Planet At Risk Of Heading Towards “Hothouse Earth” State

Stockholm Resilience Centre

Keeping global warming to within 1.5-2°C may be more difficult than previously assessed

A study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that there is a risk of Earth entering “Hothouse Earth” conditions where the climate in the long term will stabilize at a global average of 4-5°C higher than pre-industrial temperatures and sea level 10-60 m higher than today. Photo: rudy_ath/Wikimedia Commons

Story highlights Even if the carbon emission reductions called for in the Paris Agreement are met, there is a risk of Earth entering what the scientists call “Hothouse Earth” conditions A “Hothouse Earth” climate will in the long term stabilize at a global average of 4-5°C higher than pre-industrial temperatures with sea level 10-60 m higher than today Maximizing the chances of avoiding a “Hothouse Earth” requires not only reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions but also enhancement and/or creation of new biological carbon stores

An international team of scientists has published a study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) showing that even if the carbon emission reductions called for in the Paris Agreement are met, there is a risk of Earth entering what the scientists call “Hothouse Earth” conditions.
A “Hothouse Earth” climate will in the long term stabilize at a global average of 4-5°C higher than pre-industrial temperatures with sea level 10-60 m higher than today, the paper says.
The authors conclude it is now urgent to greatly accelerate the transition towards an emission-free world economy.
"Human emissions of greenhouse gas are not the sole determinant of temperature on Earth. Our study suggests that human-induced global warming of 2°C may trigger other Earth system processes, often called “feedbacks”, that can drive further warming - even if we stop emitting greenhouse gases," says lead author Will Steffen from the Australian National University and Stockholm Resilience Centre.
"Avoiding this scenario requires a redirection of human actions from exploitation to stewardship of the Earth system.”
Currently, global average temperatures are just over 1°C above pre-industrial and rising at 0.17°C per decade.

Places on Earth will become uninhabitable if “Hothouse Earth” becomes the reality
Johan Rockström, co-author

Places on Earth will become uninhabitable
The authors of the study consider ten natural feedback processes, some of which are “tipping elements” that lead to abrupt change if a critical threshold is crossed. These feedbacks could turn from being a “friend” that stores carbon to a “foe” that emits it uncontrollably in a warmer world.
These feedbacks are: permafrost thaw, loss of methane hydrates from the ocean floor, weakening land and ocean carbon sinks, increasing bacterial respiration in the oceans, Amazon rainforest dieback, boreal forest dieback, reduction of northern hemisphere snow cover, loss of Arctic summer sea ice, and reduction of Antarctic sea ice and polar ice sheets.
"These tipping elements can potentially act like a row of dominoes. Once one is pushed over, it pushes Earth towards another. It may be very difficult or impossible to stop the whole row of dominoes from tumbling over. Places on Earth will become uninhabitable if “Hothouse Earth” becomes the reality," warns co-author Johan Rockström, former executive director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre and incoming co-director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, says, "We show how industrial-age greenhouse gas emissions force our climate, and ultimately the Earth system, out of balance. In particular, we address tipping elements in the planetary machinery that might, once a certain stress level has been passed, one by one change fundamentally, rapidly, and perhaps irreversibly. This cascade of events may tip the entire Earth system into a new mode of operation.”
“What we do not know yet is whether the climate system can be safely 'parked' near 2°C above preindustrial levels, as the Paris Agreement envisages. Or if it will, once pushed so far, slip down the slope towards a hothouse planet. Research must assess this risk as soon as possible."

Global map of potential tipping cascades. The individual tipping elements are color-coded according to estimated thresholds in global average surface temperature (tipping points; 18,43). Arrows show the potential interactions among the tipping elements, based on expert elicitation, which could generate cascades. Note that although the risk for tipping (loss of) the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is proposed at >5 degrees Celsius, some marine-based sectors in East Antarctica may be vulnerable at lower temperatures.

Cutting greenhouse gases is not enough
Maximizing the chances of avoiding a “Hothouse Earth” requires not only reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions but also enhancement and/or creation of new biological carbon stores, for example, through improved forest, agricultural and soil management; biodiversity conservation; and technologies that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it underground, the paper says.
Critically, the study emphasizes that these measures must be underpinned by fundamental societal changes that are required to maintain a “Stabilized Earth” where temperatures are ~2°C warmer that the pre-industrial.
"Climate and other global changes show us that we humans are impacting the Earth system at the global level. This means that we as a global community can also manage our relationship with the system to influence future planetary conditions. This study identifies some of the levers that can be used to do so," concludes co-author, Katherine Richardson from Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate at the University of Copenhagen.

