Financial Giants Can Have A Pivotal Role For Climate Stability

Stockholm Resilience Centre

A handful of international investors linked to economic activities may influence the stability of some of the world’s largest forests and hence the global climate

Banks, pension funds and other institutional investors have a key role to play in efforts to avoid dangerous climate change. A limited number of these investors have considerable influence over the Amazon rainforest and boreal forests that are known ‘tipping elements’ in the climate system. Photo: L. Kristensen/Azote

Banks, pension funds and other institutional investors have a key role to play in efforts to avoid dangerous climate change A limited number of these investors have considerable influence over the Amazon rainforest and boreal forests that are known ‘tipping elements’ in the climate system Protecting these ‘tipping elements’ should be a priority for investors to help reduce both climate change and systemic financial risks created by it

Financial institutions, such as banks and pension funds, have a key role to play in efforts to avoid dangerous climate change.
And it is not only about redirecting investments to renewable energy and low-carbon businesses, but also to bolster the resilience and stability of the Brazilian Amazon and boreal forests in Russia and Canada, two known ‘tipping elements’ in the Earth system.
Such tipping elements have also been referred to as ‘Sleeping Giants’, because once “awakened” they can have pivotal impacts on the global climate by becoming large-scale emitters of carbon dioxide, as opposed to storing carbon in soil and vegetation.
This is the message of a new study published in the latest issue of Global Environmental Change.
"In contrast to standard approaches in green finance, we elaborate the ways in which financial actors are linked to economic activities that modify large ecosystems of key importance for stabilizing the planet’s climate," explains author Victor Galaz, deputy director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University.

Study first of its kind
The article is based on a study done by a team of researchers from the Global Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere programme (GEDB) at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University, the Australian National University and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.

Our research allows us to identify a small set of international financial players who can influence climate stability through their ownership of stocks in economic sectors that modify both the Amazon rainforest and boreal forests
Co-author Beatrice Crona, executive director of GEDB and researcher at Stockholm Resilience Centre

These influential financial institutions are denoted “Financial Giants” in the new study that also explores how incentives and disincentives currently influence their potential to bolster or undermine the stability of the climate.
“The study is the first of its kind to link data on global investors and the science on tipping points in the Earth system,” says co-author Will Steffen from the Australian National University in Canberra.

Victor Galaz's research deals with the governance challenges associated with planetary boundaries and the Earth system, including complex social-ecological systems and globally networked risks.

The pivotal role of investors
In recent decades, scientists have begun to use the term ‘tipping elements’ or ‘sleeping giants’ to describe a limited number of biomes and processes on the planet that are exceptionally important for maintaining global climate stability. These biomes and processes can change rapidly when human pressures reach a critical level. The new study makes explicit the links between stock ownership, global institutional investors and two of these tipping elements: the Amazon rainforest and the boreal forests of Russia and Canada.
"We focus on these forested areas because they represent tipping elements that are highly vulnerable to tipping in the next few decades, and where the financial sector plays a crucial role," explains Victor Galaz.
This implies that the financial system can provide an important lever to help ensure the stability of these tipping elements in the near term and the long term.
The study concludes that the Amazon rainforest, boreal forests and other tipping elements are now systemic risks for the global financial system. If the internal dynamics of these large regions change, leading to the emission of large volumes of carbon into the atmosphere from soils and vegetation, then stabilizing the climate in the future will become significantly more difficult, in turn affecting financial stability.

Beatrice Crona’s work centers on various aspects of oceans and fisheries governance, as well as understanding different emerging global connectivities and their effects on social-ecological outcomes at multiple scales.

A handful of stockholders
As the study shows, financial investments are already today contributing to economic activities that are pushing some sleeping giants towards their tipping points. For example, investors provide capital to, or own shares in, companies that produce soy, beef, timber and other commodities that require extensive deforestation and forest degradation.
The authors find that a handful of stockholders own substantial shares across the largest companies in the most significant sectors. The total holdings of these investors reach above the 10% threshold in three out of eight companies in the Amazon, five out of sixteen in Canadian boreal forests, and three out of five in Russian boreal forests, they write.
These institutional investors with a global reach are called ‘financial giants’ by the authors because they have a great but unrealized power to influence the resilience of several of the planet’s sleeping giants.
"Investors have several means at their disposal to influence the companies in their portfolio: They can require explicit targets to be met regarding reforestation and rehabilitation, as well as protecting and improving biodiversity. They also can credibly threaten to divest from the companies in case the interests and objectives would be too far apart. Next to reputational damage, this may affect the cost of equity for the divested firms," says Bert Scholtens from the University of Groningen.
In conclusion, the study emphasises that finance cannot be made solely responsible for a transition to climate sustainability, but the sector plays a critical role. More responsible leadership could contribute meaningfully to better management of these large forests, and hence contribute to climate stability.

