Reasons There Might Be No Path To Success On Climate Change

Forbes - Chunka Mui

"Grasp the larger hope" -- Winston Churchill. Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images

I want to scream “You’re not helping!” every time I read a story like this one, which recently ran in USA Today: “End of civilization: climate change apocalypse could start by 2050 if we don't act, report warns.”
I certainly worry about what might befall us and our children by 2030, 2050 and 2100—three often cited milestones (such as here, here and here). But, I want to scream because I fear that such warnings about far-in-the-future calamities make it much less likely that what we do anything today to mitigate or adapt to the challenges we face.
That’s because, ironically, while such climate scenarios are intended to mobilize public opinion towards urgent action, they likely hurt that very cause.

Daniel Kahneman receives the Nobel Prize in Economics. (JONAS EKSTROMER/AFP/Getty Images)

To understand why, consider the pessimism of Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Prize winning behavioral scientist: “I really see no path to success on climate change,” he told George Marshall in Marshall’s bracing book, “Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains are Wired to Ignore Climate Change.”
Kahneman fears that climate change is a hopeless problem for three reasons:
First, it lacks salience. It is too “abstract, distant, invisible and disputed” to capture our attention. Without attention, there is no action
Second, dealing with climate change is typically thought to require people to accept short-term costs and reductions on living standard in order to address higher but uncertain future losses. Such sacrifice is not in our nature. One University of Chicago poll found that while 72% of respondents believed that climate change is happening, half were unwilling pay even $1 each month to help address it.
Third, climate change seems uncertain and contested—“even if there is a National Academy on one side and some cranks on the other.”
By focusing our minds on what might happen 10, 30 or even 80 years from now, far-off doomsday scenarios reinforce the abstract and distant nature of climate change. They widen the window of scientific uncertainty both the outcome and costs, and therefore enhance the opportunity for rebuttal and confusion.
“The bottom line,” Kahneman concluded, “is that I’m extremely skeptical that we can cope with climate change. To mobilize people, this has to become an emotional issue. It has to have immediacy and salience. A distant, abstract and disputed threat just doesn’t have the necessary characteristics for seriously mobilizing public opinion.”
Kahneman’s pessimism is unfortunately well supported by other researchers—and applies not just to climate change but to the broader challenge of why we, individually and as a society, underprepare for slow moving, predictable disasters. As solidly laid out by Robert Meyer and Howard Krunreuther in “The Ostrich Paradox: Why We Underprepare for Disasters”:
“Our ability to foresee and protect against natural catastrophes has never been greater; yet, we consistently fail to heed the warnings and protect ourselves and our communities, with devastating consequences.”
So, are we doomed? Perhaps. But, remember the observation of Arthur C. Clarke, in what has become known as Clarke’s First Law:
“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”
Let’s hope that the distinguished Daniel Kahneman is “probably wrong.” Also, take a lesson from Winston Churchill on the gathering storm of World War II: “Having got ourselves into this awful plight in 1939, it was vital to grasp the larger hope.”

Links

• Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You
• Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change
• Indisputable Facts On Climate Change
• The Ostrich Paradox: Why We Underprepare for Disasters
• Guess Who's Most Effective At Combating Global Warming
• Most Americans want government to combat climate change, poll finds
• Climate Change Or Global Warming? Three Reasons Not To Be Distracted By The Name Game

Climate Change Threatens Oceans, Ice Sheets, Sea Level - And Us

Forbes - Mike Scott

A scientist carrying out tests on a glacier in Greenland. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images) Getty Images

Sea levels are rising even faster than scientists had predicted and by the end of the century, the oceans could be more than a metre higher than today if global CO2 emissions are not controlled, a new expert analysis has concluded.

Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body comprising the world’s leading climate scientists, published a report on how climate change will affect land. It highlighted how climate change is affecting the production of food, at the same time as agriculture and deforestation are also major contributors to climate change.
Food production will be affected by problems ranging from desertification and more frequent and severe droughts to floods, landslides and heatwaves, it said.
Now the IPCC has produced a follow-up looking at the impact on the oceans and the cryosphere – the bits of the earth that are covered in ice. This report is no more cheerful than the last one.
It says that our oceans, ice sheets and glaciers are absorbing the bulk of rising temperatures and that the impacts are already evident, from the top of the highest mountain to the bottom of the oceans – and they are affecting everyone. Climate change makes the oceans warmer and more acidic, while reducing the oxygen content, with knock-on effects for everything that lives in it.
Warming temperatures are already shrinking Arctic sea ice and the loss of ice from Greenland and the Antarctic is contributing seven times as much to sea level rise as it was just 20 years ago. As a result, sea levels are rising at unprecedented rates and the world could see a 2-metre rise in sea levels by the end of the century in the most extreme scenario.
Melting permafrost in the Arctic and Siberia could release huge amounts of locked-up CO2 and methane, further exacerbating the warming of the planet.
Meanwhile, glaciers could shrink by 20% this century, with some regions such as Central Europe seeing a reduction of more than 80% and Arctic permafrost faces widespread disappearance. It sounds like a geography lesson. But all of this adds up to serious impacts for all of us. The glaciers in the Himalayas provide water for almost 2 billion people and a third of it is predicted to have melted by the time today’s children are adults.
“The open sea, the Arctic, the Antarctic and the high mountains may seem far away to many people,” said IPCC chair Hoesung Lee. “But we depend on them and are influenced by them directly and indirectly in many ways - for weather and climate, for food and water, for energy, trade, transport, recreation and tourism, for health and wellbeing, for culture and identity.”
Some island nations will become uninhabitable by the end of the century – the highest point in the Maldives, for example, is about eight feet above sea level, and the average height above sea level is about four feet. It’s not just islands that are at risk. More than a quarter of the world’s population live within 100km of the coast, and less than 100 metres above sea level, including 17 cities with populations of five million or more. Examples of how this will affect people include the Mekong Delta in South East Asia, where more ferocious storms and higher sea levels will make the water more saline and have a potentially devastating effect on harvests and food prices.
Residents of coastal cities and towns could see what were previously once-in-a-century events, such as massive floods, storm surges and extreme rainfall, becoming annual occurrences by 2050. As well as causing severe damage to property and local economies, these events could lead to a wave of climate change-induced migration, increasing already febrile social tensions.
The fish stocks that we depend on for our food are going to fall by up to a quarter due to the oceans becoming warmer and more acidic, with marine mammals also suffering a 15% decline and “almost all coral reefs” set to degrade.
And if you live in the mountains, home to a tenth of the world’s population, there will be more landslides as glaciers recede, and less water, which will hit everything from food production to hydro-electric power production and tourism.
“The findings of this report are a wake-up call for everyone – not just for those who live near the ocean,” said filmmaker and executive director of the Oceanic Preservation Society Louie Psihoyos. “Our entire global society is reliant on the ocean and ice systems that regulate our planet. We can no longer afford business as usual, and it is going to require the participation of each of us. These signals are too strong for us to ignore any longer – now is the time for bold, urgent climate action to avoid even more catastrophic impacts.”
However, there is some hope in the report. We can limit many of the effects on the oceans if we act now. “If we reduce emissions sharply, consequences for people and their livelihoods will still be challenging, but potentially more manageable for those who are most vulnerable,” says Lee. “We increase our ability to build resilience and there will be more benefits for sustainable development.”
The report points out the benefits of ambitious and effective adaptation for sustainable development and, conversely, the escalating costs and risks of delayed action. “Various adaptation approaches are already being implemented, often in response to flooding events, and the report highlights the diversity of options available for each context to develop integrated responses anticipating the full scale of future sea level rise,” said Valérie Masson-Delmotte, one of the authors.
Strongly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and carefully managing the use of natural resources would make it possible to preserve the ocean and cryosphere as a source of opportunities that support adaptation to future changes, limit risks to livelihoods and offer multiple additional societal benefits, the report adds, but it is not going to be easy.
“We will only be able to keep global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels if we effect unprecedented transitions in all aspects of society, including energy, land and ecosystems, urban and infrastructure as well as industry. The ambitious climate policies and emissions reductions required to deliver the Paris Agreement will also protect the ocean and cryosphere – and ultimately sustain all life on Earth,” said Debra Roberts, another co-author.
“The more decisively and the earlier we act, the more able we will be to address unavoidable changes, manage risks, improve our lives and achieve sustainability for ecosystems and people around the world – today and in the future,” Roberts said.