Links

• Domino-Effect Of Climate Events Could Push Earth Into A ‘Hothouse’ State
• Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene
• Declines in methane uptake in forest soils
• Sweden's highest point set to lose title as glacier melts
• Last year was warmest ever that didn't feature an El Niño, report finds
• Rising ocean waters from global warming could cost trillions of dollars
• Underwater melting of Antarctic ice far greater than thought, study finds
• Climate change threatens rare British orchid that tricks bees into mating
• Overfishing and climate change push seabirds to extinction
• Global carbon emissions stood still in 2016, offering climate hope
• Record-breaking climate change pushes world into ‘uncharted territory’
• CO2 turned into stone in Iceland in climate change breakthrough
• Climate change: why the Guardian is putting threat to Earth front and centre
• Climate change? Try catastrophic climate breakdown

What Do Gen X And Gen Y Worry About Most? Climate Change

University of Melbourne - Julia Cook | Hernán Cuervo | Jenny Chesters

Climate change is their number one cause for concern and they aren’t impressed by government efforts to tackle environmental challenges

Takver/Flickr

Two generations of Australians believe one of the most important issues facing the country right now is climate change.
The latest Life Patterns report by the University of Melbourne shows that many members of both Gen X and Gen Y see climate change as Australia’s most significant and urgent issue.

For many members of Gen X and Gen Y in Australia, climate change is the most pressing issue facing the country. Picture: Takver/Flickr

While people in Gen X are worried specifically about what climate change will mean for their own children, those in Gen Y are generally more concerned about the impact of climate change on future generations.
Generally, when many of us think about the issues that concern us we commonly focus on things that impact upon our day-to-day lives. But, when we asked Australians from the two generations to nominate the three most important issues facing the nation, many set aside individual concerns, turning instead to a collective, global issue.
The Life Patterns study is a two-decade project following two groups of Australians since they left school – one now aged 44-45 that left school in 1991 (our ‘Gen X’ cohort) and another now aged 29-30 that left school in 2006 (our ‘Gen Y’ cohort).
It aims to provide a holistic understanding of the ways in which young (and not-so-young) Australians are responding to our rapidly changing world.

Climate change and the future
Many of the older participants say their concerns for the environment are linked directly to their worries over the future their children could face.
One mother from rural Victoria states: The uncertain climate-change reality is an enormous concern for me regarding my children’s future.
Members of the younger group have similar concerns. One female participant working in administration and management in Melbourne says: [We need to] make sure as a generation we minimise our environmental footprint and contribute to leaving this planet in way that supports future generations.

For Gen X in particular, their concerns about the environment relate to how their children will fare in a climate change future. Picture: Getty Images

This subtle difference is grounded in specifically who they are concerned about.
The older group is generally more worried about the impact of environmental issues on their own children, while the younger cohort worry about the impact on future generations more generally.

Putting climate change on the agenda
However, while specific views of what actually needs to be done varies, participants from both groups consistently expressed grave concerns about the general lack of action towards climate change mitigation from the current government.
A man in the Gen X group who is married with one child and living in Melbourne writes: Government inaction on climate change in this country is a crying shame. Look at what they are doing in terms of addressing climate change in California, in Germany, in Scandinavia, even in China. But here, it’s all too hard apparently.
Similarly, a woman in the Gen Y group living with her partner in regional NSW says: I’m concerned about the environment and the lack of action by government to fix problems.

On a more personal note…
Job security, drug abuse and housing affordability came in as issues number two, three and four for the younger cohort.
In contrast, the older cohort ranked these issues far below cost of living, which came in at number two, followed closely by security/terrorism, politics/government, the economy and education.