Links

• The Global Financial System And Earth's Climate Tipping Points
• Finance and the Earth system
• Global Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere
• The hidden environmental consequences of tax havens
• Earth system finance report launch

New Research Questions The Rate Of Climate Change

Phys.org - Laura Varney

Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Climate change may be occurring even faster than first thought.
That is according to a ground-breaking new study by Dr. Clayton Magill from the Lyell Centre at Heriot-Watt University.
Scientists measured the vast migration of sea bed materials such as clay and sand, a process that occurs over thousands of years.
The research found that constant movement resulted in the erosion of ancient fossils trapped within the ocean floor and that these fossils release their harmful carbon dioxide, which is a strong greenhouse gas.
Researchers previously thought that the rate of erosion on these fossils was significantly slower – hence climate change was slower.

Now the study, published in Nature sheds new light on the how fast climate change is actually happening.
Dr. Clayton Magill said: "There are some outstanding gaps in current knowledge about the imminent impacts of climate change on ocean environments and in this study we show that there are still large unknowns in the major sources of fossil carbon on earth.
"We don't know how much carbon is trapped in the ocean but now we've proven the process, it could pose catastrophic threat to earth's climate."
The study also raises questions about how best to deal with marine pollution across the globe.
Dr. Magill continues: "We found that many pollutants stick to clay and there are issues if polluted clays transport over time from one region to another.
"For example, polluted clays from China can be transported by time to Vietnam – and transport times might be decades or centuries.
"There's still a lot to discover about climate change and marine pollution over time, but this study highlights the fact that climate change could be happening a lot faster than academics once thought possible."

Links

• Role of kelp forests in mitigating climate change under threat
• Transient hydrodynamic effects influence organic carbon signatures in marine sediments
• Climate change causing more severe wildfires, larger insect outbreaks in temperate forests
• A wealth tax forces those responsible for climate change to pay for it
• Amazon forests failing to keep up with climate change

Insurance Premiums To Rise As Extreme Weather Conditions Become More Common

ABC - Peter Ryan

A new index tracking the frequency of extreme climate events points to rising insurance premiums. (Supplied: Scott Barker)

Residential property owners and businesses are likely to face higher insurance premiums after a new actuarial index warned about rising financial risks from extreme weather events.
The Australian Actuaries Climate Index tracks risk factors such as elevated sea levels, drought, bushfires, cyclones, flooding and extreme temperatures as being more frequent as growing evidence of climate change mounts.
The index, developed by leading actuary and Finity Consulting principal Tim Andrew, warns the frequency of extreme conditions this autumn was higher than historical extremes in autumns between 1981 and 2010.
"It's fair to say this is a pretty new area for everyone and you can imagine insurers in particular are concerned they have to charge adequate premiums for the risk that they're taking on," Mr Andrew told the ABC's AM program.

"The index is clearly showing that we have an increase in the frequency of extreme events. And one would expect over time that many people in bushfire and flood-prone areas to be facing some increases in premiums.

"One of the challenges for us is to make sure we're building properties in the right places to make sure we minimise the impact in future."
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), which oversees banks and insurers, warned last year that the risks of climate change were "foreseeable, material and actionable".
APRA executive Geoff Summerhayes said the index was an important step towards a cross-industry standard for disclosing risks of extreme weather events and the implications for business, consumers, developers and governments.
"We believe this initiative is a positive step towards helping regulated entities to understand and manage the potential impact of climate risk on their businesses," Mr Summerhayes said.

