'Woefully Inadequate': Morrison Government To Use Paris Climate Short-Cut

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

The use of carbon credits to meet Australia's Paris climate targets would be "consistent" with the current Kyoto Protocol, the Morrison government said in the strongest signal yet it plans to exploit accounting ambiguities to meet its international commitments.
Senator Simon Birmingham told estimates on Monday the application of so-called carryover credits was "an existing feature of the Kyoto framework" that runs to 2020.

The Morrison government has made its clearest signal yet that it plans to use Kyoto period credits to count against Australia's Paris climate goals. Credit: Andrew Taylor

To deploy a similar treatment for carbon credits to help Australia meet its abatement target for the 2021-30 Paris climate period "appears to be a consistent application of the rules and definitions", Senator Birmingham said.
By overachieving on the Kyoto Protocol period, Australia will have a surplus, measured in tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent. The government wants to do what no other nation has indicated it will do.
The government revealed just prior to Christmas Australia was on course to over-achieve its 2020 target by 367 million tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent.
On current projections, Australia's abatement task is 695 million tonnes of CO-e, meaning the carryover credits reduce the country's emissions reduction effort by more than half.
Figures obtained by the Australian Conservation Foundation under freedom of information laws show Australia's emissions are still on a rising trend.
By 2030, emissions will be 570 million tonnes of CO-e, up from 534 million tonnes in 2018, the Environment Department projections show.
That tally is also well above the 440 million tonnes implied by Australia's pledge to cut carbon pollution 26 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030.

The latest projections show Australia's emissions are expect to rise to 570 million tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent by 2030 from about 534 million tonnes in 2018. To meet the Paris goal of a 26 per cent reduction on 2005 levels, the emissions total would need to be 442 million tonnes. Credit: Environment department, via ACF FOI request

Suzanne Harter, ACF's climate change campaigner, said the Morrison government was pre-empting global negotiations on the Paris Rule book by assuming Kyoto credits could be counted for Paris goals.
“This arrogant approach will not be appreciated by countries like New Zealand, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and the UK, which have said they will not use carry-over credits to meet climate targets," Ms Harter said.
“The Australian Government is already starting from a woefully inadequate pollution reduction target that is not in line with a safe future."

The Ichthys Explorer offshore LNG production platform - part of Australia's fastest growing emissions source.

'Fiddles'
While a federal Labor government would need to take advice on how to account for any Kyoto carbon surplus, the ALP remains opposed to their use.
Labor’s position "has been clear for some time," Mark Butler, Labor's climate spokesman, said. "We are very strongly against accounting tricks, cop-outs and other fiddles used to dodge the obligation we have to start to reduce our carbon pollution levels seriously."
"Labor is committed to reducing carbon emissions by 45 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030, and [to reach] net zero emissions by 2050," he said.
Richie Merzian, director of the climate and energy program at The Australia Institute, said Senator Birmingham's comments were the "strongest commitment" yet that it intends to bank Kyoto credits and use them for the Paris targets.
To do so, though, would single out Australia among OECD nations attempting to take advantage of "loopholes of the past", Mr Merzian said.
Tim Baxter, a researcher at Melbourne University's Australian-German Climate and Energy College, said the Morrison government was gambling that other nations will be wary of pressing Australia too hard when they too may be seeking shortcuts to meet their Paris goals.
"There are not any rules on this and there are unlikely to be any rules," Mr Baxter said.
Still, "it certainly wasn't the spirit" of Paris to accept carryovers from the Kyoto period, he said.

Links

• Australia Is Counting On Cooking The Books To Meet Its Climate Targets
• 'Fake action': Australia's secret path to hitting Paris climate goals
• These residents stopped a coal mine, made history and sent ripples through boardrooms around the world
• CSIRO Questions Whether All Australia's Emissions Cuts Are Real
• Are Carbon Emissions Coming Down In Australia?
• Australia’s Carbon Emissions Highest On Record, Data Shows
• Climate Change: CO2 Emissions Rising For First Time In Four Years
• 'No More Hiding': Morrison Government Set Emissions Data Deadlines

Scientist Who Warned Early About Climate Change, Popularized Term 'Global Warming' Dies At 87

NBC News - Associated Press

"He saw clearly the unprecedented warming now playing out and made his views clear, even when few were willing to listen," a fellow scientist said of researcher Wallace Smith Broecker.

A polar bear tests the strength of thin sea ice in the Arctic on August 22, 2015. Mario Hoppmann / European Geosciences Union/AFP - Getty Images file

NEW YORK (AP) — A scientist who raised early alarms about climate change and popularized the term "global warming" has died. Wallace Smith Broecker was 87.

The longtime Columbia University professor and researcher died Monday at a New York City hospital, according to a spokesman for the university's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Kevin Krajick said Broecker had been ailing in recent months.

Broecker brought "global warming" into common use with a 1975 article that correctly predicted rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would lead to pronounced warming. He later became the first person to recognize what he called the Ocean Conveyor Belt, a global network of currents affecting everything from air temperature to rain patterns.

Wallace Smith Broecker, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University in New York, addresses the audience during the Balzan prize ceremony in Rome on Nov. 21, 2008. Gregorio Borgia / AP file

"Wally was unique, brilliant and combative," said Princeton University professor Michael Oppenheimer. "He wasn't fooled by the cooling of the 1970s. He saw clearly the unprecedented warming now playing out and made his views clear, even when few were willing to listen."