The environment was the most important issue for both the Gen X and the Gen Y cohorts in the latest Life Patterns report. Picture: Supplied

These differences can be explained in large part by differing life stages.
At the age of 28 or 29, many younger participants who are looking to settle down and start a family are confronted with increasingly difficult property and job markets. But, at the age of 43 or 44, the older participants who have already started a family are dealing with the everyday expenses associated with education and childcare.
So, Gen Y participants are concerned primarily with issues around their ability to access the resources they feel they need for a worthwhile life, while Gen X participants are more concerned about issues directly relating to social stability.
A member of the younger group living in Sydney says: I have a Master’s degree and my wife is well paid, we are not in a position to buy a home near Sydney in the next five to eight years. No matter how hard we try and save, the goalposts keep shifting and so too the dream of raising a family in a home of our own.
In contrast, a member of the older group living in Canberra with his wife and two children says: Economic policies in Australia are failing to support local productivity and creating uncertainty and instability.
For the most part, as much as these perspectives provide a snapshot of contemporary Australia, they also reflect two generations’ different life stages.
But in a world where we usually only hear about the generational divide – climate change and its future impact for the environment is a pressing concern shared by young and not-so-young Australians.

The Life Patterns study has been supported by a number of grants from the Australian Research Council.

Links

• Mental health in a changing climate
• A healthy planet means healthy people
• Extreme weather: Why the impact will be felt more widely
• The sleepy lizard awakens new tools for climate change
• Climate Change III: Responding to Change
• Introduction to Climate Change
• Urban Sustainability and Climate Change
• Climate change hits poorest hardest, new research shows
• Climate change likely to turn up heat on koalas
• Adapting to Climate Change

Morrison Now Officially Worse Than Abbott On Climate Change

Crikey - Bernard Keane

The Morrison government now officially has no climate policy, which makes it even worse than the Abbott government in a crucial policy area.

Image credit: Mick Tsikas/AAP

With the next COAG meeting in October cancelled because the government is too divided and confused to work out its policy positions, and no position in crucial areas like energy and the economy, it’s clear that the Morrison government is big on mateship, a fair go and other ockerisms, but bereft of policy.
There’s one key area, however, where the lack of policy isn’t the result of confusion, incompetence, division or needing a new treasurer or minister to get up to speed, but quite deliberate. The Morrison government will literally have no climate policy.
“The renewable energy target is going to wind down from 2020, it reaches its peak in 2020, and we won’t be replacing that with anything,” climate denialist Energy Minister Angus Taylor proudly said yesterday.
Since 2009, the Coalition has serially dumped (after initially supporting) a carbon price, then rejected a clean energy target, ruled out (after briefly ruling in) an emission intensity scheme, approved Josh Frydenberg’s National Energy Guarantee (NEG) overwhelmingly in the joint party room, then dramatically overhauled it, then dumped it altogether in the space of a few days. It also declared war on renewables under Tony Abbott, declared its love for big renewables projects like Snowy Hydro 2.0 under Turnbull, and is now praising “fair dinkum” — i.e. fossil fuel — power under the coal-toting Morrison.
Along the way, it used its “soil magic” business handout program, the Emission Reduction Fund, as a fig leaf for its lack of climate policy, but dramatically scaled that back from its original form in opposition, cut it further in government, and finally stopped funding it altogether in recent budgets.
That means that the Morrison government is more climate denialist than Tony Abbott: it doesn’t even have the fig leaf ERF, which continues to dribble out funding to business and farmer mendicants but which will soon expire. The Coalition has actually gone backwards from the heady days when Abbott declared climate science was “crap”, and no longer even bothers to pay lip service to the idea of addressing climate change.
There is talk that the ERF will be revived with an infusion of funds. But that doesn’t count as a credible policy: the cost of using the ERF to meet Australia’s Paris emissions reduction targets will be between $100 billion and $250 billion, according to the government’s friends at the Australian Industry Group. Short of discovering a quarter-trillion dollars down the back of the couch, Australia will become one of the few developed countries in the world that simply refuses to address its carbon emissions.

