Federal Election 2019: Vote Compass Finds Broad Desire For More Action On Climate Change

ABC News - Catherine Hanrahan

A striking 89 per cent of younger voters want the Government to take more action on climate change. (ABC Radio Adelaide: Malcolm Sutton)

Key points: 81 per cent of voters want more government action on climate change Among Coalition voters, 60 per cent now back more climate action More than two-thirds of voters favour efforts to boost renewable energy and electric cars

A majority of Coalition, Labor and Greens voters all want more government action on climate change, Vote Compass data has found.
A majority of voters also support more renewable energy, a higher uptake of electric cars and a price on carbon, with renewables amassing the most support.
More than 80 per cent of Australians want the Government to take more action on climate change, up 20 percentage points since 2013.
Strikingly, support for more action was almost universal among Labor and Greens voters, the strongest response to any Vote Compass question during this election.
Nearly 60 per cent of Coalition voters agreed with the desire for more climate action.
One Nation supporters were more divided — more action was their most common response (40 per cent), closely followed by less action (34 per cent).

Support for government tackling climate change is rising

Proportion of Vote Compass responses to the question: "How much should the federal government do to tackle climate change?"

Based on 513,335 respondents to Vote Compass between April 10 and May 12, 2019

---

Where do you stand?

Find out how your views compare to Australia's major political parties. Simply answer a few questions via Vote Compass.

---

As a part of its climate solutions package, the Coalition is committed to Australia's Paris Agreement target of reducing emissions by 26 to 28 per cent by 2030.
Labor has promised to cut emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 and ensure half of Australia's energy comes from renewable sources.
Rosemary Lyster, co-director of the Australian Centre for Climate and Environmental Law at the University of Sydney law school, said Australians were understanding that the Paris targets were a modest contribution, not only on Australia's part, but on all countries.

"I think the Coalition is sticking to their climate policies and the electorate is a bit more sceptical about whether or not we're going to achieve emissions reductions through those policies," she said.

The desire for more action was even stronger among young Australians.

More young voters want climate action than older voters

Proportion of Vote Compass responses to the question: "How much should the federal government do to tackle climate change?"

Based on 513,335 respondents to Vote Compass between April 10 and May 12, 2019

On the surface, the mood for climate action detected in Vote Compass was higher than was reported in two surveys conducted in 2018, where 56 per cent and 62 per cent said Australia was not doing enough to address climate change. Those questions, however, were about "Australian" action overall while Vote Compass asked specifically about "the Federal Government".

Majority of Coalition voters want government to do more to tackle climate change

Proportion of Vote Compass responses to the question: "How much should the federal government do to tackle climate change?"

Based on 513,335 respondents to Vote Compass between April 10 and May 12, 2019

Voters back renewable energy and electric cars
Nearly 90 per cent wanted to see more renewable energy, including a majority of voters from all parties.
Three quarters wanted to see the Government do more to increase the number of electric cars, though Coalition voters were more uncertain than left-leaning voters.
Professor Lyster said people found the idea of technological and innovation solutions very appealing.

"They see that as contributing to the economy and they see lots more jobs, which is good for the economy," she said.

Strongest support for more renewable energy

Proportion of More/Less or Agree/Disagree Vote Compass responses to each question/statement

Based on 513,335 respondents to Vote Compass between April 10 and May 12, 2019; electric car question of the day based on 137,226 respondents

Neither the Coalition nor Labor is promising a price on carbon this election, though voters now broadly favour one.
About 70 per cent of respondents back a price on carbon emissions, up from 63 per cent in 2016 and only 46 per cent in 2013.
Climate change took centre stage in that election, when Opposition leader Tony Abbott promised to "axe the tax" — Labor's carbon pricing scheme.
The Greens promised net zero emissions by 2040, via a range of mechanisms that include a price on carbon.

About the data

• Vote Compass responses have been weighted by gender, age, education, language, religion, place of residence and past vote to match the Australian population, creating a nationally representative sample.
• The sample size for this report is 513,335 respondents and 137,226 respondents for the electric car question of the day
• Find about more about the methodology in this explainer.

Links

• More than 80 per cent of voters want the government to do more to tackle climate change
• Young voters feel most strongly about more action on climate change
• Voters of all parties want more government action on climate change
• Voters are keener on more renewable energy sources than putting a price on carbon

Greta Thunberg Became A Climate Activist Not In Spite Of Her Autism, But Because Of It

Vox - Steve Silberman*

The 16-year-old climate activist’s radical approach to autism.