In the Ocean Conveyor Belt, cold, salty water in the North Atlantic sinks, working like a plunger to drive an ocean current from near North America to Europe. Warm surface waters borne by this current help keep Europe's climate mild.

Otherwise, he said, Europe would be a deep freeze, with average winter temperatures dropping by 20 degrees Fahrenheit or more and London feeling more like Spitsbergen, Norway, which is 600 miles north of the Arctic Circle.

Broecker said his studies suggested that the conveyor is the "Achilles heel of the climate system" and a fragile phenomenon that can change rapidly for reasons not understood. It would take only a slight rise in temperature to keep water from sinking in the North Atlantic, he said, and that would bring the conveyor to a halt. Broecker said it is possible that warming caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases could be enough to affect the ocean currents dramatically.

"Broecker single-handedly popularized the notion that this could lead to a dramatic climate change 'tipping point' and, more generally, Broecker helped communicate to the public and policymakers the potential for abrupt climate changes and unwelcome 'surprises' as a result of climate change," said Penn State professor Michael Mann.

Smoke billows from a large steel plant as a Chinese labourer works at an unauthorized steel factory, foreground, in Inner Mongolia, China on November 4, 2016. Kevin Frayer / Getty Images file

In 1984, Broecker told a House subcommittee that the buildup of greenhouse gases warranted a "bold, new national effort aimed at understanding the operation of the realms of the atmosphere, oceans, ice and terrestrial biosphere."

"We live in a climate system that can jump abruptly from one state to another," Broecker told the Associated Press in 1997. By dumping into the atmosphere huge amounts of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, "we are conducting an experiment that could have devastating effects."

"We're playing with an angry beast — a climate system that has been shown to be very sensitive," he said.

Broecker received the National Medal of Science in 1996 and was a member of the National Academy of Science. He also served a stint as the research coordinator for Biosphere 2, an experimental living environment turned research lab.

Broecker was born in Chicago in 1931 and grew up in suburban Oak Park.

He joined Columbia's faculty in 1959, spending most of his time at the university's laboratory in Palisades, New York. He was known in science circles as the "Grandfather of Climate Science" and the "Dean of Climate Scientists."

"His discoveries were fundamental to interpreting Earth's climate history," said Oppenheimer. "No scientist was more stimulating to engage with: he was an instigator in a good way, willing to press unpopular ideas, like lofting particles to offset climate change. But it was always a two-way conversation, never dull, always educational. I'll miss him."

Links

• Wallace S. Broecker - Earth Institute Columbia University
• Wallace Smith Brcoecker - Wikipedia
• Wallace S. Broecker - Citations

Nearly 2 Billion People Depend On Himalayan Glaciers. What If They Melt?

Christian Science Monitor - Clarence Leong

Polar glacial melt has become one of the hallmarks of global warming. But what happens when glaciers disappear from more densely inhabited regions?

Trekkers pass through a glacier at the Mount Everest base camp, Nepal, Feb. 22, 2016. One-third of Himalayan glaciers will melt by the end of the century due to climate change, according to a recent assessment by the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development. Tashi Sherpa/AP/File

The largest area of permanent ice cover outside of the North and South Poles is under threat. The glaciers of the Hindu Kush Himalaya feed into 10 major river basins that sustain some of the world’s most populous and biologically diverse countries. Some 240 million people directly depend on them for fresh water; 1.9 billion benefit indirectly from their outflows.
But by century’s end, at least one-third – and as much as two-thirds – of the region’s glaciers could be gone, according to a landmark report by the Kathmandu-based International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development.
Loss of glacial mass is likely to feed into and create more glacial lakes, increasing flooding in a region already prone to natural disasters. This has crucial implications for the region’s agriculture and energy security, which depends on hydropower. Amid the troubling signs, however, researchers outlined a path to prosperity: large-scale, transnational investment, combined with closely coordinated local and national actions.
At the global level, nations must adopt transformative climate change policies, the researchers say. Locally, improved transportation and communication access can help alert residents to dangerous conditions and enable them to find safety. Particular attention should be paid to the education and empowerment of women, the report urges, as they already bear the majority of farming and nurturing responsibilities in high-risk mountain areas. Without intervention, climate could exacerbate existing vulnerabilities and gender inequity.
Combined efforts to reduce the effects of climate change and enhance disaster resilience at the community level, the researchers write, will help “enable a prosperous, peaceful, and poverty-free people.”

SOURCE: World Bank, ESA, NASA, Kraaijenbrink, P. D. A. et al. (2017).