The new climate index has been developed to help business and regulators manage climate risk. (Supplied: Cate White)

The index — which will be updated each quarter and is backed by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
 — builds on similar indexes currently used in Canada and the United States.
Actuaries Institute chief executive Elayne Grace said the index was a "first step" as actuaries develop more explicit measures of climate risk.
"We hope to build on this index by attaching risk data, such as damage to property and health statistics, in order to understand the relationship between weather extremes and risk, enabling more explicit risk indices to be developed," Ms Grace said.
The index adds to concerns about future losses from climate change after the Climate Institute warned in 2016 that the potential damage from coastal erosion was estimated at $88 billion excluding the value of the land.
The index was developed in consultation with regulators and natural hazard scientists with data collected nationally and grouped into twelve climatically similar reasons.
Tim Andrews is keen to stay away from the politics surrounding cynicism about climate change but hopes the move towards greater awareness will not be overshadowed by climate change cynics.

"That's inevitably a risk with these issues. I'm often disappointed by the politics and I'm hoping this message doesn't get lost."

Peter Ryan on ABC Radio AM

Links

• Banking, insurance industry need to better prepare for climate-related risks, APRA warns
• None of our insurers are keeping pace with climate change
• Insurance and climate change
• Insurance Council of Australia's Climate Change Policy
• Australian insurers not keeping pace with climate change – report

Voters Rejected Most Ballot Measures Aimed At Curbing Climate Change

Washington Post - Brady Dennis | Dino Grandoni

From Arizona to Colorado, voters reject measures to ramp up renewables and limit drilling.

A pump works in a residential development in Frederick, Colo. (David Zalubowski/AP)