Links

• Hotter Oceans, Wilder Weather, Less Ice: The IPCC Upgrades Projections To Catastrophic
• Extreme Sea Level Events ‘Will Hit Once A Year By 2050’
• Climate Crisis: Rising Sea Levels And Catastrophic Storm Surges Could Displace 280m People, UN Warns
• Climate Change Evacuation Planning Needs To Start Now, Urges Scientists
• Climate Change May Change The Way Ocean Waves Impact 50% Of The World’s Coastlines
• How Rising Sea Levels Erase Culture
• When Climate Change Interferes With Ability 'To Listen To The Earth'
• Glacial Melting In Antarctica May Become Irreversible
• Rising Sea, Erosion To Wreak Havoc In Low-Lying Suburbs: Report

Drought Plan Must Factor In Climate Change

Sydney Morning Herald - Editorial

There is a case for drought relief but it must encourage farmers to adapt to the changing climate.

August root-zone soil moisture data
Source: BoM

As country towns across the inland run out of drinking water, the federal government has started to show its concern for farmers affected by the drought.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison went to Dalby in Queensland last week to announce a $100 million drought package and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has taken time off his day job for a three-day tour of NSW and Queensland.
On one hand, country people will be comforted that the government is paying attention to their plight. On the other, they will ask whether another parade of politicians putting on moleskins and fronting a press pack in the dust will make any difference.
Everyone says the government needs to do something but for now the government’s basic approach is to dribble out more money and hope that it rains.
That is probably all that can be done in a crisis.
But it is not the whole answer. It ignores the crucial issue of what to do if the scientists are right and droughts are becoming longer and more frequent.
This question should not be conflated with the equally important issue of whether Australia should have a stronger climate change policy.
Deeper cuts in Australia’s carbon emissions are needed to help slow the rise in global temperatures but it will not solve the farmers’ problems overnight. Scientists say droughts will get worse for decades.
The Herald backs drought assistance to help farmers cope but it should be fair and efficient and it should be designed to encourage farmers to adjust to the new climate conditions.
In fact, the Productivity Commission says a lot of money is already being spent. Sheep, cattle and grain farmers in 2017-18 received about $1.3 billion in state and federal government subsidies. Those farmers now receive 5.8 per cent of their income as subsidies from the government, compared with just 3.7 per cent five years ago, a higher rate of subsidy than any industry sector.
Farmers also receive lots of other indirect help such as state subsidies on freight for fodder as well as generous household payments worth up to $37,000 per couple, far more than age pensioners or single parents.
Yet many people who receive drought relief are not poor. The latest drought package has allowed people with assets up to $5 million to apply.
Mr Morrison says this is not welfare but it is still taxpayers’ money and it should be spent prudently.
Sometimes it seems it is not. The government was left red-faced this week when it emerged that Moyne Shire in western Victoria that got $1 million under Mr Morrison’s announcement was not actually affected by the drought. Equally, it appears that former “drought envoy” Barnaby Joyce was was not required to produce a report to justify his salary and expenses.
Many economists are concerned more deeply that the cash will distort farmers' decisions about how to react to the changing climate. For instance, some drought assistance compensates farmers who decided not to manage their risk by selling stock at a better price early in the drought.
Farmers groups sometimes call for more dams as a panacea. But it is often hard to produce a long-term business case for them. Fans of dams also often ignore the risk that they will reduce water flows to surrounding farms and the environment.
Unfortunately, even with the best government plan, climate change will reshape Australia’s rural society.
Some farmers will adjust their methods and succeed. Some will decide to sell up their farms to big businesses and do something else. Governments should help those in need but rural Australia must accept that the times are changing.