Greta Thunberg speaks to protesters as the Extinction Rebellion protests enter their seventh day on April 21, 2019, in London. Jack Taylor/Getty Images

Watching video of Greta Thunberg addressing the House of Parliament in London on April 24, it’s hard not to think of Cassandra, the brash young warrior of Greek myth who beseeched Apollo for the gift of prophecy. The petulant god granted her wish, but then punished the girl by decreeing that her predictions would be ignored “as idle wind in the hearers’ ears.”
“You lied to us. You gave us false hope. You told us that the future was something to look forward to,” said the 16-year-old environmental activist, who has become the stern face of a global movement of young people enraged by the idea that careless decisions made by their parents’ generation will doom them to an apocalyptic future. “Those who will be affected the hardest are already suffering the consequences. But their voices are not heard. Is my microphone on? Can you hear me?”
A poet wrote that as Troy was sacked by the Achaeans, just as Cassandra had predicted, the spurned oracle roared “like a lioness,” but Thunberg’s style is more low-key and surgical. “You only speak of green eternal economic growth because you are too scared of being unpopular,” she told the attendees of the United Nations’ COP24 conference in Poland in December. “You only talk about moving forward with the same bad ideas that got us into this mess, even when the only sensible thing to do is pull the emergency brake. You are not mature enough to tell it like is. Even that burden you leave to us children. But I don’t care about being popular. I care about climate justice and the living planet.”
Thunberg’s fearless rhetoric has proven to be enormously influential. A week after Thunberg shamed the MPs in Parliament, following a successful lobbying effort by Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party and a wave of protests in London by activists calling themselves the Extinction Rebellion, British lawmakers declared the climate crisis an “emergency.” In August, Thunberg began a one-woman student strike against climate change, standing alone with a distinctive hand-lettered sign on the steps of the parliament building in Stockholm for three weeks. Six months later, nearly 1.5 million young people in 100 countries worldwide followed suit, making March 22 the single largest day of climate action in history.
Thunberg also wields her considerable moral authority at home. Her mother, Malena Ernman, a celebrated opera singer, has opted to travel by train and bicycle instead of flying to her performances, and Thunberg has persuaded her parents to eat mostly vegan. How did she do it? “I made them feel guilty,” she told an interviewer. That’s her way: no nonsense, no vacuous chitchat before getting to the point — there is no more time for hand-waving, dithering, and compromise on climate.

Thunberg makes a radical statement about autism through her climate activism
Bluntness is also the way of many people on the autism spectrum, and both Thunberg and her young sister Beata have been diagnosed with autism and ADHD. A few years ago, Thunberg’s ascent to fame likely would have been framed in the media as that of an inspiring young girl “overcoming” her disability to become the leader of a worldwide movement. But Thunberg herself makes a different, more radical argument: that she became an activist not in spite of her autism but because of it.
“I see the world a bit different, from another perspective,” she explained to New Yorker reporter Masha Gessen. “It’s very common that people on the autism spectrum have a special interest. … I can do the same thing for hours.” Thunberg discovered her special interest in climate change when she was just 9 years old, and she couldn’t understand why everyone on the planet wasn’t similarly obsessed with preventing it.
A visceral feeling of repulsion toward deceit and hypocrisy is also common among people on the spectrum. As Thunberg told the BBC, “I don’t fall for lies as easily as regular people, I can see through things.” She has a particular contempt for the professional propagandists and apologists who prop up the fossil fuel industry and discourage the development of renewable energy resources, dismissing UK claims about reductions in carbon emissions as the result of “very creative accounting.”
”You don’t listen to the science,” she went on, “because you are only interested in the answers that will allow you to carry on as if nothing has happened.”
Indeed, Thunberg is not the only person with autism in public life raising her voice in defense of the Earth at this critical juncture in history. Another teen on the spectrum, Dara McAnulty in Northern Ireland, is also an outspoken climate activist, as well as being one of the most lyrical nature writers on Twitter at age 15. In 2017, autistic naturalist and TV presenter Chris Packham “came out” about his diagnosis in a candid BBC documentary called Asperger’s and Me. “What these protesters are saying is think about tomorrow,” Packham said recently in a video for Extinction Rebellion. “That’s what our politicians are not doing.”

