Change in the American Mind: May 2017
• Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
• Arctic 2.0: What happens after all the ice goes?

Port Augusta Solar Thermal Plant To Power South Australian Government

The Guardian - Guardian staff

Jay Weatherill’s government says 150 megawatt plant will be biggest of its kind in the world and create about 700 jobs

Solar Reserve’s Crescent Dune plant in Nevada will be a blueprint for its 150 megawatt solar thermal plant in Port Augusta. Photograph: Solar Reserve

A proposed solar thermal power plant in South Australia’s mid-north has been contracted to supply all the state government’s power needs.
Work on the $650m SolarReserve facility will start in 2018, creating 650 construction jobs and 50 ongoing positions.
The state government said the 150 megawatt plant, to be ready in 2020, would dispatch energy to the grid even when the sun was not shining.
The chief executive of the Australian Solar Council and Energy Storage Council, John Grimes, described the government’s commitment as a win for the Port Augusta community.
“Solar thermal in Port Augusta means jobs for regional South Australia,” he said. “It means zero emissions baseload power.”
The South Australian premier, Jay Weatherill, said the solar thermal plant was “the biggest of its kind in the world”.
“Importantly, this project will deliver more than 700 jobs, with requirements for local workers,” he said.
For more than five years, Port Augusta residents campaigned for solar thermal alongside the city council, unions, local business, health groups, climate groups and renewable energy groups from across Australia as part of the Repower Port Augusta Alliance.
Gary Rowbottom, a former coal-fired power station worker and chairperson of Repower Port Augusta, said: “Building solar thermal with storage in Port Augusta will create new jobs, on-demand solar power, reduce emissions and put downward pressure on power bills.”
Solar thermal has been supported across party lines with the federal government committing $110m of equity in the May 2017 federal budget to building solar thermal with storage in Port Augusta.
Solar thermal technology uses mirrors to concentrate the sun’s light at the top of a tower, heating molten salt which is stored and the heat used to operate a steam turbine.
Solar Reserve has a track record in solar thermal, already operating the 110MW Crescent Dunes project in Nevada and recently announcing a 450MW tower for Chile.
Weatherill said the maximum government load was 125MW, meaning the plant would be able to supply other customers.
“This, in addition to our state-owned gas plant, and the world’s largest lithium ion battery, will help to make our energy grid more secure,” he said.
Energy experts said the new plant was an important step in understanding how solar thermal could contribute to the energy mix in future.
Wasim Saman, professor of sustainable ernergy engineering at the University of South Australia, said solar thermal was a more economical way of storing energy than using batteries.
“The significance of solar thermal generation lies in its ability to provide energy virtually on demand,” he said.
But Dr Matthew Stocks, a research fellow in the research school of engineering at the Australian National University, said solar thermal also had limits.
“One of the big challenges for solar thermal as a storage tool is that it can only store heat. If there is an excess of electricity in the system because the wind is blowing strong, it cannot efficiently use it to store electrical power to shift the energy to times of shortage, unlike batteries and pumped hydro,” he said.
“It is not yet clear whether it will deliver a better outcome than wind and solar with electrical storage.”
The government contract with Solar Reserve would last for 20 years, and was the “lowest cost option” of shortlisted bids for the project, he said.
The government will pay a maximum of $78 per megawatt hour.

Links

• Port Augusta 'busting a gut' to reinvent itself as a solar city when coal-fired power is switched off
• Port Augusta can show the world what just transition for workers looks like
• Tesla to build world's biggest lithium ion battery in South Australia
• Windfarm settings triggered South Australian blackout, final energy report finds
• Malcolm Turnbull says Snowy Hydro plan will outdo South Australian battery storage
• South Australia to build battery storage and gas-fired power plant in $550m energy plan
• Software glitch to blame for blackout of extra 60,000 SA homes in heatwave
• Malcolm Turnbull was told gas plant shut down before South Australia blackout

Unusual Winter Warmth Predicted To Extend Through Spring For Most Of Australia

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

Most of Australia can expect a hotter-than-average spring driven in part by unusually warm waters off the east coast, increasing the chances of an early and active fire season in the south-east.
For Sydney, the outlook is also for the abnormally warm winter to extend through spring.