Links

• Climate poll at odds with policy
• What will it take for genuine change in climate policy?
• After five years without climate policy, time for the states to step up
• Does Treasury believe in climate change?
• Scott Morrison Says National Energy Guarantee 'Is Dead'
• Australia ranks in bottom three rich countries for environmental policies
• Paris climate deal doesn't stop us building new coal plants, Canavan says
• Australia’s authority in Pacific 'being eroded by refusal to address climate change'
• Scott Morrison contradicts energy advice, saying Paris targets can be met 'at a canter'
• 'Bad policy': Tony Abbott contradicts PM on national energy guarantee
• What is the national energy guarantee and why is it taking so long?
• Turnbull's national energy guarantee could have 'no meaningful emission reduction'
• Design of national energy guarantee revealed, but key details omitted
• Turnbull's national energy guarantee a step closer after Jay Weatherill's exit
• What is the national energy guarantee and is it really a game changer?
• Scott Morrison says partisan politics has driven up power prices

Energy Minister's Electorate Backs Higher Emissions Reduction Target, Poll Shows

The Guardian - Katharine Murphy

ReachTel poll of Angus Taylor’s voters finds 42.3% want Australia to cut emissions more deeply

Energy minister Angus Taylor says the Coalition has no intention of extending or replacing the renewable energy target in question time on Tuesday. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian 

More voters in the electorate of the new energy minister, Angus Taylor, support an emissions reduction target for electricity and a higher national target than the Paris commitment than oppose those positions.
A ReachTel poll of 690 residents across the federal electorate of Hume, which reaches from Boorowa in the southern tablelands of New South Wales to Camden on Sydney’s southern fringe, was commissioned by the Australia Institute. It found the sample was divided over a range of climate and energy questions, but more people supported stronger action on emissions reduction than opposed it.
Asked whether the government’s Paris target of 26% to 28% should be increased “so Australia reduces emissions faster, decreased so Australia does less, or kept the same” – 42.3% said increased, 29.4% said kept the same, and 22.5% said reduced.
Asked whether the now dumped national energy guarantee should include an emissions reduction target, 47.8% said yes, and 39.3% said no.
There was also local opposition to coal, with 63.7% of the sample either supporting or strongly supporting a moratorium on building new coal mines, while 67.4% supported the Morrison government reviewing the Adani coal mine’s environmental approval.

Ben Oquist, the executive director of the Australia Institute, said the poll results suggested voters in rural electorates, “just like the population overall, are not enamoured with coal and they want more action on climate change, not less”.
Taylor confirmed in question time on Tuesday that the Morrison government would not replace the renewable energy target with an alternative policy after it wound down in 2020.
Taylor confirmed there would be no policy to reduce emissions in the electricity sector during an answer to the Greens MP Adam Bandt in question time on Tuesday.
Bandt asked whether the RET could be extended beyond 2020 given there was currently no policy mechanism to replace it, and the lack of settled policy could threaten investment in low-emissions technology.
The energy minister flatly rejected the idea. “The truth of the matter is the renewable energy target is going to wind down from 2020, it reaches its peak in 2020, and we won’t be replacing that with anything.”
Taylor said there was no need to focus on emissions reduction, because emissions in electricity would fall by 26% “without additional intervention” – a declaration that contradicts advice from the Energy Security Board.
The Coalition’s plan to 2030 was to replace the RET with the national energy guarantee, which imposed an emissions reduction target for electricity.
But Malcolm Turnbull abandoned the Neg as one of his last acts in the prime ministership, and the policy has now been junked officially by the cabinet under Scott Morrison’s leadership.
Bandt later declared the Liberals were “openly boasting that they have no renewable energy policy”. He said the RET needed to be extended beyond 2020 “to avoid a valley of death for renewable energy”.
“Over 2018 and 2019, new renewables are going up in Australia at record rates. This is in large part due to the RET, which even the Energy Security Board and Reserve Bank have said is a big driver of future power bill cuts,” Bandt said.
“But the RET runs out in 2020 and now the minister has confirmed that there’s no renewables policy to take its place. If the RET isn’t extended, there’s a real risk that the next government will not be able to implement a new policy in time to avoid an investment drought.”
Labor also jumped on Taylor’s declaration. The shadow climate change minister, Mark Butler, branded Taylor the minister “for higher power prices and anti-renewables”.