Links

• Andrews hands out $31.5m, admits 'drought packages don't make it rain'
• More Than Climate Change Driving Queensland Fires, Explain Climatologists
• ‘Dead Things Everywhere’: Is Australia Facing The Summer From Hell?
• Farmers Call For National Strategy On Climate Change And Agriculture
• Extreme Weather Caused By Climate Change Has Damaged 45% Of Australia’s Coastal Habitat
• Drought Now Officially Our Worst On Record
• Australian Federation Drought, Painting Grim Future For Australia’s Biodiversity Under Climate Change
• A New Team Is Working To Predict The Danger Zones Of Australia's Deadliest Heatwaves
• 'Drier Than Millennium Drought': Satellite Shows Toll Of Big Dry
• NSW Towns Including Dubbo And Tamworth Face Water Emergency Within Months

The ACT Is Set To Run On 100 Per Cent Net Renewable Energy. What Does That Mean?

Sydney Morning Herald - Nick Bonyhady

The Australian Capital Territory has accomplished an Australian first. Is it now covered in wind farms and solar panels? And are other states following?

ACT Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability Shane Rattenbury at Crookwell 2 wind farm. Credit: Sitthixay Ditthavong

It's the first Australian jurisdiction to legalise medicinal cannabis, the first to enshrine animals rights such as freedom of movement in law and now, as of October, it is set to be the first major place outside Europe to transition to 100 per cent net renewable energy.
Spring has been busy in the Australian Capital Territory.

What about that 100 per cent renewables gong? It's an impressive statement at a time when there is still widespread debate about how Australia should tackle climate change and federal energy policy has produced an impasse that helped see off Malcolm Turnbull twice as Liberal leader.

But if it conjures an image of the national capital overrun with solar panels and a windmill in every back yard, the reality is very different and much more complex.
So what does "100 per cent net renewables" mean? Will it help fight climate change? And will be all soon be following suit?

What does "100 per cent net renewable energy" mean?
Let's break it down. The renewable energy part is fairly simple: it refers to energy that is naturally replenished and does not run out. The 100 per cent means that there is enough of it to meet Canberra's energy needs. It's the net where things get complicated.
If it was a gross target that Canberra had met, it would indeed be running entirely on energy from wind and solar farms. That would require better transmission lines to the ACT, more local generation and huge batteries to make up for varying power output from renewable sources.

By contrast, a net target means the ACT has bought an amount of renewable energy equal to what it needs from suppliers around the country but, because the ACT is connected to the national grid, the energy it actually uses comes from power stations all over the country.

Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor, a critic of the ACT's scheme, says "93.6 per cent of the ACT’s electricity comes from the NSW grid, which continues to be dependent on coal and gas". According to the Department of the Environment and Energy, "coal and gas account for about 85 per cent of electricity generation" nationally.
But while the ACT is still powered mostly by coal and gas, the renewable energy it has bought is being used in place of coal and gas by consumers in other parts of the country. In short, the ACT and its suppliers are putting the same amount of renewable energy into the national grid as the total amount of energy used in the ACT by homes and businesses.
Shane Rattenbury, the ACT's minister for climate change, likens what the ACT is doing to depositing money in a bank and withdrawing it from an ATM. "You don't receive the same note you deposited but you still have $100," Mr Rattenbury says.

Where does all that renewable power come from?
The ACT is known for its national cultural institutions, a man-made lake and good odds of sighting a prominent politician at the local IGA but not for generating power. While there are some small solar farms on the outskirts of Canberra, most of the ACT's renewable power is generated outside the territory.

There are three ways the ACT has secured renewable power:

• About 77 per cent comes from large-scale contracts the ACT has signed directly with renewable, primarily wind, producers in Victoria, NSW and South Australia.
• Another 21 per cent is what the ACT has bought from renewable energy producers operating within the National Energy Target, a Commonwealth scheme to encourage the production of more renewable energy.
• Households in the ACT with rooftop solar contribute the remaining 2 per cent.

Source: ACT Government

Does it matter?