Is NSW a major bushfire risk this summer?
Forest regions of NSW, including areas around Sydney, are rapidly drying out, raising the risk of early and significant fire activity this bushfire season.

The Bureau of Meteorology's three-month outlook released on Thursday also shows the odds will favour milder overnight temperatures will extend through much of September to November for eastern half of the country. (See chart below.)
Felicity Gamble, the bureau's acting head of climate prediction services, said that with neutral influences in the Indian, Pacific and Southern oceans, secondary factors such as the balmy waters off the east coast were playing a key role.
"We're seeing those above-average temperatures [of winter] continuing," Ms Gamble said, adding a clear climate change signal was evident. "It's the background trend in warming temperatures that we've seen over the past couple of decades."
For Sydney, day-time temperatures so far this winter have been averaging 19.3 degrees, ranking it third behind 2013 and 2005, Blair Trewin, the bureau's senior climatologist, said. It's also likely to be among the top four warmest Augusts for NSW.
The city will have a couple of relatively chilly days on Friday and Saturday with tops of 16 degrees forecast. The rest of the month is likely to have average maximums of about 20 degrees, Joel Pippard, a Weatherzone meteorologist said.
July was easily Australia's hottest on record for daytime temperatures and June was the seventh-warmest, the bureau said earlier this month.

South-eastern Australia's warmer than usual winter looks likely to last through spring. Photo: Justin McManus

Globally, last month tied with July a year ago as the warmest on record, NASA said earlier this week.
Rain outlook
A warm spring may add to the drying out of much of Australia after a drier than usual winter.
The bureau's outlook points to mixed odds for rain for the eastern part of the country, while the south-west may be in for a dry spring. (See chart below.)
Cooler-than-normal waters off the west coast means "there's less moisture to be drawn" as rain-bearing fronts move in, Ms Gamble said.
With little additional rain, July and August are shaping up to be Sydney's driest for those two months since 1995, Dr Trewin said.
A Fairfax Media has reported, bushfire researchers have already identified low moisture levels in both dead and live fuel across regions near Sydney and the far south coast of NSW.
The Sydney region can expect another mostly dry week, with the chance of some rain on Monday, Mr Pippard said.
After past two months of particularly dry weather, fire crews in NSW may be in for an active spring.
"It's definitely worth considering an early start to the bushfire season for most of NSW and southern Queensland," Mr Pippard said.
The NSW Rural Fire Service said on Wednesday they were battling 70 fires across the state, with many still active on Thursday morning:

IMAGE

Both states have had a few particularly warm days this week. Sydney posted its warmest August morning for 6am readings on Wednesday, with the mercury sitting on 22.1 degrees.

Odds continue to favour an early and active fire season for NSW. Photo: Wolter Peeters

Elsewhere in NSW, Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour both posted their hottest days on Wednesday for this early in the warming season. On Tuesday, Wilcannia and Cobar in the state's west had their hottest August days on record.
The bureau's outlook release on Thursday marks the first of a regular fortnightly rather than monthly update. The more frequently releases are intended to give farmers and other users of the climate maps earlier access to any change.
The move follows an instance in October 2015 when the bureau noted a sudden shift towards drier conditions with an emerging El Nino. That prompted a mid-monthly report that will now become standard by the agency.

Links

• 'Critical levels': Sydney bushfire warning for September
• Calls for earlier alerts after smoke cloaks Sydney again
• Enjoy it while you can: Australia's ski industry faces 'terrifying' future
• CBA cops flak for lack of detail in first climate policy
• CommBank rules out lending to Adani's Carmichael coal mine
• US included in climate talks despite Paris accord exit
• 'Disgrace': Australia's emissions increase accelerates
• Put economy ahead of climate deal, Glencore urges
• Australia urgently needs more climate scientists: report
• Warming limit of 1.2 degrees needed to save reef: panel

Australian Coal-Power Allowable Pollution Would Be Illegal In US, Europe And China – Report

The Guardian - Michael Slezak

Environmental Justice Australia report says Australian coal-fired power plants regularly exceed lax limits imposed on them

A representative of Victoria’s Yallourn power plant, pictured, told the EPA it did not report when pollution levels were exceeded. Photograph: Bloomberg via Getty Images