In Arizona, voters said no to accelerating the shift to renewable energy. In Colorado, they said no to an effort to sharply limit drilling on state-owned land. And a measure to make Washington the first state to tax carbon emissions appears to have fallen short.
The failure of environmental ballot measures in Arizona, Colorado -- and the likely defeat of a proposal to impose fees on carbon emissions in Washington state -- underscore the difficulty of tackling a global problem like climate change at the state and local level, where huge sums of money poured in on both sides.
Even as a United Nations-backed panel of scientists recently warned that the world has barely a decade to radically cut its emissions of greenhouse gases that fuel global warming, the Trump administration has been busy expanding oil and gas drilling and rolling back Obama-era efforts to mitigate climate change. Environmental advocates and Democratic lawmakers have placed much hope in state and local governments to counter those policies.
But while Tuesday saw the election of numerous candidates dedicated to climate action, individual ballot measures aimed at the same goal largely floundered.
“What we learned from this election, in states like Colorado, Arizona, and Washington, is that voters reject policies that would make energy more expensive and less reliable,” said Thomas Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, an industry-backed, free-market advocacy group.
Richard Newell, president of the non-partisan think tank, Resources for the Future, drew a different conclusion.
“The complexities and politics of the clean energy transition are best navigated through a legislative process, which has been the basis for virtually all significant state level climate and renewable energy policy,” Newell said in an email. “I would not take this as a repudiation of public desire to address climate change, including through carbon pricing or clean energy standards, but rather that the details and who is engaged in the policy formulation matter, a lot. That’s tough to do through a ballot initiative.”
Even in the solidly blue state of Washington, initial results looked grim for perhaps the most consequential climate-related ballot measure in the country this fall: a statewide initiative that would have imposed a first-in-the-nation fee on emissions of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent of the greenhouse gases that drive global warming. While voters in King County, home to Seattle, turned out heavily in favor of the measure, residents across the rest of the state largely opposed it.
One bright spot for environmental advocates came in Nevada, where voters appeared poised to pass a measure similar to the one Arizonans rejected. It would require utilities to generate 50 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2030. The proposal was leading handily with most votes tallied Wednesday. But before the measure could become law, it has to survive a second vote in 2020.
Since President Trump took office, a handful of states — notably California — have vowed to serve as a counterweight on energy and environmental policy to a president who frequently dismisses the government’s own findings that human activity is warming the globe. In September, California codified into law a commitment to produce 100 percent of its electricity from carbon-free courses by 2045.
But Tuesday’s ballot-question results demonstrate the limits to which other states are willing to follow California’s lead — particularly when campaigners against the proposals emphasize the potential impact on pocketbooks.
Supporters and proponents poured an eye-popping amount of money, more than $54 million, into the fight over the future of energy in Arizona. Only two Senate races in the country — in Florida and Texas — saw more spending this year.
The influx of cash underscores how much both sides believed was at stake. The ballot initiative would have amended the Arizona constitution to require electric utilities to use renewable energy for 50 percent of its power generation by 2035. That might seem easily within reach in sunny Arizona. But the state now gets only about 6 percent of its energy from the sun.
The state’s biggest utility, Arizona Public Service, or APS, emerged as the most fervent opponent of the proposal, pouring more than $30 million into a political action committee called Arizonans for Affordable Electricity. In an aggressive ad campaign, the group argued that the measure would cost households an additional $1,000 a year.
“We’ve said throughout this campaign there is a better way to create a clean-energy future for Arizona that is also affordable and reliable,” APS chief executive Don Brandt said in a statement Tuesday evening.
Meanwhile, an alliance of dozens of organizations called Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona, argued that the shift toward cleaner energy will improve public health and create good jobs in the state. The group got a huge assist from California billionaire investor and political activist Tom Steyer, who donated the lion’s share of the nearly $23.6 million raised through the end of September.
Twenty-nine states and the District already have programs, known as Renewable Portfolio Standards, or RPS, that require utilities to ensure a certain amount of the electricity they sell comes from renewable resources. But only a fraction of those have targets as ambitious as the ones proposed this year in Arizona and Nevada. For instance, New York and New Jersey also have targets of 50 percent renewable energy by 2050. Hawaii would require 100 percent of its energy to be from renewable sources by 2045.
During the 2018 campaign, however, 11 Democratic candidates for governor vowed to try to get all of their respective states’ electricity from “clean” energy sources by the middle of the century, according to surveys done by the state affiliates of the League of Conservation Voters. Several of those candidates, including Jared Polis in Colorado, won their races.
In Colorado, environmental advocates failed to pass a measure known as Proposition 112. The initiative would have required new wells to be at least 2,500 feet from occupied buildings and other “vulnerable areas” such as parks and irrigation canals — a distance several times that of existing regulations. It also allows local governments to require even longer setbacks.
As oil production has soared in Colorado in recent years and the population has grown, more and more residents are living near oil and gas facilities. Those who supported the ballot measure argued it was necessary to reduce potential health risks and the noise and other nuisances of living near drilling sites. Opponents countered that the proposal would virtually eliminate new oil and gas drilling on nonfederal land in the state — they have derided it as an “anti-fracking” push — and claimed it would cost jobs and deprive local governments of tax revenue.
The industry-backed group, Protect Colorado, raised roughly $38 million this year as it opposed the controversial measure, which it says would “wipe out thousands of jobs and devastate Colorado’s economy for years to come.” By contrast, the main group backing the proposal, known as Colorado Rising for Health and Safety, raised about $1 million.
“We appreciate Colorado voters who realized what a devastating impact this measure would have had on our state’s economy, school funding, public safety and other local services, ” Karen Crummy, spokeswoman for Protect Colorado, said in an email late Tuesday.
Separately, Chip Rimer, chairman of the board for the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, called Proposition 112 “an extreme proposal” that would have devastated the state’s economy. “Moving forward we will continue working together with all stakeholders to develop solutions that ensure we can continue to deliver the energy we need, the economy we want and the environment we value,” he said in a statement.
Coloradans also rejected a separate but related measure Tuesday that would have amended the Colorado constitution to allow property owners to seek compensation if government actions devalue their property. The proposal has been sharply criticized by dozens of city councils and panned by Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), who called it “a dangerous idea” in which “unscrupulous developers and speculators could make claims on local governments for literally anything they think has hurt the value of their land.”
Meanwhile, in Washington, the effort to put a price on carbon emissions appeared on the verge of defeat early Wednesday, with 56.3 percent of voters rejecting the measure and 43.7 percent supporting it with two-thirds of votes counted. An official at the Washington secretary of state’s office said the vote-by-mail system in the state means it could take several days for a final vote tally.
Known as Initiative 1631, the measure would have made Washington the first state in the nation to tax carbon dioxide — an approach many scientists, environmental advocates and policymakers argue will be essential on a broad scale to nudge the world away from its reliance on fossil fuels.
But that proposal, like other environmental initiatives across the country, faced a bitter fight, pitting Big Oil refiners against a collection of advocates that includes unions, Native American groups, business leaders like Bill Gates and former New York mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, as well as the state’s Democratic governor, Jay Inslee.
It also has set a state spending record along the way for a state ballot initiative. The group pressing for the carbon fee, known as the Clean Air, Clean Energy coalition, has raised more than $15 million. Meanwhile, oil companies belonging to the Western States Petroleum Association pumped more than $31 million into opposing the measure.
The initial $15-a-ton fee would have kicked in beginning in 2020, then increased $2 per ton (plus inflation) each year until 2035, when it would either freeze or rise, depending on whether the state had met its targets to slash greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate campaigners did win at least one victory Tuesday in the Sunshine State. Florida voters, perhaps with the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill still fresh in mind, overwhelmingly decided to amend the state’s constitution to ban offshore oil and gas in state waters.
But even then, it was unclear whether offshore drilling alone motivated 69 percent of voters to support the measure. It was paired, oddly, with a proposal to prohibit indoor vaping.