People with autism have been ignored and condemned throughout history
Being autistic does not protect these environmental advocates from the usual attacks leveled against anyone who raises the alarm about the oncoming climate catastrophe; instead, it gives the trolls another angle of attack.
In one particularly egregious recent example, Brendan O’Neill, the British editor of a webzine called Spiked, trotted out a hit parade of toxic stereotypes in a crass attempt to paint Thunberg as a “millenarian weirdo” with a “monotone voice” and a “pre-modern” lack of affect. (One of the deep-pocketed funders of Spiked is Koch Industries, a hothouse of climate change denialism.) Meanwhile, a recent court victory by Packham’s Wild Justice, a nonprofit he set up to defend threatened species, inspired bullies to send him death threats and string up dead birds on his garden gate (prompting a characteristically cheeky response from Packham).
Though it’s rarely discussed in the clinical literature, the fact that some people on the spectrum feel an intense connection to the natural world has been known for a long time. My history of autism, NeuroTribes, explores how autistic scientist Temple Grandin’s love for animals inspired her to become a designer of more humane technology for the livestock industry (though I doubt vegan Thunberg would approve). In one of the first case reports of Asperger’s syndrome from 1954 — long before there was a name for it — a boy teaches himself the names of the plants that flourished around the residential facility where he was forced to live, while offering lectures on nuclear fission and corporate finance to his peers.
Many people with autism throughout history have been ignored and shunted to the margins of society, and condemned as weird, insane, or worse. But the idea that people like Greta Thunberg have valuable insights not in spite of their autism but because of it is gaining ground as part of a global movement to honor neurodiversity, a word based on the concept of biodiversity — the notion that in communities of living things, diversity and difference means strength and resilience. Great minds, in other words, don’t always think alike. It’s not surprising that people who feel an intuitive love for nature and an instinctive disdain for dishonesty are now taking leadership positions in the global fight against climate change.
Unlike Cassandra’s dire warnings to the doomed occupants of Troy, Thunberg’s words are getting picked up and amplified by media around the world, which is a sign of hope. She is also being recognized as a major influencer by political leaders, and has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Freddy André Øvstegård, a member of Norwegian parliament who submitted Thunberg’s name for the prestigious award, told the international news agency AFP, “If we do nothing to halt climate change, it will be the cause of wars, conflict, and refugees. Greta Thunberg has launched a mass movement which I see as a major contribution to peace.”
Her emergence on the world stage has been particularly meaningful to other autistic people and their families, says Ari Ne’eman, who co-founded the Autistic Self Advocacy Network and is the author of the forthcoming book The Right to Live in This World: The Story of Disability in America. “It’s noteworthy that Thunberg has chosen to be open about being autistic, because by being openly autistic while serving in positions of leadership, autistic people can help transform how society views us, opening up opportunities for other autistic people around the world,” he says. “By being proudly autistic in our moments of excellence as well as our moments of struggle, we help to change the public image of autism and tell the world that we have much to offer.”
As deceit and hypocrisy reign at the highest levels of the debate about how best to tackle climate change, we need more warriors like Greta Thunberg and Chris Packham on the front lines.

*Steve Silberman is the author of NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity.

Links

• The Uncanny Power Of Greta Thunberg’s Climate-Change Rhetoric
• The Guardian View On Greta Thunberg: Seizing The Future
• Greta Thunberg Backs Climate General Strike To Force Leaders To Act
• Humanity Is At A Crossroads, Greta Thunberg Tells Extinction Rebellion
• Climate Strike: Greta Thunberg Calls For ‘System Change Not Climate Change’ – Here’s What That Could Look Like
• The Uncanny Power Of Greta Thunberg’s Climate-Change Rhetoric 
• 15-Year-Old Greta Thunberg Speaks Truth To Power In Katowice 
• Greta Thunberg Backs Climate General Strike To Force Leaders To Act 
• Greta Thunberg Dresses Down More Global Elites For Climate Inaction 
• Forget Brexit And Focus On Climate Change, Greta Thunberg Tells EU

Climate Change Is This Election's Top Issue. Guardian Australia Tells You What You Need To Know

The Guardian - Guardian staff

Guardian Australia gives climate change reporting the prominence it deserves, stories which often go unreported by others in the mainstream media

The No 1 issue for Australians during this 2019 election campaign is climate change. Guardian Australia has covered the climate emergency from every angle. Composite: David Mariuz/AAP

The No 1 issue for Australians during this 2019 election campaign is climate change.
Polling by foreign policy thinktank Lowy found the majority of Australians believe global warming is a critical threat.
 From a list of 12 threats to Australia’s national interests, more than 60% of adults rank climate change as No 1. This is up 18 points since their survey in 2014.
Reporting on climate change is a priority for the Guardian globally. We give these stories the prominence they deserve, stories which often go unreported by others in the mainstream media. At this critical time for our planet, we are determined to inform readers about threats, consequences and solutions based on scientific facts, not political prejudice or business interests.
During this election campaign, we have covered the climate emergency from every angle. From the shocking UN report on the accelerating decline of the Earth’s natural life-support systems released last week and what Australia needs to do about it, through to the short-sightedness of some of the political debate and also why there is still hope for our species, Guardian Australia has reported on it. There is simply no bigger issue.