Australian coal-fired power stations are allowed to produce levels of toxic air pollution that would be illegal in the US, Europe and China, and may exceed even the lax limits imposed on them with few or no consequences, according to an investigation by Environmental Justice Australia.
The report reveals evidence that operators of coal power plants in Australia have been gaming the systems that monitor the deadly pollution, while others have reported figures the federal government says are not reliable.
EJA’s investigation reveals further cases of allegedly misleading behaviour. In Victoria, regulators are investigating one case in which a representative of a coal power plant allegedly said it regularly “simplifies” reporting during periods of excessive pollution by just reporting the figure allowed by its licence, rather than the actual amount.
Pollution from coal power plants kills hundreds of people each year in Australia. In Sydney alone, about 130 premature deaths are thought to be caused each year by coal-fired power stations, with worse impacts in regions near the stations.
Nationally, the health effects from the pollution emitted by coal-fired power plants are estimated to cost $2.6bn – a figure that would amount to $13.20 a megawatt hour if it were added to power costs.
Researchers at EJA collected the individual pollution limits allowed for 10 of Australia’s 17 commercially operating coal-fired power stations, chosen for their high levels of pollution and proximity to populated areas.
Standardising the limits for comparison and collating them with regulations in the US, Europe and China, they found that in almost all cases Australian coal power plants were allowed to emit more toxic pollution.
Mercury emissions compared particularly badly. Coal-fired power is the second biggest Australian source of mercury, which accumulates in the environment, causing significant harm to people.
Some coal-fired power plants in New South Wales were allowed to emit 666 times what would be allowed in the US, and 33 times what is allowed in the EU and China.
Fine particle pollution, which causes hundreds of premature deaths each year, also compared very badly. Every coal power station in Victoria is allowed to emit more particulate pollution than power stations in any of the other three jurisdictions examined, and all in NSW were allowed to emit more than the Chinese limit.


Australia has no national standard, with each power station having its own limits. But the EJA researchers found even those limits were poorly monitored, often exceeded and rarely enforced.
Many power stations were required to monitor their pollution levels only once or twice a year, the investigation found. Allegations uncovered by EJA, that one power station was gaming the system by putting less polluting coal into the generator when the levels were measured, sparked an inquiry by the NSW Environmental Protection Agency in May.
Levels of particulate pollution reported to the National Pollution Inventory revealed changes in pollution levels from year to year that the federal Department of the Environment and Energy said were “not reliable”.
One station, Mount Piper in NSW, recorded a fall in emissions of 90% between 2014 and 2015, which the department told Guardian Australia was “unlikely”.
EJA uncovered a previously unpublicised EPA investigation into the coal-fired power station at Yallourn in Victoria, operated by Energy Australia. A representative of the power plant told the EPA it did not report when pollution levels were exceeded, just that the plant emitted at the limit.
A spokeswoman for Energy Australia would not say how long the practice went on, or why the company did it. But in a statement to Guardian Australia, she said: “To be clear, the Yallourn power station is compliant with strict EPA Victoria requirements relating to air pollution monitoring and in addition establishes, monitors and meets its own internal targets to protect local ambient air quality.”

The investigation also attempted to clarify how many of Australia’s coal-fired power plants were using the best available technology to limit toxic emissions. The researchers asked the operators of all 10 power stations studied what technology they had in place. Partial information was received for just six of the power stations.
Between the responses and the actual pollution data, the researchers concluded that none of the 10 stations had the latest technology. That includes “wet scrubbers” that can remove 99% of sulfur pollution and “catalytic reduction methods” that can reduce nitrogen pollution.
“All power stations are emitting significantly more pollution than they would if they had these technologies installed,” the report concludes.
It notes that if the pollution limits in the power stations licences were reduced, they would be forced to use the technology.
“Australia’s air pollution laws are weak, outdated, poorly monitored and inadequately enforced,” said EJA lawyer Nicola Rivers, a co-author of the report.
The report also compared the toxic pollution from Australia’s old coal-fired stations to that of the newest “ultra supercritical plants,” finding that if current best technology were applied to the existing stations, new plants would not reduce pollution significantly.
The report called for urgent action to reduce deaths, including the introduction of binding national emission standards requiring international best practice, and emissions reduction programs run by the states for fine and coarse particle pollution, and sulfur and nitrogen pollution.