Links

• Angus Taylor Confirms Government 'Won't Be Replacing' Renewable Energy Target
• Coalition won't replace renewables target after it winds down in 2020
• Scott Morrison Says National Energy Guarantee 'Is Dead'
• Australia ranks in bottom three rich countries for environmental policies
• Paris climate deal doesn't stop us building new coal plants, Canavan says
• Australia’s authority in Pacific 'being eroded by refusal to address climate change'
• Scott Morrison contradicts energy advice, saying Paris targets can be met 'at a canter'
• 'Bad policy': Tony Abbott contradicts PM on national energy guarantee
• What is the national energy guarantee and why is it taking so long?
• Turnbull's national energy guarantee could have 'no meaningful emission reduction'
• Design of national energy guarantee revealed, but key details omitted
• Turnbull's national energy guarantee a step closer after Jay Weatherill's exit
• What is the national energy guarantee and is it really a game changer?
• Scott Morrison says partisan politics has driven up power prices

Angus Taylor Confirms Government 'Won't Be Replacing' Renewable Energy Target

Fairfax

Energy Minister Angus Taylor has confirmed the Morrison government will not replace the renewable energy target after it peaks in 2020, officially creating a policy vacuum that opponents say will stifle clean energy investment and lead to higher prices.
In question time on Tuesday, Greens MP Adam Bandt challenged Mr Taylor to extend the target until 2022 to avoid a disastrous plunge in renewables investment when the current target ends.

“The renewable energy target is going to wind down from 2020, it reaches its peak in 2020, and we won't be replacing that with anything,” Mr Taylor said.

Minister for Energy Angus Taylor has told the House of Representatives that the Coalition will wind down their renewable energy target from 2020.

The target involves the creation of tradeable certificates which encourage electricity from renewable sources. It aims for 23.5 per cent of Australia's energy to be sourced from clean sources such as wind and solar by 2020.
As prime minister, Tony Abbott wound back the scheme and as recently as last week reportedly agitated against it at a meeting attended by Mr Taylor.

Mr Taylor, who has campaigned against wind farms, said Australia will reach its target to cut emissions from the electricity sector by 26 per cent “without additional intervention”.

Mr Taylor has previously campaigned against wind farms. Photo: Supplied

He said a 50 per cent renewable energy target in South Australia had led to some of the highest electricity prices in the country.

Labor’s pledge for a 45 per cent emissions reduction across the economy would mean “we will all pay more for our electricity,” he said.

“We are absolutely confident that in the absence of those subsidies, we will get the investment we need in the network,” he said.

Chief Scientist Alan Finkel least year recommended the government adopt a 'clean energy target' to replace the expiring renewables target. The Coalition declined to adopt that recommendation, saying the rapidly falling cost of renewable energy meant subsidies were no longer required.
It instead developed the National Energy Guarantee, which proposed to address the so-called “trilemma” of energy affordability, reliability and emissions.

However Prime Minister Scott Morrison dumped emissions reduction from the government’s energy agenda following his ascension to the top job.

An annual index released on Tuesday put Australia in the bottom three ranking for environmental policy among wealthy nations.
The Center for Global Development's commitment to development index said the environment was “one of Australia’s weaker policy fields ... largely due to its poor performance curbing climate change”.
The government is now wholly focused on making energy supplies more reliable and affordable, including through the implementation of select recommendations from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s report into energy pricing.

Mr Taylor told Parliament the government would “back investment in fair dinkum reliable generation because that's what this country needs”.

It also intends to set a price safety net for all customers and stop “rip-offs from the big energy companies".

“We will drive prices down, that's our policy, those opposite will drive them up,” he said.

Links

• Scott Morrison Says National Energy Guarantee 'Is Dead'
• Australia ranks in bottom three rich countries for environmental policies
• Paris climate deal doesn't stop us building new coal plants, Canavan says
• Australia’s authority in Pacific 'being eroded by refusal to address climate change'
• Scott Morrison contradicts energy advice, saying Paris targets can be met 'at a canter'
• 'Bad policy': Tony Abbott contradicts PM on national energy guarantee
• What is the national energy guarantee and why is it taking so long?
• Turnbull's national energy guarantee could have 'no meaningful emission reduction'
• Design of national energy guarantee revealed, but key details omitted
• Turnbull's national energy guarantee a step closer after Jay Weatherill's exit
• What is the national energy guarantee and is it really a game changer?
• Scott Morrison says partisan politics has driven up power prices

Australia's Rank On Global Development Index Hurt By Climate Change Inaction

The Guardian - Ben Doherty

Australia ranks 14 after New Zealand, with Scandinavian countries in top three spots