Impact of a global temperature rise of 1.5° Celsius on Asia’s glaciers Jacob Turcotte/Staff

Links

• Melting Himalayan Glaciers: A Big Drop In A Bucket That’s Already Full
• Rising Temperatures Could Melt Most Himalayan Glaciers by 2100
• First-Ever Everest Drill: World’s Highest Glacier More Sensitive To Climate Change Than Expected
• Warm Ice In Mount Everest’s Glaciers Makes Them More Sensitive To Climate Change – New Research
• In Mount Everest Region, World's Highest Glaciers Are Melting, Receding
• When The Ice Melts: The Catastrophe Of Vanishing Glaciers
• Watch 10 Billion Tons Of Ice Fall Into The Ocean
• What A Century Of Climate Change Has Done To France’s Biggest Glacier

'The Darling Will Die': Scientists Say Mass Fish Kill Due To Over-Extraction And Drought

The Guardian - Anne Davies

Australian Academy of Science panel says urgent steps needed to restore flows

 Two dead murray cod float on the surface of the Darling River near Menindee. Photograph: Dean Lewins/EPA

A scientific panel investigating the causes of three mass fish deaths at the Menindee lakes has pointed the finger squarely at those managing the Murray-Darling river system, saying the lack of flows was caused by a combination of drought and over-extraction, leading to the environmental disaster.
Up to one million native fish, including hundreds of thousands of small bony bream Murray cod, up to 20 years old and silver perch were killed in the three events. While there had been other fish kills during droughts, these were on an unprecedented scale, the report found.
“The conditions leading to this event are an interaction between a severe (but not unprecedented) drought and, more significantly, excess upstream diversion of water for irrigation,” the panel of scientists convened by the Academy of Science said. “Prior releases of water from Menindee Lakes contributed to lack of local reserves.”
Unless urgent steps are taken to restore flows in the Darling, Prof Craig Moritz, who chaired the panel, warned: “The Darling will die.”
“No one expects the river to run every year but they have cut the water so hard, the river is dying,” he said.


The report will again focus attention on the massive expansion of irrigated cotton farming in northern New South Wales, and the state’s commitment to the Murray-Darling basin plan.
The panel has called for an immediate effort over the next six months to restore flows, combined with a Menindee lakes restoration plan focused on restoring its ecology, not saving water, as NSW hopes to do with its Menindee lakes water saving plan.

IMAGE

It says there must be meaningful consultation with the Indigenous people who have native title along the river, as well as with local communities, to tap into local knowledge.
It is also calling on the federal government to immediately reverse last year’s decision to cut the environmental water recovery target for the northern basin by 70 gigalitres, a move the panel warns will further degrade the river.
But Moritz acknowledged there were limited options to prevent more fish deaths in the short term. Without “truckloads of rain” , there was almost no environmental water in storage upstream and letting small amounts of the bad-quality water go could make it worse.
The report, under the auspices of the Australian Academy of Science, was commissioned by the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, and released on Monday morning.
“I promised Australians I would get them answers on how this ecological disaster took place, and that’s what this report does, Shorten said.
“There is simply not enough environmental water held in the Darling River to meet critical environmental needs in times of drought,” he said.
“The Murray Darling Basin Plan was well designed by Labor, but its implementation has been mismanaged by the Liberals. That’s hurting the river, hurting farmers and hurting the environment,” he said.
Labor is now supporting the removal of a 1,500 GL cap on water buybacks, which will clear the way for more purchases of water from farmers. But he did not say whether Labor would support a reversal of the 70 GL cut to environmental water recovery in the Northern Basin – something it has supported to date.
The scientists made a point of saying they had consulted with the government’s rival panel, headed by Prof Robert Vertessy, and shared data and conclusions, which suggests it too will make similar findings when it is released in a few days.
The academy scientists agreed with the NSW Department of Primary Industries finding that the immediate cause of the fish deaths was stratification of the water column in the weir near Menindee, which led to blue green algae outbreaks in the warm surface water during a run of very hot days over 40C, and deoxygenated water below.
When the temperature dropped during a cool change, the algae died and the water column mixed, depleting the river of oxygen and causing the mass fish deaths. After the initial fish kill just before Christmas, the dead fish and algae on the bottom may have added to the problem.
But the academy report goes much further in analysing what has happened to long-term flows in the Darling. “Increasing diversions are related to pumping of environmental water, increased floodplain harvesting, policy changes in NSW in relation to the Barwon-Darling Water Sharing Plan and access to low flows and theft,” the report says.
“As a result of water resource development in the Barwon-Darling and its tributary catchments, maximum dry periods between low flow events have doubled and are sometimes 10 times longer, severely stressing ecosystems.”
The panel based its conclusions on the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s own scientific work on flows from 2018.
It also cited a report to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office which identified that low flows have reduced by 70% across most sections of the Barwon-Darling since 1990.
Decisions by the NSW government to drain the lakes meant there was no local reserves of water available.
The scientists said regular, low flows in the Darling were important in ensuring that native fish and invertebrate populations survived during dry periods, and upstream and downstream connectivity were maintained.
The panel was particularly critical of NSW and its 2012 water sharing plan. “The NSW Barwon-Darling Water Sharing Plan, and changes to it in 2012, contributed directly to the decline of low flows, independent of rainfall, and hence to the recent fish kills,” it said.
“Further undesirable reductions in flow in the Darling River are possible with pending changes by states to calculations of long-term diversion limit equivalent (or cap) factors.”
The scientists also warned that the implementation of the NSW floodplain harvesting policy would potentially legitimise growth in diversions. They said the take of groundwater was also likely to be contributing to the problem.
The scientists were also asked to comment on whether climate change was contributing to the problems of the river system.
“The Murray-Darling Basin has increased in temperature by ~1 °C since 1910 and there is high confidence that the Northern Basin will continue to warm, towards a further 1–2 °C increase over the coming one to three decades. These large changes cannot be explained without anthropogenic emissions.”
But so far there was no detectable long-term change in observed annual precipitation.
“While climate change linked to increasing emissions has contributed to hotter conditions, it is unlikely that the observed reductions in flows is attributable to climate change alone,” they said.