Links

• New coal plants have a role in Australia's energy future, Josh Frydenberg says
• Commonwealth Bank's first climate policy attacked by environmental groups
• Government has no plans to build coal-fired power station, Josh Frydenberg says
• Push for new coal-fired power station in Queensland 'nonsense' – state minister
• Senior ministers at odds over readiness of new coal-fired power stations
• Big Australian banks invest $7bn more in fossil fuels than renewables, says report
• Barnaby Joyce says Coalition won't help Clive Palmer build new coal-fired power plant
• Why coal-fired power handouts would be an attack on climate and common sense
• 'Clean' coal power plants: Matt Canavan hints at government subsidy
• Electricity from coal should be phased out in Australia – Senate report

'Staggering': NSW emissions rule to be tested in court for the first time

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

NSW planning rules that require greenhouse gas emissions be taken into account when approving major projects will be tested in court in a challenge to a coal mine extension near Mudgee.
In April, the Planning Assessment Commission approved a seven-year extension to the Wilpinjong mine.
The nod for the mine, which had an annual coal output of 13 million tonnes, came just one week after the PAC had received 284 objections to the project.

A farming property at the top of the Barigan Valley, near Bylong and Wollar. Most of the valley is owned by Peabody for its Wilpinjong mine. Photo: John Jakes

Environmental Defender's Office NSW will challenge the PAC's decision on behalf of the Wollar Progress Association. It will argue in the Land and Environment Court that the commission failed to consider the project's carbon emissions as required by the mining State Environmental Planning Policy.
Most of the output is earmarked for AGL's Liddell and Bayswater power stations in the Hunter Valley, and so most of the emissions from burning the coal will add to NSW's tally.
Sue Higginson, EDO's principal solicitor, said it would be the first time clause 14 of the mining SEPP – which required the consent authority to assess greenhouse gas emissions in line with state policies – had been tested. The government had set a net-zero emissions goal by 2050.
"Those laws must be followed by decision makers and, in this case, our client alleges they were not," Ms Higginson said.
The EDO was hoping to repeat its win in the Supreme Court earlier this month when judges ruled consent given to the Springvale coal mine extension near Lithgow was invalid.
In that case, the PAC was deemed to have failed to take into account the water SEPP requiring any project in Sydney's catchment had a neutral or positive effect on water quality. The mine had no waste water treatment facility and released contaminated fluid directly into the Coxs River.

Coal railway to the Wilpinjong mine, near Mudgee, north-west of Sydney. Photo: jparsons@fairfaxmedia.com.au

US-based Peabody, which owned the Wilpinjong​ mine, said the PAC's approval process involved "thorough public consultation and a detailed impact assessment".
The project extension would secure about 550 ongoing jobs and create as many as 75 additional ones, a Peabody spokesman said.
Fairfax Media sought comment from AGL and Planning Minister Anthony Roberts.
Bev Smiles, secretary of the Wollar Progress Association, said residents were opposed to the mine's expansion because a new open-cut pit would encroach within 1.5 kilometres of Wollar village.
"We are hoping the court will take note of [the Springvale] decision," Ms Smiles said. "It's the only legal opportunity we have to question the process was done properly in NSW."
NSW Greens environment spokesman Jeremy Buckingham said it was "staggering" the PAC had ignored emissions when the law clearly required it.
"The emissions from the total amount of coal to be mined in this extension application [from 2017 to 2033] is the equivalent to 60 per cent of Australia's total 2016-17 emissions," Mr Buckingham said, or 346.3 million tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent.

Links

• CBA Hit With 'Lawfare' From Shareholders, Green Group Over Climate Change
• Climate Change Risk Disclosure Case Against The Commonwealth Bank Before The Federal Court
• California Coastal Communities Sue 37 Fossil Fuel Companies For 'Knowingly Contributing To Climate Change'
• Superannuation Trustee Duties And Climate Risk
• An Appeals Court Just Pressed Pause On The Much-Watched Youth Climate Lawsuit Against Trump
• Exxon, Shell And Other Carbon Producers Sued For Sea Level Rises In California
• This Could Be The Next Big Strategy For Suing Over Climate Change
• These 21 Kids Taking On Trump Could Be Our Best Hope For Climate Action
• Local Governments in California File Common Law Claims Against Largest Fossil Fuel Companies
• Kids Suing Trump Over Climate Change Get A Boost From Grandpa
• California Communities Are Suing 37 Fossil Fuel Companies Over Climate Damages