Links

• The world has just over a decade to get climate change under control, U.N. scientists say
• Initiative Measure No. 1631 concerns pollution. - County Results
• Trump administration releases report finding ‘no convincing alternative explanation’ for climate change
• California law would make state’s electricity grid 100 percent carbon free by 2045 
• The hottest fight in American politics? Arizona’s smackdown over solar power.
• State Renewable Portfolio Standards and Goals

Australian Students Plan School Strikes To Protest Against Climate Inaction

The Guardian - Lisa Cox

Hundreds say they will skip school, urging politicians to treat climate change as an emergency

Three Castlemaine student strikers, Milou Albrecht, 14, Harriet O’Shea Carre, 14, Nimowei Johnson, 13, say they cannot yet vote to influence climate policy so they will protest instead. Photograph: Julian Meehan

Hundreds of students around the country are preparing to strike from school because of what they say is a failure by politicians to recognise climate change as an emergency.
They’ve been inspired by 15-year-old Greta Thunberg, a Swedish student who has been sitting outside the parliament in central Stockholm to draw attention to the fears younger generations hold about the global climate crisis and the failure of countries to take urgent action.
Fourteen-year-old Milou Albrecht, a year 8 student at Castlemaine Steiner school in Victoria, her classmate Harriet O’Shea Carre, and 11-year-old Callum Bridgefoot from Castlemaine North primary school, started by protesting last week outside of the offices of their local representatives, the Labor MP Lisa Chester and the Nationals deputy leader, Bridget McKenzie. They’ve been joined by 50 students from local schools and are planning weekly events.
And what began as a small local protest is growing into a nationwide movement. Students in Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra, Perth, Hobart, the Whitsundays, Lismore, the Gold Coast, Albury-Wodonga and the Sunshine Coast are planning to walk out of classes this month.
Similar plans are being explored in other regional areas including Coffs Harbour, Cairns, Townsville and the southern highlands of New South Wales. Hundreds of students have indicated they want to attend protests outside state parliaments in the capital cities on 28, 29 and 30 November.

The idea for the strikes came from the Castlemaine students, who contacted the Australian Youth Climate Coalition for help.
They have had assistance from the coalition and their parents with contacting media, building a website and spreading the word about the strikes through their social networks.
“We think it’s important because it’s a huge problem,” Milou said. “The Earth is already too hot, with droughts in winter in NSW and the coral reef is dying.”

A school strike in Bendigo, NSW, last week

She said students were speaking to Greta in Sweden each week. “I would like our politicians to acknowledge climate change is an emergency and take the necessary steps in order to have a sustainable world,” she said.
A 14-year-old Fort Street high school student, Jean Hinchliffe, is organising the Sydney walkout on 30 November. She said there was a template letter students who were worried about taking time off class could give to their teachers.
“We’ve got involved because at this stage we can’t vote, we’re not politicians and we want to make a difference,” she said. “We can’t stand around waiting.
“I think it’s because climate change is scary seeing that it’s our future. This is a fact and not to be debated.”