Links

• We can help save the Murray-Darling, Indigenous nations say
• Murray-Darling Basin's outlook is grim unless it rains, authority's report warns
• Fish Kill In The Murrumbidgee River Leaves 'Thousands' More Dead
• Thousands Of Australian Animals Die In Unprecedented Heatwave
• Dead Stinking Fish Send A Message
• Dead Fish Could Stink Up The Election Campaign
• 'Drought, Climate Change And Mismanagement': What Experts Think Caused The Death Of A Million Menindee Fish
• Warming Oceans Are Changing Australia’s Fishing Industry
• From Stinky Seaweed To Sick Fish, World's Warming Oceans Threaten Livelihoods
• Climate Change Is Moving Fish Around Faster Than Laws Can Handle, Study Says
• New Study Finds Climate Change Threatens Marine Protected Areas
• Loss of Federal Protections May Imperil Pacific Reefs, Scientists Warn

Australia's Biggest Companies Failing To Plan For Climate Change Risks: Report

ABC - Nassim Khadem

The Paris agreement's pledge was to keep global warming to "well below" 2 degrees. (ABC News: Lisa Millar)

Key points: Of 72 big listed companies operating in sectors, more than half (57 per cent) identify climate change as a material business risk Investors have been voting against companies not taking action and regulators have warned businesses that don't mitigate risks could be held liable Companies have pledged to do more to meet global guidelines aimed at reducing carbon emissions

Australia's biggest companies are ignoring calls from regulators and investors to do more to mitigate the risks of climate change, with a new study finding that many of the nation's top 100 companies still do not identify climate change as a material business risk.
The report, to be released on Monday by environmental campaign group Market Forces, is based on public information from 72 big listed companies operating in sectors considered high-risk on climate change.
It found that just above half (57 per cent) identify climate change as a material business risk, and just 32 per cent of the companies disclose detailed discussions of specific climate risks and opportunities facing their businesses.
Market Forces released the first iteration of its report, 'Investing in the Dark', in March 2018. The new findings take into account announcements and changes from companies that have reported or updated disclosures in the last year.
Market Forces analyst Will van de Pol said despite increasing rhetoric from investors and regulators about climate change risks, on most metrics, there has been almost no progress to report.

"Companies are willing to make general statements recognising climate change as a potential risk but very few have gone into the detail of how climate change risks might materialise for their business and what they are doing in response," he said.

No planning to meet Paris pledge
The Market Forces study follows a report by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) in September that found that out of 60 listed companies in a sample of the ASX 300, just 17 per cent identified climate risk as a material risk to their business.

---

Banks increase exposure to fossil fuels 

Australia's major banks have been getting back into fossil fuels over the past year, casting doubt on their seriousness in tackling climate change through their investments.

---

The ASIC review found in some cases "climate risk disclosures to be far too general, and of limited use to investors".
The study also comes off the back off global guidelines to help investors understand their financial exposure to climate risk and help companies better disclose this information.
The G20-backed Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) guidelines, released in June 2017, take into account the Paris Agreement's pledge to keep global warming to below 2 degrees.
The Market Forces study found just 14 per cent of Australia's top 100 companies have disclosed detailed scenario analysis demonstrating their viability in a 2-degree policy pathway. This is a marginal improvement from the 10 per cent recorded in March 2018.
Only 24 per cent have a clear plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (up from 16 per cent a year earlier).
Mr van de Pol said investors should demand companies produce Paris-aligned transition plans, and divest from those that cannot or will not.

Investors vote for a cleaner future
A number of ASX 200 companies have recently faced shareholder resolutions on their failure to address climate change risks.

"It shouldn't take a shareholder resolution to bring laggard companies into line," Mr Van de Pol said.

In October, 40 per cent of Whitehaven Coal's investors supported a resolution demanding the company reveal the financial risks it faces as a result of climate change.

---

Australian company directors have
started caring about climate change

Australian company directors nominate climate change as the number one issue they want the government to address in the long-term, in a survey of more than 1,200 business leaders.

---

It was one of the biggest votes for climate action at an Australian AGM ever, and the first resolution in Australia that explicitly called for a company to ensure its strategy is aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change.
"Whitehaven currently lags its peers when it comes to climate risk disclosure," Mr Van de Pol said.
"It discloses minimal detail about the risks it faces from climate change, or what the company is doing to address those risks."
A spokesman for Whitehaven said climate change is an issue requiring coordinated international action and the company was committed to playing a role in reducing carbon emissions.
This would happen by "promoting increased use of Whitehaven's high quality, low-emissions coal".
The company was also reviewing the TCFD recommendations and would incorporate these into its annual reporting later in the year, he said.

Insurer's fossil fuels exposure
In May, QBE also faced pressure from investors, with a resolution calling on the company to disclose the risks to its business from climate change. It was backed by 18.6 per cent of shareholders.
In August, the insurer released its plan to implement the TCFD recommendations.
According to Swiss Re, 2017 was the costliest year in the history of the insurance industry and QBE itself reported a $US1.2 billion loss, mainly due to extreme weather including floods, storms and wildfires.
"QBE is falling behind its European competitors, like Axa, Allianz and Zurich, which have recognised the need for climate action," Mr Van de Pol said.