Students, Cities And States Take The Climate Fight To Court

New York Times - John Schwartz

Serge Dedina, the mayor of Imperial Beach, Calif., at the San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Imperial Beach has filed a suit in state court that accuses oil companies of knowing that their industry would cause catastrophic climate change and covering up the evidence. Credit Ariana Drehsler for The New York Times

Can the courts fix climate change?
Several groups and individuals around the United States have gone to court to try to do what the Trump administration has so far declined to do: confront the causes and effects of global warming.
In California, two counties and a city recently sued 37 fossil fuel companies, seeking funds to cover the costs of dealing with a warming world. In Oregon, a federal lawsuit brought on behalf of young people is moving toward a February trial date, though the so-called children’s suit could be tossed out before that. And more than a dozen state attorneys general have sued to block Trump administration moves to roll back environmental regulations.
Efforts in the United States are part of a wave of litigation around the world, including a 2015 decision in which a court in the Netherlands ordered the Dutch government to toughen its climate policies; that case is under appeal. A 2017 report from the United Nations Environment Program found nearly 900 climate litigation suits in more than 20 countries. In Switzerland, a group of nearly 800 older women known as Senior Women for Climate Protection have sued their government over climate change. In New Zealand, a court recently heard a climate case brought by a law student, Sarah Lorraine Thomson; a decision is pending.
But in the United States, lawsuits to get American courts to take on the climate fight have until now gone nowhere. In 2011, the Supreme Court threw out a case filed by eight states and New York City against electric power producers. A lawsuit brought by inhabitants of Kivalina, Alaska, against fossil fuel companies over the diminished buffer of sea ice that had protected the town was dismissed by a federal judge in 2009. A federal appeals court and the Supreme Court declined to reinstate the case.
The new California cases resemble the state tobacco lawsuits of the 1990s, which argued that the industry knew and concealed the dangers of smoking, leaving the states with enormous health care bills. In the new suits, Marin and San Mateo Counties and the City of Imperial Beach are accusing the oil companies of knowing that their industry would cause catastrophic climate change and covering up the evidence.
Serge Dedina, the mayor of Imperial Beach, said his community was already dealing with coastal flooding and increasingly heavy rains, and sees more to come as the sea level rises.
“How do we make sure those responsible pay the costs so that residents of communities like mine don’t have to pay the costs?” he asked.
The supervisor for District 3 of Marin County, Kathrin Sears, said, “It’s time to hold these oil, gas and coal companies accountable for the damage they knew their products would cause.”
Vic Sher, the lawyer whose firm developed the California cases, said the earlier unsuccessful climate cases had relied on federal common law, which the courts decided could not be applied because common law on these issues was displaced by the Clean Air Act. His case, he noted, is grounded instead in state common law, which was unaffected by the prior rulings.
And California, he said, might be only the beginning of this litigation: “Filing these cases has led to a lot of interest in other communities.”
Kent Robertson, a spokesman for Chevron, one of the targets of the case, said that the company recognized the threat of climate change, but that the new lawsuits were not the proper way to address the problem. “Chevron welcomes serious attempts to address the issue of climate change, but these suits do not do that,” he said.
Chevron opposes the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, as do most major fossil-fuel companies. Fighting climate change is a “global issue,” Mr. Robertson said, but suits filed by counties and cities “will only serve special interests at the expense of broader policy, regulatory and economic priorities.”
The case brought on behalf of young people by the group Our Children’s Trust has broader goals than the California cases: to force the federal government to fight climate change aggressively.
“These children’s lives and their security are threatened by what the government is doing,” said Julia Olson, one of the lead lawyers in the case.
The case began under the Obama administration, which the plaintiffs argue had not taken sufficient steps to avoid the effects of global warming.
“Even the minimal steps that were taken by, for example, the Obama administration are now being reversed by the Trump administration,” Ms. Olson said.
The case has so far survived efforts by the Obama and Trump administrations to have it dismissed, and the lawsuit’s progress led industry groups that had added themselves to the case, in order to oppose the children’s group, to quietly withdraw.
But the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has now asked for new briefs from the parties after the Trump administration asked the court to step in and review decisions by the Federal District Court judge, Ann Aiken. Legal experts said that Judge Aiken’s 2016 decision to let the case move forward had been unexpected and that it was not surprising that the appeals court wanted to take a closer look.
One of the plaintiffs, 17-year-old Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, said, “I’m still confident it will make it to court in February.” The case, he added, “has a lot of opportunity and ability to create some tangible and long-lasting change.”