Electricity accounts for more of Australia's emissions than any other source, at about a third of the country's total, figures from the federal Department of the Environment and Energy show. However, only about 0.2 per cent of national emissions from all sources come from the ACT.
That suggests the ACT's accomplishment will have a minimal impact on national greenhouse gas emissions alone.

But it is part of a broader story. Hugh Saddler, an honorary associate professor at the ANU who also works in the renewable sector, says having guaranteed government demand lets renewable developers access cheap financing to build more wind and solar farms.

And he says that, with the federal large-scale renewable energy target for 2020 nearing fulfilment, government investment is becoming more important for the sector.

How big a step is this?
The ACT is not the first state or country to go 100 per cent net renewable. A report by the Australia Institute, a progressive think tank, notes that regions in Spain, Austria and Germany have done the same. The rural German district of Rhein-Hunsrück was the first of the current wave, in 2012.
Several other countries are also already reliant on renewable power, including Ethiopia, which uses hydro power, as does Iceland in conjunction with geothermal power generation. But Dan Cass, who wrote the Australia Institute report, says those countries' transitions "predate climate challenges and recent renewable development".
The ACT's transition to renewable energy, Mr Rattenbury says, shows how cities, regions and countries "can roll out renewables in a cost-effective way … getting the best deal for consumers".

Iceland has been running on renewables for years – its water comes out of the ground piping hot. Credit: Alamy

What difference does it make to Canberrans' hip pockets?
The ACT government initially estimated that achieving its renewable energy target would cost households at most $5.50 per week next year before later declining.
But the actual cost might be different because the ACT buys most of its renewable power at fixed prices. When the actual power it uses from the grid is cheaper than the fixed price, it pays the renewable provider the difference. When the grid power is more expensive – on a hot summer day, for example – the renewable provider compensates the ACT.
Associate Professor Bruce Mountain, director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre, says he would be unsurprised if customers in the ACT were currently paying substantially less than $5.50 because market power prices are so high.

Hornsdale wind farm in South Australia.

How did the ACT reach its target?

The ACT legislated a 100 per cent renewable target in 2016, with the goal of hitting it by 2020. It then conducted a series of reverse auctions for renewable power. In a reverse auction, the cheapest bid (in addition to other criteria) rather than the most expensive, wins.

The last of the renewable energy supplies contracted under that process, at the Hornsdale wind farm in South Australia, commences in October, meaning the ACT will achieve its goal as planned.

Are other states following the ACT's lead?
There was wide variation in how much renewable energy each state generated last year, according to a report by the Clean Energy Council, a renewable energy industry body.
Tasmania produced the most renewable energy as a share of production and raw amount but NSW generated the second-highest raw amount, despite being lower in percentage terms. Associate Professor Mountain says, "Of the new wind and solar clean energy sources, in absolute amounts, Queensland, NSW and Victoria will be neck and neck by 2022."


But generation is different to consumption, which is where the ACT claims its 100 per cent net renewable crown. On consumption, the states all have different targets.  

• A Tasmanian government spokeswoman says the state, which has plentiful wind and hydro power, was "on target to deliver full self-sufficiency in renewables by 2022".
• Queensland has a 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030.
• Victoria has a 40 per cent target by 2025 but is exploring how to match Queensland's. It has used reverse auctions similar to those pioneered in Australia by the ACT.
• A South Australian government spokeswoman says the state intends to be 100 per cent net renewable by "early in the 2030s".

• New South Wales does not have a renewable energy target but supports the Commonwealth's target and a net zero emissions target across its economy by 2050.
• Western Australia also has no renewable energy target but Energy Minister Bill Johnston says the state's "aspiration is net zero emissions by 2050".

Spokespeople for the states say their respective governments are investing in a range of renewable energy and infrastructure projects.
Net zero emissions take into account all emissions, rather than only those caused by generating power, but states with general zero emissions targets will still need to increase their use of renewable power to meet their targets.

Where is the ACT going from here?
Going renewable isn't an end in itself. The goal is to reduce emissions overall and the ACT also has a zero emissions target, set for 2045.
As the ACT has little agriculture, natural resource refinement or manufacturing, it is trying to reduce emissions from another source: natural gas.
The government's plan to phase out natural gas use has proved controversial, as it will require switching everything from buses to household heaters and stove tops to electricity.
At the same time, the ACT's population, and therefore power usage, is growing, so the government has announced another round of reverse auctions to buy more renewable power.