"They [those global companies] dumped their coal company shares and are restricting their insurance for coal mines and power stations."

But he said QBE was still an underwriter of fossil fuel projects and had invested in other companies with climate exposures.
A spokesman for QBE said "climate change is a principal risk for our business".
QBE was committed to completing the work required to implement the TCFDs recommendations.
"This work is already well advanced," he said, and the company would give an update its progress in its upcoming annual report.
On Friday, Suncorp chief executive Michael Cameron said the Federal Government should force businesses to adhere to climate change action plans, after the company reported its half-year profit dived 44.7 per cent, largely as a result of extreme weather events.

Call for regulators to take 'meaningful action'
Regulators have recently signalled that companies failing to take action to mitigate risks could ultimately be held liable.

---

New coal power is not the answer

The tipping point's been reached: the cold, hard numbers show that new renewable energy is supplying cheaper electricity than new coal-fired power plants could and will continue do so, writes Stephen Long.

---

In a speech in June, ASIC Commissioner John Price said directors "would do well" to carefully consider a 2016 legal opinion by Noel Hutley SC and Sebastien Hartford-Davis that they could face lawsuits for failing to consider risks related to climate change.
And in November 2017, APRA executive Geoff Summerhayes warned that "should extreme weather events become more frequent and intense as scientists predict", there could be "adverse economic impacts" that threaten financial system stability.

Mr van de Pol called on ASIC to "back its rhetoric" and take "meaningful action" against companies breaking disclosure laws.
He said more extreme weather events including floods, fires and droughts show that there is an urgent problem to address.

"Financial institutions need to steer our economy away from the catastrophic impacts of climate change," he said.

"When the financial impacts hits home investors are left with a company that's devalued and will be looking for someone to blame."

Boards given responsibility for climate risks
The Market Forces study found 86 per cent of companies now place overall responsibility for climate risk management with the board, up from 73 per cent one year ago.The number of companies encouraging emissions reduction through remuneration has doubled to 32 per cent.
This is in sync with a recent survey showing company directors are taking a more active interest in the issue.
In October, the Australian Institute of Company Directors' (AICD) survey of more than 1,200 company directors found they had for the first time nominated climate change as the number one issue they want the Federal Government to address in the long term.
Responsible Investment Association Australasia (RIAA) chief executive Simon O'Connor said investors were increasingly setting decarbonisation targets for their investment portfolios.
"Many responsible investors are rightfully concerned about this low level of disclosure," he said.

"More and more responsible investors are considering divestment from fossil fuel companies as an option on the table."

The association's finance sector members would be reporting line with the TCFD recommendations.

Links

• Why Australian company directors have started caring about climate change
• Companies, investors go green to make more money, HSBC says
• Australia on track to meet Paris Agreement early, researchers say
• 'Lip Service': Call For Investors To Step Up Action On Climate Risk
• ASIC Warns On Climate Risk As Heat Turns On Directors
• Australian Firms Told To Catch Up On Climate Change Risk Checks
• Company Directors Can Be Legally Liable For Failing To Manage Climate Change Risks - Report
• BHP Formally Leaves World Coal Association Over Climate Change Stance
• Get Active Or Get Delisted, Responsible Investment Group Warns Funds
• If Business Leaders Want To Regain Our Trust, They Must Act On Climate Risk
• Companies 'Failing' To Deal With Climate Change Risk
• World's Biggest 100 Polluting Companies Put On Notice By Investors To Tackle Climate Change
• Koch-Backed Business Group Splinters in Climate-Change Dispute
• Australia's Top Companies Ignore Climate Change, And We Let Them

These Residents Stopped A Coal Mine, Made History And Sent Ripples Through Boardrooms Around The World

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

The Rocky Hill coal mine case is being hailed as a landmark in "climate litigation" – and not just in Australia. So what is climate litigation? And what impact is it having on companies and governments around the world?

Gloucester residents after their win in a NSW court against the proposed Rocky Hill open-cut coal mine in Gloucester. Credit: Janie Barrett

A NSW court sent shock waves through the nation's mining industry earlier this month when it rejected a coal mine planned in Gloucester, a dairy and beef farming area on the state's mid-north coast. The reason, in part, was the mine's impact on climate change.
That a court had taken into account climate change was lauded as a landmark. But this case is just part of a much bigger picture. All around the world, there is a growing push to use the law to nudge companies and investors to take action to curb global warming – particularly as our politicians are failing to do so.

It's called climate litigation and you can expect to start hearing about it more often.

The view towards the area planned for the Rocky Hill coal mine. Credit: Liam Driver

Wrong place, wrong time: what the case was about

Ostensibly, the case was about whether a Rocky Hill open-cut coal mine should be allowed to go ahead.
On February 8, in the NSW Land and Environment Court, Chief Justice Brian Preston handed down his decision in an appeal by Gloucester Resources, a company privately held by Hans Juergen Mende, a German billionaire dubbed the "godfather of coal". Gloucester Resources was fighting an earlier rejection, by a planning commission, of its bid to build a 2.5-million-tonne-a-year coking coal mine.
The judge concluded that an open-cut coal mine "would be in the wrong place at the wrong time".

"Wrong place because an open-cut coal mine in this scenic and cultural landscape, proximate to many people's homes and farms, will cause significant planning, amenity, visual and social impacts," he said.