Xiuhtezcatl Martinez at his home in Colorado in 2016. Mr. Martinez is a plaintiff in a climate lawsuit against the federal government filed by Our Children’s Trust. Credit Nick Cote for The New York Times

Michael Burger, the executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, said of the California and Oregon cases: “They are both bold and ambitious litigation strategies that at first blush will raise eyebrows, and will encounter a certain degree of skepticism. But they both have a chance.”
The pressure of litigation could also lead companies to alter their practices or work with lawmakers on a deal, as the tobacco companies did to resolve their litigation.
Perhaps the most effective litigators in the fight against climate change could turn out to be state attorneys general. During the Obama administration, conservative attorneys general like Oklahoma’s Scott Pruitt, who had a particularly close relationship with fossil fuel interests, fought environmental initiatives and often had private-sector players as fellow plaintiffs.
Now Mr. Pruitt heads the Environmental Protection Agency, and progressive attorneys general, especially New York’s Eric T. Schneiderman, are suing just as enthusiastically, along with environmental groups, to counter the administration’s efforts to roll back climate change regulations. Mr. Schneiderman and Massachusetts’s attorney general, Maura Healey, are also spearheading an investigation of Exxon Mobil’s research and actions on climate change.
Their pushback could already be having an effect. Last week, the E.P.A. reversed itself on a one-year delay it had announced on enforcing a rule regarding ozone — one day after attorneys general filed a lawsuit challenging the delay.

Links

• In Novel Tactic on Climate Change, Citizens Sue Their Governments
• Courts as Battlefields in Climate Fights
• 95-Degree Days: How Extreme Heat Could Spread Across the World
• How Americans Think About Climate Change, in Six Maps

Supervolcano Minerals Discovery To Boost Green Cars - Study

Reuters - Chris Arsenault

Expanding access to lithium is crucial to meet demand for new green technologies to reduce carbon emissions

Electric car cables plugged into a charging point of the car sharing company Zen Car are seen in Brussels, Belgium August 10, 2017. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir

TORONTO - Scientists have found an unexpected new source for lithium, a key component in battery-powered electric cars and other renewable energy technologies: supervolcanoes.
Most of the world's lithium comes from Chile and Australia, and expanding access to the mineral is crucial for meeting demand for new green technologies to reduce carbon emissions, Stanford University scientists said on Wednesday.
"The demand for lithium has outpaced the scientific understanding of the resource, so it's essential for the fundamental science behind these resources to catch up," Stanford University researcher Thomas Benson, the study's lead author, said in a statement.
"Now we have a way to easily find more of these lithium deposits."
The discovery comes as more companies, including large carmakers whose products cause significant carbon emissions, work to develop climate-friendly technologies.
Electric cars, which use lithium ion batteries, are gaining traction as an emission-free alternative to conventional cars.
"We're going to have to use electric vehicles and large storage batteries to decrease our carbon footprint," Gail Mahood, a professor of geological sciences at Stanford University and the study's co-author, said.
Supervolcanoes are much larger than ordinary volcanoes and erupt at least 1,000 cubic kilometres of material in one eruption.
Scientists studied the contents of craters left by supervolcanoes in Oregon, Nevada and other parts of the United States, which erupted millions of years ago.
They sliced through tiny bits of volcanic magma, which were trapped in crystals in the craters, and analysed them to find the valuable silvery-white metal.
Sweden-based Volvo pledged last month that all new cars it launches after 2019 will be electric vehicles or hybrids.
Other automobile firms are also planning to increase production of electric vehicles, which will boost the demand for lithium, considered a strategic resources by some governments.
The number of electric vehicles on roads worldwide rose to a record high of 2 million last year, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), accounting for 0.2 percent of the global count.

Links

• Dutch students grow their own biodegradable car
• Tesla's Musk hands over first Model 3 electric cars to early buyers
• Scientists dim sunlight, suck up carbon dioxide to cool planet
• Statoil to look at building world's first CO2 injection storage