How will this affect the grid?
With blackouts in South Australia and some renewable providers struggling to find space on transmission lines to get their power to consumers, it is no secret the Australian electricity grid is struggling.
Associate Professor Mountain says the grid was built for a period in which "each state has historically had its fossil-fuel coal basins and most transmission capacity has been from there."
With renewable energy spread out around the country, "we need to build infrastructure for generation that is not where it has historically been," he says.
If all states were to follow the ACT without improving power infrastructure, the grid would be unable to cope. The ACT's Shane Rattenbury says he is aware of the risk.
"We need to build a grid that can cope with the energy of the future not the energy of the past."

Links

• Wind And Solar Set New Generation Records Across Australia Grid In July
• Clean Energy Set To Provide 35% Of Australia's Electricity Within Two Years
• Call To Arms: How Can Australia Avoid A Slow And Painful Decline?
• CSIRO, NAB Chair Say Shift To 100% Renewables Inevitable, And Likely By 2050
• Australia To Achieve 50% Renewables By 2030 Without Government Intervention, Analysis Finds
• War On Wind And Renewable Energy Must End
• Australia Can Be Powered 100% By Renewables By Early 2030s, Says Garnaut
• Jump In Renewable Energy Jobs As Solar Farms Overtake Hydro Power
• 2018 Was Boom Year For Renewables Despite Political Chaos, Report Finds
• Australia Has Enough Solar, Wind Storage In Pipeline To Go 100% Renewables

Communicating Climate Change, For A Change

Pro Bono News - Gabrielle Chamberland

Gabrielle Chamberland from Ellis Jones shares eight ways to talk about climate change that can help you stay motivated and prompt others into action. 

While almost two-thirds of Australians believe climate change is a “critical threat”, we are still far from delivering the change we need to avoid a climate catastrophe. Why is probably a more difficult question to answer than how. How can we stay motivated, and keep others engaged and motivated to act as well?
Scaring people about climate change has not necessarily led to action. Social psychology and behaviour change theory point to some better techniques which can benefit campaigns, communications and community engagement to promote individual and collective action.
Underpinned by some recent work developed by the Australian Psychological Society, here are eight ways to talk about climate change, in ways more people are likely to listen to.

Inspire positive visions
Messages of hope are more likely to drive action than messages of distress, as we tend to ignore negative communications to avoid feeling low. When talking about climate change, make sure to incorporate positive narratives, such as the opportunity to live in a healthier environment, to have meaningful careers, and to better connect with community if we change.

Build bridges between climate change values and your audience’s values
Values such as “caring for others”, “empathy”, “cooperation”, and “innovation”, are linked to climate change values. When we are shown that our values will express themselves if we adopt sustainable behaviours, we are more likely to adopt this behaviour. For example, ask your audience to care and show empathy for wildlife, climate refugees and their kids (if they have demonstrated values of “caring for others”, “empathy”). Ask them to cooperate with others by participating in the sharing economy (“cooperation”), or to innovate by entering the next engineering competition benefiting marine life (“innovation”). Know their values and how to talk about them.

Create and use social norms
We all want to feel accepted by the groups we belong to or aspire to belong to. This means we are likely to adopt the behaviours our social groups value, to fit in. You can drive behaviour change by communicating a pro-environmental behaviour as something that people like your audience, or that your audience aspires to be, are already doing. Talk about the doings of local leaders and respected public figures, build partnerships with the social groups your audience follows and encourage them to share their pro-environmental behaviours or ask your audience to talk about theirs on social media.

Make action easy and local
Since we tend to be time-poor these days, we need behaviour change to be as easy as possible for us to do it. So, break it down for your audience and give them the tools to make a valuable change easily. Our feelings of responsibility for the environment are also greatest at the neighbourhood level. Whenever possible, talk about how a change in behaviour will drive positive change in someone’s own community or neighbourhood.