"Wrong time because the greenhouse gas emissions of the coal mine and its coal product will increase global total concentrations of [those gases] at a time when what is now urgently needed, in order to meet generally agreed climate targets, is a rapid and deep decrease in [those] emissions.

"These dire consequences should be avoided."

Companies need to factor in the burning of their mine’s coal in other countries, the court found. Credit: Jonathan Carroll

Decorative coal? Why the verdict was significant

Law firms quickly recognised the decision as a landmark – not just for its direct effect on the Rocky Hill project, but also for its palling effect on economic sentiment towards fossil-fuel industries.
As lawyers at Corrs Chambers Westgarth put it: "The decision will have wide-reaching consequences and will likely affect the viability of coal and other fossil fuel-dependent industries in Australia.

"The growth in international jurisprudence directly linking fossil fuel developments with climate change may also lead banks and others who would traditionally invest in these industries to consider alternatives."

The judgment reminds companies and investors that fossil fuels carry regulatory risks, not all of which can be anticipated.
Chief Justice Preston included in his reasoning the fact that there must be a carbon budget – a total amount of emissions that can be released – if targets under the Paris Climate Agreement are to be met. And even if the proposed mine was relatively small, it wasn't enough for a company to calculate the direct emissions that come from scraping out 100-million-year-old coal – the fugitive methane, the pollution generated by the digging and transport, and so on; the actual burning of that fuel, wherever it occurred in the world, also had to be taken into account.
"The difference between this case and other coal mine planning appeals [such as those against the Adani project in Queensland] is that the court has accepted that scope 3 emissions from the burning of the mine's coal in other countries should be taken into account in determining environmental impacts," says Sarah Barker, a special counsel dealing with environmental, social and governance risks, adding the emphasis.
As one lawyer put it, Gloucester Resources mounted "a curious argument" that total emissions would be hard to determine: "Is it 'decorative coal' they are digging up, with no anticipation it will be burned?"

Baker & McKenzie partner Martijn Wilder told clients: "The decision does not necessarily mean the end of any new coal mine approvals in NSW, because it was highly specific to the particular facts of this application."

Still, "a proponent of any new mine in NSW would be well advised to arrange offsets for anticipated greenhouse gas emissions prior to seeking approval for the project. As a commercial matter, there may be questions as to how obtaining these offsets could affect the profitability of the endeavour," Wilder says.

A drilling rig in the Barents Sea. Groups in Norway are taking their government to court for opening up new mining. Credit: Alamy

What they're saying around the world

The Rocky Hill case "is certainly getting attention outside of Australia", says Harro van Asselt, an associate of Stockholm Environment Institute's Oxford Centre and professor of climate law and policy at the University of Eastern Finland.
"Climate litigation is emerging everywhere around the world, meaning that people have an interest in seeing what courts in other countries decide," he says.

The Urgenda case is perhaps the most famous lawsuit to date: 886 Dutch citizens sued their government and ultimately forced it to roughly double its proposed emissions cuts.

But court cases "in countries that are perceived as climate laggards – like Australia – offer hope for environmentalists worldwide", Professor van Asselt says.

This acknowledgment by the judge in Rocky Hill is of great importance.

The Rocky Hill case is also one of very few in which fossil-fuel infrastructure decisions are linked explicitly to their climate impacts. Professor van Asselt likens it to a similar case last year where a judge in the US state of Montana acted to halt the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline.
"Linking individual fossil fuel projects (or infrastructure such as pipelines) to global emissions and their impacts can be very challenging, as it requires overcoming legal arguments such as 'if we don't produce it, someone else will', or 'once the coal leaves our country, we're not responsible for the fact it gets burned'," he says.
"Given that meeting the Paris Agreement's temperature goals requires leaving a significant portion of fossil fuels in the ground, this acknowledgment by the judge in Rocky Hill is of great importance, not only for Australia but also for other fossil fuel-producing countries where litigation is taking place."

Brian Preston, Chief Justice of the Land and Environment Court. Credit: James Brickwood

What the mining industry says
The response from the mining industry and the Morrison government has so far been muted.
Gloucester Resources is yet to declare whether it will appeal the decision.

NSW Minerals Council chief Stephen Galilee was quick to dismiss the court outcome as not in "any way a landmark case", and NSW Nationals MP Michael Johnsen prompted accusations of contempt of court for declaring the result "smacked of judicial activism".

Sections of the media have also sought to impugn the independence of Chief Justice Preston, citing his past involvement in helping to establish the Environmental Defenders Office of NSW, which joined the case against the mine, and his recent speeches on climate change.
Such attacks prompted the NSW Bar Association to issue a statement to say it had "the highest regard for the integrity of the judiciary".

IMAGE

Its president, Tim Game SC, said suggestions the chief judge may be biased because of extra-judicial papers on the issue of climate change were "an attack on [his] character and it is troubling".
NSW Attorney-General Mark Speakman declined to weigh in: "As this matter may be subject to an appeal, any comment from me at the moment on the particular case would be inappropriate."