Links

• Why We're Striking From School Over Climate Change Inaction
• Strike for Climate Action
• Join The Melbourne Big Walk Out: 12 Noon November 30
• Join The Sydney Big Walk Out: 12 Noon November 30
• Join The Brisbane Big Walk Out: 12 Noon November 30
• The Swedish 15-Year-Old Who's Cutting Class To Fight The Climate Crisis
• Greta Thunberg: “Sweden is not a Role Model”

State Cap-And-Trade Systems Offer Evidence That Carbon Pricing Can Work

The Conversation - Kelly Sims Gallagher

Valero’s Benicia Refinery, less than 40 miles from San Francisco. AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

The latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report argues that carbon pollution must be cut to zero by 2050 to avoid devastating levels of climate change.
Achieving that goal will require swiftly transforming the energy, transportation, housing and food industries, and more. Although these tasks are daunting and the Trump administration is dismantling federal regulations aimed at reducing climate-changing emissions, cost-effective policy tools that could help do exist. And individual U.S. states and regions are using them to make significant progress to reduce emissions.
I led a Fletcher School Climate Policy Lab team that reviewed carbon pricing policies in 15 jurisdictions to see how they work in the real world, not just in theory. We found that in all cases carbon pricing seems to be a cost-effective method to cut carbon pollution.

Emissions trading
States including New York, Delaware and California are keeping up the experiments with carbon pricing they began as many as nine years ago.
Along with the results from similar efforts in Europe, Asia and Latin America in more than 40 countries, these policies have amassed ample evidence about what works in practice, what doesn’t and why.

---

---

As my team explained in Climate Policy, an academic journal, there are two basic flavors of carbon pricing: cap-and-trade – otherwise known as emissions trading systems – and carbon fees or taxes. Some jurisdictions also use hybrid blends of the two approaches.

U.S. carbon emissions trading until now has been limited to the Northeast, some mid-Atlantic states and California. But many countries, including Canada, Mexico, China and the entire European Union, are levying carbon taxes, running emissions trading systems or using a mix of the two. Washington State’s citizens will soon vote on a ballot initiative that would impose a carbon pollution fee on major emitters and collect revenue to be mostly spent on clean air and clean energy investments.

---

---

Emissions trading systems cap the total emissions allowed at a certain level. The government then allocates emissions permits to factories, utilities and other polluters either for free or through auctions.
Each permit usually covers 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide. Permit holders, typically, may buy and sell their permits as needed.
Companies capable of cutting their own emissions may choose to do so, and then sell their permits to other polluters to make money. Conversely, businesses can buy permits at the prevailing market price to avoid having to directly cut their own emissions in their business operations.
As you might expect in carbon markets that depend on willing buyers and sellers, the cheapest emissions reductions usually happen first.

The American track record
The results look promising so far.
In the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which includes nine Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states like Delaware, Massachusetts and Maine, carbon emissions from electricity generation fell by 36 percent between 2005 and 2015, the most recent comprehensive data available.
More recent data shows that carbon emissions allowed under the cap imposed by regulators will have fallen from 188 million metric tons in 2009 to 60.3 million metric tons by the end of 2018, representing a 68 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in the power sector in this region.
One reason for this progress may be that utilities operating in this region have found that pricing carbon has shifted what the industry calls the “power plant dispatch order.” That is, sources of power like wind and natural gas that emit less carbon than coal are tapped first.
And California’s carbon emissions are on track to fall to 1990 levels by 2020.
In no jurisdiction anywhere in the world that we studied did emissions increase as a result of carbon pricing.

Faster improvements
With subsidies, tax incentives, regulatory policies, fiscal incentives, innovation investments and other efforts to slow the pace of climate change being deployed at once, it is hard to know which of them is best at reducing emissions.
But it is possible to see that the two regions that have implemented carbon pricing have often reduced their emissions faster or in greater absolute terms than regions that have not. Massachusetts and New York, for example, reduced their emissions by more than 20 percent overall between 2000 and 2015, about twice the U.S. average of 10.3 percent.
Carbon pricing policies can help governments raise money. But revenue from carbon taxes or the proceeds from permit auctions can be returned to taxpayers as well.
All of the states and countries using carbon pricing policies also have additional policies working alongside the carbon taxes or cap-and-trade programs to reduce emissions, ranging from performance standards for energy efficiency to tax incentives. These policies can also work well, but they can be more expensive approaches to reduce emissions, and sometimes they even undermine the carbon pricing policy.
The federal tax credits for wind and solar energy, for example, cost taxpayers an estimated US$3.4 billion in 2016.