Guardian Links

• The climate change election: where do the parties stand on the environment?
  Adam Morton reported on the parties’ key policies, including emissions, renewable energy, endangered species, waste and recycling and the Great Barrier Reef.
• Human society under urgent threat from loss of Earth’s natural life
• Jonathan Watts reported on the damning UN report by the world’s leading scientists that revealed human society is in jeopardy from the accelerating decline of the Earth’s natural life-support systems.
• UN environment warning: 10 key points and what Australia must do
  Calla Wahlquist looked at Australia’s role in the extinction crisis and what we must learn from the report about native species, Indigenous land management, water efficiency and more.
• Climate change takes centre stage in Australia’s election
  Kate Lyons reported on the very different messages from the two prime ministerial candidates on how to address environmental emergency.
• Tony Abbott bet me $100 the climate will not change in 10 years
  Cassie Flanagan Willanski revealed the former Australian prime minister is so confident climate change is nothing to worry about he put money on it.
• The obsessive focus on imaginary costs of climate action is harming our prosperity
  Erwin Jackson wrote on the short-sightedness of the current election campaign discussions on climate change and how the focus on mythical costs of action risks will harm our prosperity and squandered economic opportunity.
• Modelling that shows Labor’s climate policy could cost billions is ridiculous
  Frank Jotzo examined the modelling that caused such consternation and reminded warring parties that we should be focusing on positioning Australia for a low-carbon future.
• I’m willing to go to jail to stop Adani and save our beloved country. Will you stand with me?
  In this anti-Adani rally speech, Richard Flanagan said the fight against Adani’s Carmichael coalmine defines the fight against the climate crisis.
• Climate change costings that don’t count the cost of inaction are worthless
  Greg Jericho said we must demand better of our political parties and our media on this issue.
• Britain passes one week without coal power for first time since 1882
  Jasper Jolly reported on the landmark event that followed the UK’s government pledge to phase out coal-fired electricity by 2025.
• It’s time for nations to unite around an International Green New Deal
  Yanis Varoufakis and David Adler wrote about the need for a global response to climate change, given several countries have proposed their own versions of a Green New Deal.
• After Extinction Rebellion, Australian politicians are on notice – change is coming
  Nicky Ison implored major parties to learn from the UK’s Extinction Rebellion protests and other global movements to fight climate change.
• The media is failing on climate change – here’s how they can do better ahead of 2020
  Guardian reporters asked climate change experts for advice on how news outlets can cover the environment in ways that make voters listen.
• Climate change poses a clear financial risk to Australia
  Chris Barrett and Anna Skarbek discussed how Australia stands to benefit from a successful – and rapid – low-carbon transition, given our world-class solar and wind energy resource base.
• Dare to declare capitalism dead – before it takes us all down with it
  George Monbiot wrote about the incompatibility of the economic system with the survival of life on Earth, and called for something new.
• The Extinction Rebellion scorecard: what did it achieve?
  After mass civil disobedience in the UK, Guardian reporters looked at what impact the protests had made and whether anything had changed.
• Fact or fiction? We check Coalition’s claims about Labor’s climate change policy
  Adam Morton fact-checked the government’s claims that the opposition’s emissions reduction policy would cost $26bn.
• Melting permafrost in Arctic will have $70tn climate impact – study
  Jonathan Watts looked at a study that shows how destabilised natural systems will worsen a man-made problem.
• To stop global catastrophe, we must believe in humans again
  Bill McKibben said it was time for mass resistance to demand action on climate because the technology to prevent the crisis already exists.
• Politicians’ reluctance on climate change is bizarre – action would not only be right but popular
  Jeff Sparrow wrote how strange it was that there were political inaction given many ordinary people are calling for radical climate policies
• Humanity is at a crossroads, Greta Thunberg tells Extinction Rebellion
  Guardian UK reporters reported on Greta Thunberg, the teenage climate activist, who told London protestors that governments will no longer be able ignore the impending climate and ecological crisis
• Our leaders are ignoring global warming to the point of criminal negligence. It’s unforgivable
  Tim Winton wrote about the difference between the cold war and climate change, and how we can no longer wait patiently for our leaders to catch up.
• We are not yet doomed: the carbon cutters determined to save the world
  Guardian correspondents set out to find hopeful climate stories, and found an orchestra, a village, an entire country who are part of the growing movement to rein in greenhouse gas emissions.
• Buying international permits is a cheap way to cut emissions. It’s that simple
  Katharine Murphy reminded readers that as recently as 2017 the Coalition was in favour of international permits and yet it’s now losing its mind over Labor’s climate policy.
• Decades of denial’: major report finds New Zealand’s environment is in serious trouble
  Eleanor Ainge Roy reported on how even the nation known for its natural beauty is under pressure with extinctions, polluted rivers and blighted lake.
• The financial sector must be at the heart of tackling climate change
  Mark Carney, François Villeroy de Galhau and Frank Elderson discussed a new international report from the Network for Greening the Financial System that demonstrates that the financial industry is key to achieving a low-carbon economy.
• Only rebellion will prevent an ecological apocalypse
  George Monbiot on why mass civil disobedience is essential to force a political response now.
• How anchoring a ship to an ice floe will help fight climate change
  Robin McKie wrote about Mosaic, a year-long Arctic mission aims to answer fundamental questions about global warming.
• Glaciers and Arctic ice are vanishing. Time to get radical before it’s too late
  Bill McKibben on why we should all be grateful rather than annoyed when schoolkids start leaving class en masse or surprised that Green New Deal advocates call for dramatic overhaul of society.