Strong evidence that climate change has caused extreme weather events, such as the floods that recently engulfed Townsville, will aid climate litigation. Credit: AAP

'Multi-headed beast': the rise of climate litigation
Even if there were to be a successful appeal, climate litigation is only going to get bigger.
"It's a multi-headed beast that's evolving in a number of directions," says Emma Herd, chief executive of the Investor Group on Climate Change.
"It's happening a lot faster than many people expected."
In Norway, for example, NGOs are challenging the constitutionality of a government decision to license new blocks of the Barents Sea for deep-sea oil and gas extraction.
One reason for the rise in climate litigation is that the science is becoming ever better understood. That provides a deeper and richer evidence base that – unlike much of our parliamentary debate or the shadowy conspiracist corners of the internet – can withstand cross-examination.

Companies know they must account for tighter carbon constraints sooner or later.

Professor van Asselt singles out the advance of "attribution science" – identifying the likelihood of specific extreme weather events (and the damage they cause) being linked to human-driven climate change.
"This development can increase the chances of success for any of the litigation strategies," he says.
In other words, in time there will be a rapid assessment of whether the severe heatwaves that smashed Australia's January heat records, or this month's floods in Queensland, have a climate link. Then it will be up to the courts and insurers to argue it out.
But whether it is the Rocky Hill case, another against Adani's Carmichael mine or even a new coal-fired power plant, companies know they must account for tighter carbon constraints sooner or later.
"Even if the [Gloucester mine] decision is overturned, companies have to assume it's a potential risk," Ms Herd said.

How directors are handling climate change
Few big economic gatherings now take place without climate risk at the forefront. In the World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report for 2019, extreme weather events topped the worry list for a third consecutive year. Of the top five risks, three were environmental and the other two were data fraud and cyber attacks.
"Climate change is a material financial risk for any resource company – full stop," Minter Ellison's Sarah Barker says. "You have to disclose the impact of that risk on your financial position, your financial performance and your financial prospect in your annual report."

There’s no magic to it. It comes down to 'what is your role as a director?'

But it doesn't end there. Every company has a responsibility to examine the threats posed – a market shift away from fossil fuels, or potential impact from more extreme weather or rising sea levels – and do something about it.
"There's no magic to it. It's first principles for me – it comes down to 'what is your role as a director?' It's to strategise around material risks," Barker said.
John Price, commissioner with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, highlights a legal opinion in 2016 by Noel Hutley SC that it was "conceivable that directors who fail to consider climate change risks now could be found liable for breaching their duty of care and diligence in the future".
A tanking share price in the wake of a delayed or impartial exposure is a magnet for litigants, as oil giant Exxon is finding to its cost in the US courts. Recognition of climate risks from burning its product by Exxon's own scientists half a century ago is another magnet.
Nor is it merely a private sector concern, as noted last month by the Centre for Policy Development in a discussion paper on directors' duties and climate change.
It found that "despite impediments to enforcement, public sector directors are now increasingly likely to be closely scrutinised and held to account for climate risk management – especially given rising standards demanded of private corporations".
On March 12, the deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Guy Debelle, will also weigh in with a speech on climate change and the economy at a public forum hosted by the Centre for Policy Development in Sydney.

How governments are responding
The NSW government has so far had little to say, other than Planning Minister Anthony Roberts, who was "gratified that the Land and Environment Court agreed with his original decision to refuse a mining licence on the grounds that the proposal did not meet environmental and social requirements".
Then again, it could hardly appeal against its own judgement, even if the case was expanded beyond the government's original intent.
Federal Resources Minister Matt Canavan recommended people "should proceed with caution" about over-interpreting a decision "in a lower court and in NSW".

If the histories of tobacco and asbestos litigation are any guide, any attempts to shield companies from climate litigation won't be easy.

Legal scholars such as Ben Boer, an emeritus professor at the University of Sydney, said Senator Canavan was wrong to discount the court, saying it was "a superior court of record on the same level as the Supreme Court of NSW".
"Preston's judgment is very clear indeed," Professor Boer said. "In NSW, Australia and globally, it is certainly a landmark case.
"It does not merely confirm the [Planning] Minister's original refusal of the development consent. It sets out a whole new line of legal reasoning in this area, which will be studied closely by climate change litigators around the world."
Governments can always change the law, of course, but if the histories of tobacco and asbestos litigation are any guide, any attempts to shield companies from climate litigation won't be easy.
Such a move would "transfer liability and cost for climate-related risk from companies to the government and the citizens in the community", Barker says. "That's a really big call."

Outside an Oregon courthouse, supporters of the Juliana case protest against the US government. Credit: Alamy

'Green lawfare': the push back against climate litigation
Of course, owners of fossil fuels – and the governments they lobby – "are not sitting still", Professor van Asselt says.
We can expect more accusations of "green lawfare" and what have been dubbed Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) in the US.
Professor van Asselt also foresees "drawn-out proceedings with governments and other defendants using every delaying tactic in the book, as is currently happening in the Juliana case in the US" which involves 21 youths (and James Hansen, a former NASA climatologist) suing the US government on behalf of future generations over their right to a stable climate system.

These cases matter in the court of public opinion.

But the appeal by environmental groups to the courts is not just about the odds of winning. Climate litigation is also "one of the most symbolically powerful ways of delegitimising fossil fuels", Professor van Asselt says.
"While individual decisions can be overturned or may not make a big difference in global emissions, these cases matter in the court of public opinion."
As Chief Justice Brian Preston himself noted in a special issue of The Australian Law Journal devoted to Climate Change and the Law, the "territory of climate change litigation is being rapidly mapped".
"[T]he areas of terra incognita are becoming smaller and fewer. This trend is likely to continue."