No toll on growth
What’s more, statewide economies do not appear to suffer from carbon pricing.
California’s economy expanded an average rate of 5.2 percent between 2012 and 2017, faster than the national annual 3.7 percent average. In July 2018, California’s emissions fell below 1990 levels for the first time, representing a 13 percent reduction from their 2004 peak even while the California economy grew 26 percent.
The Northeastern states averaged 3.2 percent annual growth between 2012 and 2017 – near the U.S. norm. But their Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative led to $1.4 billion of net positive economic activity because of the reinvestment of the auction proceeds in activities that generate economic benefits for the region between 2015 and 2017, a recent study found.
Critics of emissions trading policies have argued that the prices that have emerged in these systems are too low to spur emissions reductions. The evidence presented above shows that, in fact, they do cause pollution to decline. If advocates prefer steeper emissions reductions, then the emissions cap must be tightened.
Alternatively, governments can switch to carbon fees or taxes, which creates greater price certainty in the market – and which can also be ratcheted up as desired to achieve faster cuts in pollution. Either way, I believe that it is now clear that carbon taxes and emissions trading programs create a long-term signal for the marketplace that induces changes in consumer and firm behavior.
Given the strong real-world record on the effectiveness of carbon pricing policies and the fact that they don’t have to cost taxpayers or take a toll on the economy, I expect more states will adopt them in the coming years.
A federal approach would of course be much more efficient and effective. But it would require congressional action and a presidential signature, neither of which appear to be imminent especially when President Donald Trump says he is not even sure that climate change is man-made.

Links

• Policy for energy, climate change and innovation
• State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2018
• Carbon pricing in practice: a review of existing emissions trading systems
• Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
• Cap and Trade under AB 32 – Now it’s an “Official Success”

Adani Water Project Bypasses Full Environmental Impact Assessment Against Advice

ABC - Penny Timms | Michael Slezak

---

Adani's position is that its North Galilee Water Scheme does not activate the "water trigger". (ABC News)

Key points:

• Department of Agriculture and Water Resources told Environment Department Adani project could have "significant impact on water resources"
• That description should trigger part of legislation relating to water management and require full environmental assessment
• Environment Department maintains water project does not need that level of assessment

---

The Federal Environment Department ruled against the advice of the Government's own water experts when deciding Adani's North Galilee Water Scheme, in Central Queensland, did not require a full environmental assessment.
Documents obtained under Freedom of Information (FOI) and provided to the ABC by activist group Lock the Gate Alliance showed the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources wrote to the Environment Department suggesting the project could activate what is known as the "water trigger".
The "water trigger" was established in 2013, specifically to ensure gas and coal mining projects likely to have a significant impact on the country's water resources, underwent a full environmental assessment.
But in September, the Department of Environment ruled Adani's water project, which has plans to extract up to 12.5 billion litres of water a year from a river in Queensland to support the Carmichael coal mine, did not activate the trigger because it considered the water project separate to the mine.
The new documents show that conclusion was counter to the view of experts in the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, which was expressed to the Department of Environment before it made its decision.
The Department of Environment initially refused access to the documents, only revealing them once Lock the Gate Alliance appealed against that decision.
The submission from the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources read:
"The department considers the proposed action could have significant impact(s) on a water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development, protected under the EPBC Act."
According to the act, that description fits the requirement needed to activate the "water trigger".
Warwick Giblin is managing director of consultancy OzEnvironmental and has worked in environmental management for decades.
Mr Giblin told the ABC the FOI document was important.
"It's significant on a number of counts," he said.
"It said the project could have significant impacts on the water, not just any impacts but significant ones."
The North Galilee Water Project is still being assessed by the Federal Government, which involves a less rigorous review, via "preliminary documentation".
According to the Department of the Environment's assessment manual, that approach is used when the degree of public concern associated with a proposal is "low", when the degree of confidence of the impacts is "high", and when those impacts are "short-term or recoverable".
Mr Giblin said the FOI documents showed that form of assessment was probably inadequate.
"The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources says that to make a judgement you need robust baseline data on surface and groundwater," he said.
Mr Giblin said collecting that data could take three years and was not something that could be done without a full environmental assessment.
"You're kidding yourself really if you make a decision in the absence of that information," he said.