Adani Water Plan Ticked Off Within Hours Despite Lack Of Detail, Internal CSIRO Emails Reveal

ABC News - Michael Slezak

The Government wanted a letter from the CSIRO, stating whether Adani's plans satisfied the scientists' concerns. (Twitter: Matthew Canavan)

Internal CSIRO correspondence reveals the science agency was pushed to formally accept the Federal Government's approval of Adani's water plans in a single afternoon.
Despite the Government saying Australia's top science agencies "confirmed" Adani's water plans had "met strict scientific requirements", the emails show CSIRO was determined not to give a "categoric" response.
The correspondence obtained by the ABC through freedom of information laws exposes further discrepancies between what the Government said about the assessment of Adani's environmental plans, and what actually occurred.
The newly uncovered emails follow hand-written notes from Geoscience Australia, obtained by the

Key points: Internal CSIRO correspondence explicitly shows the agency went out of its way to avoid giving any categorical scientific advice on Adani's plans A letter from the CSIRO to the environmental department noted other concerns were yet to be addressed The emails obtained by the ABC also show how rushed the CSIRO was to provide its "formal assent" to the department

ABC in April, showing Adani refused to accept several of its recommendations, counter to what the Government said at the time.
Two days before the federal election was called, Environment Minister Melissa Price signed off on Adani's two groundwater management plans, meaning Adani had passed all the tests required by the Federal Government before it could start constructing its proposed Carmichael coal mine.
When announcing the decision, Ms Price said she was simply following the advice of scientists.
"I have accepted the scientific advice," she said, declaring that CSIRO and Geoscience Australia had provided "assurances that these steps address their recommendations".
But internal CSIRO correspondence explicitly shows the agency went out of its way to avoid giving any categorical advice of that nature.

---

An email sent by CSIRO research director Warwick McDonald on 5 April at 3:36pm who was waiting on a response from CSIRO groundwater hydrologist Russell Crosbie. (Supplied)

---

'The devil is in the detail that we do not have'
The environment department wanted a letter from the CSIRO, stating whether Adani's plans satisfied the scientists' concerns about the company's plans.
They were asked to do that on the basis of a verbal briefing and a short summary document provided that day.
In drafting the letter, CSIRO research director Warwick McDonald said he had "been careful about not being categoric about the degree [to which] these responses will satisfy the recommendations".
He explained they couldn't give categorical advice because "the devil is in the detail that we do not have".

Melissa Price signed off on Adani's groundwater management plans two days before the federal election was called. (AAP: Lukas Coch)

The final wording, sent to the department that day and published on their website, shows that lack of certainty.
The letter said CSIRO thought Adani's plans "should satisfy" their key recommendation, which was to change the underlying model that all of their predictions were based on.
It also noted other concerns that CSIRO had were yet to be addressed, but should be examined in other documentation, that would be assessed after the mine was constructed.
Despite the CSIRO advice lacking any categorical statement, Ms Price presented CSIRO approval of the plans as a key basis for her giving them the green light.
"Both CSIRO and Geoscience Australia have confirmed the revised plans meet strict scientific requirements," she said in a statement.
"Following this independent assessment and the Department of the Environment and Energy's recommendation for approval, I have accepted the scientific advice and therefore approved the groundwater management plans..."

Assurance sought in a flurry of afternoon emails
The emails obtained by the ABC also show how rushed the CSIRO was to provide its "formal assent" to the department's prior decision to recommend approval of Adani's groundwater plans.
Around lunch time on Friday 5 April, Dr Jane Coram from the CSIRO was called into a phone briefing with both the secretary of the environment department and the deputy secretary in charge of environmental protection.

---

Planning Australia's biggest mine

Step through the key events in the planning of Australia's biggest mining project, the Carmichael coal mine in remote central Queensland.

---

Dr Coram said in an email to her colleagues the department bosses "would ideally like our formal assent that Adani have responded to the issues raised".

"I gather they'd like it absolutely ASAP," Dr Coram said, adding: "there's clearly quite some urgency around this".

By 2:20pm, Dr Coram's colleague Dr Warwick McDonald had already begun drafting the letter.
Just after 3:00pm, Dr Coram emailed Dr McDonald asking him to examine a few doubts she had about Adani's plans.
Dr McDonald forwarded that to another staff member but indicated that it might be better to not interrogate the plans too much:

"Jane has asked some questions... see below... not sure we should be over-analysing this... for your consideration."

Just after 3:30pm, Dr McDonald wrote to his colleagues saying he had finished drafting the letter that the environment department had requested.
By about 4:00pm, Dr Coram had approved the letter, and at 4:34pm, it was sent to the environment department.
Half an hour later, Dr Coram emailed her colleagues, noting she presumed CSIRO would be asked to comment on the remaining plans Adani needed to produce, but adding:

"Hopefully with a bit more turnaround time."

That afternoon, the chief of staff to Resources Minister Matt Canavan contacted CSIRO and asked for the letter, which was sent to him at exactly 6:00pm.
The very next business day, Monday 8 April, Ms Price approved the plans.
The following day, the approval was announced, and two days later the federal election was called.
Ms Price declined the ABC's request for an interview.
A spokesman for her reiterated that "Geoscience Australia and the CSIRO provided written advice that the revised plans addressed the issues raised".
Adani told the ABC the matter was an issue for the Department of Environment and Energy.
The department did not respond to requests for comment.
The CSIRO declined to comment further.