The report points to Australia’s low petrol taxes, high fossil fuel production and high emissions per capita. Photograph: Ashley Cooper/Alamy

Australia’s commitment to global development has improved over the past year, driven by strong trade, education and finance outreach to the developing world, but it has been criticised for its poor action on the environment and climate change.
The Centre for Global Development annually ranks 27 wealthy countries on their commitment to development across the policy areas of aid, finance, technology, environment, trade, security and migration.
The Commitment to Development Index is dominated by Scandinavian countries – which fill the top three spots – and European countries, which complete the top 12. The world’s biggest economy, the US, is at number 23 on the list: it has the worst aid and finance ranking of the assessed countries.
Australia trails New Zealand (13th), in 14th position overall, with a jump of four spots on last year. Australia and New Zealand are the highest ranked non-European nations on the index.
Report author, Ian Mitchell, said: “Australia’s trade policies are among the most development-friendly and the foreign aid it gives is high quality. But if Australia wants to become a development leader, it needs to increase the quantity of aid, and tackle environmental issues and focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

The report said that, on the environment, Australia was a laggard.
“Its low rank is largely due to its poor performance curbing climate change. It has very low gasoline taxes (only the United States and Canada have lower), high fossil fuel production and the highest greenhouse gas emissions per capita of all [index] countries, although it has also had among the steepest emissions reductions over the past 10 years.
“Australia is also the third-largest tropical timber importer.”
Australia has a strong trade rating in the index, ranking third of all countries on that policy, with low tariffs and agricultural subsidies.
“It’s a leader in providing equal access to goods from development countries … its barriers to trade in services are also low,” the report said.
It also ranks well on migration “in part because of its exceptionally open borders for students from developing countries”.
“Its integration policies are also above average. But Australia could improve the number of refugees and asylum seekers it accepts. The proportion of positive asylum decisions is below average and has fallen for the past three years. The number of refugees in Australia is below average relative to population and relative to land area.”
The report also said Australia’s treatment of migrants would be improved by ratifying the convention on the treatment of migrant workers and the migration for employment convention.
Australia has dedicated just 0.23% of its gross national income towards development assistance, a decrease on 2016, and its smallest contribution in 15 years. Australia’s aid contribution has been falling for half a decade.
The UN set out the 0.7% commitment to development spending in 1970, and it has been consistently reaffirmed as a benchmark since. But few countries meet it.
“[Australia’s] foreign aid is of good quality, however,” the report found. “Australia spends 70% of its aid bilaterally and 30% multilaterally.”
Mitchell told Guardian Australia that the dominance of Scandinavian and European countries was a product of historical commitment, community expectation and conscious government policy.
“When you talk to the officials in these countries, they take it competitively, it’s something that has a profile in the public arena, it’s a matter of pride in their public policy.”
He said the 0.7% of GNI target for aid spending – when compared with Nato’s declared 2% goal for defence budgets – was a sensible and achievable target.
“I think if all the countries got there, the acceleration of development would be substantial, and we’d live in a much more prosperous world, and that would be to the benefit of everybody and every country’s national interest.”
But Mitchell said the current global uncertainty – the retreat to economic isolationism through tariffs and trade wars, and the rise of populist nationalism – was a threat to the progress and prosperity of developing countries.
“I think the move against migation, against open trade, will damage development. We’ve had a remarkable period of development over the last half a century, with open trade, rising aid levels. And I think that’s in real danger.”
The president of the Centre for Global Development, Masood Ahmed, said: “Good development policy is about much more than foreign aid.
“While aid is important, policymakers in rich countries need to assess all the ways their choices, from the environment to trade to migration, help or hinder developing countries.”