Action will 'clearly have an impact on water resources'
The principal solicitor at the Queensland Environmental Defenders Office, Sean Ryan, said the Environment Department should explain how it came to its decision to not require a full environmental assessment.
"It is concerning when these significant environmental laws are not applied to an action that clearly will have a significant impact on water resources," he said.
Carmel Flint from the Lock the Gate Alliance said she was astounded by the situation.
"We were really shocked to see that these documents had given some pretty clear advice to the department that there was a serious risk to water resources and that they ignored that and pushed thorough the Adani project without requiring an environmental impact assessment," she said.
"So it just raises real questions about what's going on inside government.
"We've got a department who has this key role of looking after water and agriculture basically raising this concern, saying they consider there would be a significant impact on water resources, and they've effectively been overruled.
"That's just not good enough."

Adani 'has been subject to more than 150 ... conditions'
In a written statement from both the Department of Environment and the Environment Minister, assurances were made that the advice of the Government's other departments was considered.
"The Adani project has been subject to more than 150 state and federal government conditions, so we are confident any potential impacts are being adequately assessed," the statement read.
Ms Flint is calling on Environment Minister Melissa Price to act.
"We're really calling for the Minister now to urgently step in and reverse the decision and require a proper environmental impact assessment and fully apply the water trigger," she said.
"We'd also really like to know how it was that this advice came to be ignored by the Department for Environment."
Adani successfully argued its water project was a standalone one, and not part of a coal-seam-gas or large-coal-mining development.
It is an argument the company stands by.
"The definition of 'large coal mining development' relates to impacts on water-resources activities that form part of the process to extract coal," an Adani spokesperson said in a statement.
"This assessment already occurred in 2015 through the Environmental Impact Statement process [for the Carmichael mine].
"The pipeline is considered associated infrastructure, which is not part of the coal-extraction process and therefore does not require assessment under the water trigger."
Mr Giblin said that argument made no sense.
"Unequivocally, there is no mine unless it has access to water and I think it's rather cute [to] suggest that somehow this project — which is only triggered because of this mine proposal — is a separate project," he said.
In a statement, the miner said the amount of water it would be looking to take equated "to 12.5GL of water or less than 1 per cent of the annual water flow available in the Belyando Suttor River catchment".
"This water can only be taken when the river system is in flood, after other users, like farmers, have taken their share, and only when the river is flowing at a rate of 2,592 megalitres per day," it said.

---

Ministerial and Department Statement

To be clear, the water trigger for the Carmichael Mine was applied during its assessment under national environmental law.
The Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development provided advice on the project on 29 June, 2012 and 16 December, 2013.
The conditions of the mine's approval are in line with the advice received from the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development.
The recent reports relate to the construction of the North Galilee pipeline. It is a standalone project.
The Australian Government becomes involved in the assessment of proposed actions that are likely to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance protected by national environment law.
The Department of the Environment and Energy determined that the water trigger does not apply to the North Galilee pipeline.
However, as part of the process required under national environment law, the Department will be doing an assessment of the likely significant impacts of the proposed on nationally protected plants and animals.
The Adani project has been subject to more than 150 state and federal government conditions, so we are confident any potential impacts are being adequately assessed.

---

Links

• Adani wants Queensland's water and the Government doesn't need an impact statement
• 'Double standard' sees farmer denied water as Adani plans to take 12.5b litres a year
• Adani Groundwater Bores Investigated Amid Claims They Were Sunk Without Approval
• Author Jeff Goodell On His New Book And Why He Wishes Climate Change Was A Hoax
• As A Grazier I Rely On Water. Adani’s Latest Plans Put Our Future At Risk
• Federal Government To Lend Money To Adani Business Associates
• Shorten Says Talk About Adani Mine 'Dumbing Down Climate Debate'
• Bill Shorten Says There's A 'Role For Coal' And Adani Mine Just 'Another Project'
• Could A Future Labor Government Really Stop The Adani Mine?
• Labor Pushes For Federal Investigation Into Adani
• Adani Coalmine Won't Get Federal Rail Funding, Liberal Minister Says
• Big Surge In Opposition To Adani, New Polling Reveals
• Shorten Hails Cheap Wind And Solar, But Will He Stop Adani?