Links

• Adani coal mine a step closer with Environment Minister endorsing groundwater approvals
• Handwritten notes appear to contradict Environment Minister over Adani approval
• 'Fake identities': Dubious environmental group 'infiltrates' Stop Adani movement
• Adani to be issued with 'show cause' notice over coal-laden floodwaters at Abbot Point
• Adani remains under investigation by Qld Government over bores
• 'We are ready to start': Adani to begin controversial mine operation
• Queensland coal mega-mine approval 'reckless', conservationists say
• Adani gets 20 per cent boost in coal exports via Abbot Point
• Native title stays on Adani site until finance confirmed: Minister

Torres Strait Islanders Accuse Government Of Human Rights Breach Over Climate Inaction

SBS

Torres Strait Islanders are going to the United Nations to accuse the Morrison government of breaching their human rights over its inaction on climate change.


Rising seas are flooding communities and worsening erosion, causing anxiety for residents

Torres Strait Islanders are accusing the Morrison government of breaching their human rights over its inaction on climate change.
The group, who say they are losing their homes to rising seas, will on Monday lodge an official complaint with the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva, Switzerland.
Their complaint argues the government's failure to adequately cut emissions and build defences such as sea walls has violated their basic human rights to life and culture.

We're supporting Torres Strait Islanders to bring a world-first #climatechange case on #humanrights grounds. Add your voice: tell Australia's PM to act on climate now. https://t.co/kzKGgzz0B1 #OurIslandsOurHome pic.twitter.com/ICG6cWO67j

— ClientEarth (@ClientEarth) May 12, 2019

Environmental law charity ClientEarth is supporting the islanders' action.
It said the complaint will be the first climate change litigation brought against the Australian government, based on human rights.
It's also the first legal action worldwide brought by inhabitants of low-lying islands against a nation state, the charity said.


UN chief says world 'not on track' with climate change

"We're currently seeing the effects of climate change on our islands daily, with rising seas, tidal surges, coastal erosion and inundation of our communities," complainant and Sue Island resident Kabay Tamu said in a statement.
Lead lawyer Sophie Marjanac said the complaint will demonstrate how climate change inaction is violating people's basic rights to live safely and in their ancestral homelands.
"Australia's continued failure to build infrastructure to protect the islands, and to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, constitutes a clear violation of the islanders' rights to culture, family and life," she said.
Eight islanders from four Torres Strait islands are making the complaint, and have also launched a petition demanding a series of commitments from the government.
They want Australia to stop using and exporting thermal coal for electricity generation and achieve zero net emissions before 2050.
They're also seeking at least $20 million for protective infrastructure such as sea walls and to help islands adapt so they can remain habitable.


Gilmore voters name climate change as key issue in ultra-marginal seat

The Gur A Baradharaw Kod (GBK) Sea and Land Council is the peak native title body for the Torres Strait region.
GBK chairman and Yam Island traditional owner Ned David says the rights of Torres Strait Islanders to their culture, homelands, history and future are on the line.
"The Australian government needs to act, and quickly," he says.
"We extend an invitation to Australia's next Prime Minister, whoever that is after this week's federal election, to visit our islands, see the situation for themselves and commit to protecting First Nation peoples on the climate frontline."


Thousands of students across the country are banding together to demand action on climate change

Links

• Rising sea levels threaten Torres Is homes
• Torres Strait Islanders take action on ‘catastrophic’ effects of climate change
• Islanders Complain to UN Over Australia's Climate Change Inaction
• Australia faces 'world-first' climate change human rights case
• Torres Strait Islanders take climate change complaint to the United Nations
• Ten arrested as activists scale Sydney Harbour Bridge over 'climate emergency'
• Deepest underwater dive in human history finds plastic on ocean floor

Labor's $1.5b Plan To 'Unlock' Gas Would Create More Emissions Than Adani Coal Mine, Experts Say

Fairfax - Peter Hannam | Cole Latimer

Labor's $1.5 billion plan to "unlock" Northern Territory and Queensland gas would create far more emissions in Australia than Adani's coal mine, making it much tougher for a Shorten government to meet the nation's Paris climate goals.
The proposal to help fund gas pipelines linking northern gasfields would allow pilot projects to be expanded, adding the equivalent of millions of tonnes of carbon-dioxide emissions a year.

The gas industry is a fast-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia - and could be a much larger one if Labor's plan to develop northern Australian gas fields go ahead. Credit: Bloomberg

Labor has pledged to beat Australia's current 2030 Paris targets by cutting emissions 45 per cent compared with 2005 levels. The pipeline plan would undermine that goal, according to analysts.
The NT's proposed Beetaloo gas fields alone have the potential to create 1240 petajoules of gas a year, according to the territory government's Fracking Inquiry report.

Assuming the fields leak methane at 1.7 per cent of production - a baseline used by the International Energy Agency - the NT could add at least 30 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent per year, said Bill Hare, director of global research group Climate Analytics.
By contrast, Adani's scaled-down Carmichael mine would add a relatively modest 240,000 tonnes of direct CO2-equivalent emissions, excluding the pollution from the coal's combustion.
Mr Hare said Labor's climate goals imply cutting annual emissions by 200 million tonnes from current levels by 2030, and so the NT fields would "add 15 per cent at least" to that abatement effort.