Links

• This government is not even pretending to act on climate change any more
• Australia Has No Climate-Change Policy — Again
• The Global Fight Against Climate Change Just Stalled. The Clock To Restart It Is Ticking
• Australia On Track To Miss Paris Climate Targets As Emissions Hit Record Highs
• Australia Tried To Water Down Climate Change Resolution At Pacific Islands Forum: Leader
• Global Warming Tops The Agenda As Climate Brings Down A Third Australian Prime Minister
• Is Climate Change Supercharging Drought In Australia?
• Australia Wilts From Climate Change. Why Can’t Its Politicians Act?
• Australia Falls Further In Rankings On Progress Towards UN Sustainable Development Goals
• Climate Action Tracker: Australia
• Australia warned it has radically underestimated climate change security threat
• Australia being 'left behind' by global momentum on climate change
• Richard Di Natale: global warming is the most urgent threat to Australia's security
• World trade has an important role in combating climate change
• Australia a leader on trade but lags on environment in development index
• Inaction on climate change will increase civil unrest, warn leading groups

The Big Problem With Climate Storytelling--And How To Fix It

Forbes - Solitaire Townsend*

Harrison Ford against climate change GCAS2018

“Let’s kick this monster’s ass!” roared Harrison Ford at the Global Climate Action Summit yesterday.
Now, as a girl, Indiana Jones and Han Solo got me hooked on storytelling, character and yes, fighting monsters. So, the idea of climate change as a monster story hooked my imagination.
But there’s a problem.
Because if you review most climate messages in the media, then this story actually has two acts: man makes monster, then monster destroys man.
It’s a grand morality tale which neatly fits a primordial structure in our subconscious. This plot sings to something deep within us, a tale we’ve told since we sat around fires weaving myths in the dark. From the Minotaur and the crazed Golems of ancient legend to the morality plays of medieval England and the modern incarnations of rampaging Godzilla born from a nuclear test, or the AI dystopias of the Terminator or the Matrix. We learned this narrative arc in childhood, even if we only discovered the science of carbon dioxide as an adult.
Climate change isn’t presented to the public as plucky rebels against the empire. Instead climate is told as a Frankenstein story: that with our avarice and vanity, we have created the horror that will ultimately defeat us.
The narrative necessity of this climate story is hard to escape. Throughout this summer of ‘hothouse earth,’ and the decades leading up to it, this human hubris story has been the basic blueprint of climate change messaging.
For decades I’ve advised campaigners, policymakers and businesses to oppose this narrative, and tell the story of climate solutions instead. Last year, I asked the global research firm Ipsos to check which message--destruction or solution--was winning. They surveyed adults aged between 16-64 across 26 countries asking if they believed ‘we can deal with climate change’?
The results were encouraging, with the majority of us (56%) reasonably optimistic about solutions, agreeing that we might be able to solve climate change. And I expected the result showing 20% of people are now pessimists, who think we have the ability and technology to deal with the climate threat, but not the willpower to do so. Also, it’s worth mentioning that climate deniers make up only 4% of the global population (although they are remarkably over-represented in online comments sections).
But one finding was profoundly shocking. The survey revealed that 14% of people across the world are now what I call ‘climate fatalists’; who believe that humans are doomed. And as we dug into the data, we found that a staggering number of them are young. Worldwide, 22% of those aged 16-35 believe that it is now too late to stop climate change. In some countries, the number of young fatalists is even higher: with 39% of under-35s in India, 30% in Brazil, 27% in Spain and Sweden, and nearly 30% of young people in the USA believing there is no escape from this monster.