Links

• 'We won': Landmark climate ruling as NSW court rejects coal mine
• 'New weapon': courts offer hope for driving serious climate action
• Australia's Coal Future Under Threat As More Changes Hit Fossil Fuels Globally
• As Lawsuits Over Climate Change Heat Up, Oil Industry Steps Up Attacks On Its Critics
• Coal Miners Derided Climate Action 'Sideshow'. Now It's The Main Event
• 'We Won': Landmark Climate Ruling As NSW Court Rejects Coal Mine
• Vaccinate Public Against Science Misinformation, Researchers Urge
• See You In Court, Citizens Tell Governments On Climate Change
• A Surge Of Climate Lawsuits Targets Human Rights, Damage From Fossil Fuels
• 2018 In Climate Liability: When A Trend Became A Wave

11 Things Climate Change 'Dismissive' People Say On Social Media

Forbes - Marshall Shepherd

Marshall Shepherd Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd, a leading international expert in weather and climate, was the 2013 President of American Meteorological Society (AMS) and is Director of the University of Georgia’s (UGA) Atmospheric Sciences Program. Dr. Shepherd spent 12 years as a Research Meteorologist at NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center and was Deputy Project Scientist for the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission.

It is clear that climate is changing, and there is a human component on top of the naturally varying system. Most climate scientists understand this, and most logical people do too. The 4th National Climate Assessment report is a good place to find affirmation for these statements. Each year, the Yale Climate Communication group and George Mason University scholars query the American public about their views on climate change. Within this study, there is always a certain percentage that fall into a category called "Dismissive." According to the study authors,

the Dismissive are very sure it (climate change) is not happening and are actively involved as opponents of a national effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Currently, the percentage is roughly nine percent. While their numbers are small, they are often very loud, persistent, aggressive and vitriolic in social media. Over time, I have noticed 11 "Dismissive" tactics on social media.

2018 Six Americas results Yale Climate Communication

Ice Ages. Ice ages always seem to come up and some statement about natural cycles. It is honestly stunning this happens since most climate scientist are very aware of the various ways that climate changes naturally. The discussion about climate change is not an "either/"or" discussion. It is an "and" discussion. Grass grows naturally, "and" it grows differently with fertilized soil. Trees fall naturally in the forest, "and" they can be cut down by a chain saw.

That magazine article from the 1970s. Apparently there was an article in Newsweek in 1975 that ran a story about a "cooling world." It is amusing to see how often this is cited in social media. As I wrote previously in Forbes,

No, a magazine article, a few people, and some literature said this not the majority of scientists or scientific studies. The writer of that magazine article has even debunked this himself.

Citing one random study. I call this 1-study mania. Over the years, I have seen people criticize the peer review literature. They talk about how it is unreliable or biased. While there are certainly issues with the literature, it is still an important gatekeeper against bad science in the same way the FDA is for bad food or drugs. Here's the kicker though. As soon as a study appears that supports a "confirmation bias viewpoint", they are quick to cite the study to support their point.

"Grand Poobah" effect. I observe this often in social media. A person doesn't necessarily have a strong background in climate science but relies on some  scientist or personality for talking points or to validate their positions. They will often even mention or tag that person in their social media post. I call it the "Grand Poobah" effect and have written about it previously.

Doubt and its merchants. There is typically some sample of comments about scientists and grant money. That statement illustrates a lack of understanding of the science grants process. Here is a good "101" at this link. There are rigorous processes for attaining grants based on science inquiry and review. There are also "other" funding models and grey literature publications designed to advocate certain positions or misinformation. Merchants of Doubts by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway is a good book to dig deeper into the latter.

Credentialing. This is the era in which a "Tweet" is presumed to carry as much weight as a degree or years of scientific inquiry. The "Dunning - Kruger Effect" is in full-effect on social media. An oft-used strategy is "I have a degree in (fill in favorite discipline that is not climate science or climatology)" or "I study this in my spare time while in my basement eating cookies."

Deflection. Another tactic that I notice is lobbing questions of deflection. This is usually some random, "seemingly" intellectual, provocative or irrelevant question that has the intent of "public gotcha" to the climate scientist.

It's cold. This winter I am certain that you have seen this one: "It's cold or snowing so global warming must not exist." Nope, it means the day or week is a manifestation of weather. It is not "where you live" warming. It is not "my little part of the planet on this particular day" change.

They changed the name. Speaking of global warming, there are always a handful of folks that finds devious intent in the use of climate change or global warming. I discussed the reasons why that is another "smoke and mirrors" tactic in a previous Forbes piece.

No profile and few followers. Many of the dismissive comments come from accounts with few followers (less than 10) or no profile picture. I am guessing these are "bots."  I suppose this is technically not "saying" anything as the article title indicates, but you get the point.

Storms always happened. This is a very common one. Aforementioned comments about trees falling in the forest or the grass-fertilizer relationship address such statements.
I am sure you can name others that I missed, and I certainly hope I caught all of the "typos" because they hyper-focus on those like a laser too.

Enough of this, it is time to watch some college hoops.

Links

• Fourth National Climate Assessment
• Global Warming’s Six Americas
• Who pays for science?
• Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming
• 3 Reasons Your Uncle Might Think Cold Days Disprove Global Warming