"It will make it much more difficult to meet the Paris Agreement targets," he said.
Tim Forcey, a former BHP engineer and Melbourne University energy researcher, said the leakage rates from gas fields in the United States are often much higher than the 1.7 per cent estimate, and so the emissions impact may be higher still from the new fields that would follow Labor's proposed pipeline plan.
The latest government data show Australia's emissions were up 0.9 per cent to 536 million tonnes in the 12 months to September last year. So-called "fugitive emissions" mostly from the gas industry jumped 7.3 per cent, the biggest increase in any sector.
Mr Forcey said "the time is not far away" when the gas sector contributed more greenhouse gases in Australia than the coal industry. "There's nothing stopping the rampant development of the oil and gas industry."

Origin Energy is one of the developers with high hopes for its Beetaloo gas resource in the NT. Credit: Peter Eve

The Greens have signalled they would press Labor on the issue if they held the balance of power in the Senate.

"When your house is on fire, you don’t break open the gas main next door," Greens climate spokesman Adam Bandt said.
“Even if most of the gas is exported, fracking leaks so much toxic methane into the atmosphere that this project will be a giant taxpayer-funded carbon bomb."
Labor climate spokesman Mark Butler said large emitters would be covered under an expanded so-called "safeguards mechanism" already in place if his party wins government.

"The safeguards mechanism will be properly implemented to cap and bring down pollution, and Labor will work with emissions intensive trade-exposed industries to cut pollution while protecting competitiveness and jobs, including through our $300 million Strategic Industries Reserve Fund," he said. Both the 2030 goal and a 2050 net-zero emissions target for Australia could be met, he added.
"The Liberals have no policy to tackle climate change," Mr Butler said. "Their own government data shows under the Liberals inadequate policy, emissions will continue to rise all the way to 2030."
Resources Minister Matt Canavan, said “Labor doesn’t support coal mining jobs in the Galilee Basin so it’s hard to believe they would support gas jobs or infrastructure in the same area".
“The Labor Party has turned its back on Australia’s resources and mining industry, regardless of whether it’s for energy use here or for exports," he said.
Major gas companies Santos and Woodside said they are offsetting emissions by selling liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Asian consumers who would have otherwise used dirtier coal.

"For every tonne of carbon dioxide emitted during LNG production in Australia it saves between 3 and 10 tonnes of emissions when it is used for power generation in Asia,” Santos chief executive Kevin Gallagher said at his company's annual general meeting earlier this month.
The NT's Labor government said the fracking inquiry made more than 100 recommendations to limit impacts from increased gas development.
“We are undertaking significant reforms based on the scenarios outlined in Justice Pepper’s final report, which predict that greenhouse gas emissions could increase by from between 1 million to 25 million tonnes per annum," NT Minister for Primary Industry and Resources Paul Kirby said on Monday.
“The NT government and the federal government have commenced discussions around options to minimise the net impact on Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions as a result of onshore gas production.”

Links

Key climate ruling against coal mine stands after miner declines to appeal

Labor backs away from vocal support for world's biggest climate fund

Protesters scale Sydney Harbour Bridge to declare 'climate emergency'

Life As We Know It

New York Times - Editorial Board | Illustrations Yann Kebbi

Plant and animal species are disappearing faster than at any time in recorded history. We know who is to blame.