Climate Optimist Chart climateoptimist.org

Why does that matter? Considering the severity of the science, wouldn’t these young fatalists be better dubbed as ‘climate realists,’ preparing for a dystopian future they can’t avoid?
None of us can predict the future, but we can see the mess of the present. Psychologists call fatalism a ‘defeatist performance belief’ and claim it’s disastrous for mental health. Fatalistic attitudes dissuade people from trying to improve their lives, allow anti-social behaviour and even undermine physical health. It seems this climate fatalism may indeed be fatal to wellbeing, ambition and action in the young. And it could also be fatal for climate solutions, because assuming nothing is worth it, means you need do nothing. Fatalism is the enemy of action. And the climate-Frankenstein story is creeping into people’s psyche, sucking the will to act from them.
Today’s tragedy of climate change, with the moral that man is the real monster, is so narratively satisfying it’s become dangerously believable. For many environmentalists, giving up this story would be a wrench. Even those who understand the dangerous psychology of fatalism struggle with their own addiction to the ‘it’s all our own fault, and we deserve what's coming' narrative.
I sometimes feel that we are collectively doing everything we can to make the ending as poignantly noir as possible. It's as if we actually want the horrifying denouement: the narrative necessity driving us to fulfil the tragic role.
And we can’t replace this climate disaster story with a policy, a clear argument or a set of facts. We have science, politics, profit and cultural norms all in tension between the causes and solutions to climate change. A merging and rippling of factual factors like the rough surface of an unquiet sea. But below all of that, there is the deep tide of story. The story must have an ending, it must pass through its scenes, and our collective unconscious won't allow for anything else.
Only a story can beat a story.
So, what has the narrative power to replace the current plot? Climate change can’t be a comedy, a love story or a rags-to-riches tale. And the monster of our making is all too real.
But every 8-year-old knows how to kill a monster. Harry Potter knows it, Dorothy in Oz knows it, Beowulf knows it, James Bond and Sam of the Shire know it. It’s the story that killed Dracula and blew up the Death Star. At its most simple – it’s the hero’s journey.
In every group of script-writers or novelists, Joseph Campbell’s 1949 tome The Hero With A Thousand Faces is treated as a totemic icon. After a life dedicated to researching mythology, Campbell set out the ‘meta-myth’ of mankind. Simply put, this is a journey where courage, friendship and guile are pitched against overwhelming odds. This ‘overcoming the monster’ story often works best when a new generation, the youth, rally against the threat created (or allowed) by the old. You have told, read and watched this story all your life. The small against the big. The downtrodden against the overlord. Plucky humanity against the growing darkness.
If climate change were an asteroid, alien invasion or Hans Gruber type baddie we’d know exactly what to throw at it (Bruce Willis in all cases). The narrative wheels would start turning as we slotted ourselves neatly into a heroic plot track.
This is the new climate story we desperately need. Of overcoming the odds rather than being overwhelmed by them.
The story starts when we find the courage to believe in something worth fighting for: holding onto hope even in the face of unimaginable odds. To say ‘I have a dream’ or ‘it always feels impossible until it’s done’. Then we harness the power of friendship and alliances. We love a plot twist where enemies become allies. And for climate change, we’re going to need unexpected allies indeed.
And the magic elixir of the heroic story has always been guile. Tricking the monster, inventing a solution, spotting a fatal flaw and exploiting it. From Indiana Jones feigning zombiedom in the Temple of Doom, John McClane taping a gun to his back, or Eowyn revealing her gender on the battlefields of Gondor. Heroes invent and misdirect their way around unsurmountable odds. This is the most crucial part of our new climate story – and we’ve already found that magical way to trick ourselves out of the jaws of doom. Electric cars, solar panels and wind turbines are just the start of the innovation explosion coming from carbon constraint. Renewable energy is the ultimate cheat of the climate monsters’ plans (not least because our inventiveness is a more believable ploy than our self-sacrifice.)
We must teach our children this new ‘heroes’ journey’ story of climate change. And it’s not a small story, nor a short one. This is an epic. We face a gargantuan, enormous and near impossible task. We need our Henry V before the battle of Agincourt declaiming, “We few, we happy few”, Frodo holding the ring and nervously offering, “I will take it, though I do not know the way” and Ripley rising in her rig and shouting, “Get away from her, you bitch!”.
We need swashbuckling daring, bravery and courage, guile and desperate invention, unlikely friendships and alliances forged in fire.
I invite you to become the hero of this climate journey, rather than a doomed bit-part player. Instead of grief, we need your grit and bravado.
So that solving climate change becomes the greatest story of the 21st century.

*Solitaire Townsend is co-founder of the global change agency, Futerra, and author of The Happy Hero - How To Change Your Life By Changing The World.

Links

• Planet at risk of heading towards “Hothouse Earth” state
• Dear Media: We Need More Stories About Resilience To Climate Change
• How To Change The Climate Story: Paul Hawken
• Commentary: Climate Change Needs Better Storytelling To Address Severe Threats
• TV Networks Did A Really Crap Job Reporting On Climate Change Last Year
• At Climate Feedback, Scientists Encourage Better Science Reporting. But Who Is Listening?
• Hollywood Is Finally Taking on Climate Change. It Should Go Even Further.
• Everything You Need to Know About Climate Change, in Cartoons!
• 'Art Can Play A Valuable Role': Climate Change Installations Appear In New York
• Earth Hour: Millions Participate In Global Switch-Off To Raise Climate Change Awareness
• Why The Wiring Of Our Brains Makes It Hard To Stop Climate Change