Our planet has suffered five mass extinctions, the last of which occurred about 66 million years ago, when a giant asteroid believed to have landed near the Yucatán Peninsula set off a chain reaction that wiped out the dinosaurs and roughly three-quarters of the other species on earth. A few years ago, in a book called “The Sixth Extinction,” the writer Elizabeth Kolbert warned of a devastating sequel, with plant and animal species on land and sea already disappearing at a ferocious clip, their habitats destroyed or diminished by human activities.
This time, she made clear, the asteroid is us — and we will pay heavily for our folly.
Humanity’s culpability in what many scientists believe to be a planetary emergency has now been reaffirmed by a detailed and depressing report compiled by hundreds of international experts and based on thousands of scientific studies. A summary was released last Monday in Paris, and the full 1,500-page report will be available later in the year. Its findings are grim. “Biodiversity” — a word encompassing all living flora and fauna — “is declining faster than at any time in human history,” it says, estimating that “around 1 million species already face extinction, many within decades,” unless the world takes transformative action to save natural systems. The at-risk population includes a half-million land-based species and one-third of marine mammals and corals.
Most of the causes of this carnage seem familiar: logging, poaching, overfishing by large industrial fleets, pollution, invasive species, the spread of roads and cities to accommodate an exploding global population, now seven billion and rising. If there is one alpha culprit, it is the clearing of forests and wetlands for farms to feed all those people (and, perversely, to help them get to work: The destruction of Indonesia’s valuable rain forests, and their replacement with palm oil plantations, has been driven in part by Europe’s boundless appetite for biodiesel fuels.)
Add to all this a relatively new threat: Global warming, driven largely by the burning of fossil fuels, is expected to compound the damage. “While climate change has not been the dominant driver of biodiversity loss to date in most parts of the world, it is projected to become as or more important,” said Sir Robert Watson, chairman of the biodiversity panel and former chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose most recent alarming report on global warming has given that issue new currency in American politics. Rising seas and increased extreme weather events propelled in part by climate change — fire, floods, droughts — have already harmed many species. The most obvious victim is the world’s coral reefs, which have suffered grievously from ocean waters that have grown warmer and more acidic as a result of all the carbon dioxide they’ve been asked to absorb.
As The Times’s Brad Plumer recently noted, many ecologists insist that species are worth saving on their own, that it’s simply morally wrong to drive any living creature to extinction. The new report deliberately adds a powerful practical motive to the spiritual one: Biodiversity loss, it says, is an urgent issue for human well-being, providing billions and billions of dollars in what experts call “ecosystem services.” Wetlands clean and purify water. Coral reefs nourish vast fish populations that feed the world. Organic matter in the soil nourishes crops. Bees and other threatened insects pollinate fruits and vegetables. Mangroves protect us from floods made worse by rising seas.
“Most of nature’s contributions are not fully replaceable,” the report says. But humans can stop or at least limit the damage. One critical task is to protect (and if possible to enlarge) the world’s natural forests, which, according to a recent paper by eminent ecologists in Science Advance, are home to fully two-thirds of the world’s species. Intact forests also absorb and store enormous amounts of carbon, so preserving them assists not only the species that live there but also the struggle against climate change. Conversely, cutting trees to make way for farming and other purposes — as Brazil’s president, Jair Bolsonaro, is determined to do in the Amazon — is a disaster for both the species and the climate; recent estimates suggest that deforestation accounts for slightly over 10 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, much smaller than the emissions from vehicles and power plants, but significant (and avoidable) nonetheless.





To Professor Watson and many other scientists, there are two important parallel approaches to the interconnected climate and species crises. One is to transform agricultural practices, the other is to enlarge the world’s supply of legally protected landscapes that cannot be touched for any commercial purpose. As to the first, farmers could figure out how to produce more food on fewer acres, and in ways that help the soil retain carbon; consumers could help by making smarter food choices, like eating more locally sourced food, and cutting back on meat and dairy products that require immense amounts of land for livestock.
Second, governments should mandate a significant increase in protected areas, both on land and at sea. Partly as a result of the Convention on Biological Diversity, a treaty agreed upon in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro along with a landmark agreement on climate change, nations have set aside about 15 percent of the world’s land and 7 percent of its oceans by setting up wilderness areas and nature preserves. Because this is only a fraction of the areas needed to protect biodiversity, the authors of the paper in Science Advance recommend a twofold increase in the protected land area and a fourfold increase in marine reserves over the next decade. If rigorously policed (which many parks are not today), that would effectively quarantine about 30 percent of the world’s land and oceans.
This proposal, which its authors call a Global Deal for Nature (echoing the Democrats’ Green New Deal on climate), will be further refined before the next meeting of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2020 in China. Though it always sends a delegation to these meetings, the United States has never ratified the treaty; President Bill Clinton signed it in 1993, but the Republican Senate failed to ratify it for various reasons, including unfounded fears that the treaty threatened American patent and intellectual property rights.
It is hard to believe that the Trump administration and the current Senate will be any more enthusiastic about preserving biodiversity than the Senate was then. This is an administration, after all, that has proposed to shrink national monuments and reduce protections for the imperiled sage grouse in order to accommodate the oil, gas and coal industries; that is moving to open up the species-rich coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling; that plans to make available now-protected waters along America’s Pacific and Atlantic coasts for the same purpose; that proposes to sacrifice parts of Alaska’s Tongass National Forest to logging; that, most tellingly, aims to weaken the Endangered Species Act, approved in 1973 with Richard Nixon’s signature in what seems a distant era when there was fairly deep bipartisan support for environmental values.
Few of the Democratic presidential hopefuls who have spoken about climate change and jumped with varying degrees of enthusiasm on the Green New Deal bandwagon have commented on the biodiversity report, despite biodiversity’s obvious connections to climate. They should read it, and make it part of their post-2020 agenda.

Links

• Humans Are Speeding Extinction and Altering the Natural World at an ‘Unprecedented’ Pace
• Bengal Tigers May Not Survive Climate Change
• Fixing Australia’s Extinction Crisis Means Thinking Bigger Than Individual Species
• The Guardian View On Extinction: Time To Rebel
• Biodiversity Crisis Is About To Put Humanity At Risk, UN Scientists To Warn
• 'Imminent risk': Climate crisis facing Australian rainforests likened to coral bleaching
• 'Our Little Brown Rat': First Climate Change-Caused Mammal Extinction
• The Biggest Issues For Wildlife And Endangered Species In 2019
• Worst Mass Extinction Event In Earth’s History Was Caused By Global Warming Analogous To Current Climate Crisis
• Climate Change Also Wiped Out Life On Earth 252 Million Years Ago