Give feedback
We’re more likely to keep going if we feel proud and energised. Provide regular positive feedback to your audience and communicate the change they’ve generated. Tell them how they can improve their behaviour given results to date and show them how they’re doing in comparison to others tackling the same behaviour change challenge.

Acknowledge feelings
When we feel distressed about climate change, we may choose not to engage with climate change communications to avoid feeling low. To relieve these feelings, be honest with your audience and tell them you’re feeling the same. It’s okay to share sad news, express frustration, and rejoice in triumph. This can help people feel connected to your cause and to you. They will be more likely to acknowledge their feelings and take positive steps to tackle climate change.

Bring people outdoors
Most of us now live in cities, which means we are more likely to feel disconnected from nature than we used to. However, a strong relationship with nature tends to give rise to environmentally responsible behaviour. So, encourage your audience to get outdoors and experience nature. You can organise outdoor events for your cause, and make your audience feel more connected to nature.

The time to act is now: use it
For a long time, we’ve tended to push back acting on climate change because the threat felt too distant. But these days, we’re definitely starting to feel the effects of climate change. We feel the hotter days, hear about bushfires, have seen corals disappear. While this is all sad news, crisis motivates people to act. So, speak up about what’s happening locally, now, and let your audience know how to act.

Final thoughts
Our climate change buddy has been around for a long time, along with deeply anchored psychological responses to climate change communications and strong barriers to change. This is why we need targeted communications strategies to generate behaviour change.
Know who you’re talking to, and choose words, facts, stories, and visuals carefully to drive change. Together, let’s not breakdown the climate, let’s breakdown behaviours.

Links

• How To Talk Effectively About Climate Change
• Want To Do Something About Global Warming? Talk About It With Your Family And Friends
• The Counter-Intuitive Solution To Getting People To Care About Climate Change
• Climate Change Is Scaring Kids. Here’s How To Talk To Them.
• It’s Time To Change The Climate Disaster Script. People Need Hope That Things Can Change
• Not Everyone Cares About Climate Change, But Reproach Won’t Change Their Minds
• Changing Minds: How Do You Communicate With Climate Change Skeptics?
• Language Matters When The Earth Is In The Midst Of A Climate Crisis
• Can Comedy Help Communicate Climate Change?

Climate Explained: What Each Of Us Can Do To Reduce Our Carbon Footprint

The Conversation - Nick Golledge

As an individual, what is the single, most important thing I can do in the face of climate change?

Eating less meat is one change many of us can make to reduce our contribution to climate change.
www.shutterstock.com, CC BY-ND

---

Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz

---

The most important individual climate action will depend on each person’s particular circumstances, but each of us can make some changes to reduce our own carbon footprint and to support others to do the same.
Generally, there are four lifestyle choices that can make a major difference: eat less or no meat, forego air travel, go electric or ditch your car, and have fewer children.
In New Zealand, half of our greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. This is more than all transport, power generation and manufacturing industries combined. Clearly the single biggest change an individual can make is therefore to reduce meat and dairy consumption. A shift from animal to plant-sourced protein would give us a 37% better chance of keeping temperature rise under 2℃ and an almost 50% better chance of staying below 1.5℃ - the targets of the Paris agreement.
Best of all, this can be done right now, at whatever level you can manage, and there are many people taking this step.
One aspect that is often overlooked is that carnivorous pets (mainly dogs, cats) consume lots of meat, with all the associated impacts described above. A recent US study concluded that dog and cat ownership is responsible for nearly one third of the environmental impacts associated with animal production (land use, water, fossil fuels). So ideally, if you’re getting a new pet, go for something herbivorous.

Buy locally, eat seasonally
Buy local produce, whether it’s food grown locally or goods manufactured locally rather than imported from overseas. Goods that are transported around the world by sea account for 3.3% of global carbon dioxide emissions and 33% of all trade-related emissions from fossil fuel combustion, so reducing our dependence on imports makes a big difference to our overall carbon footprint.
Car use is a problem, because we all enjoy the personal mobility cars provide. But it comes with an excessively high carbon cost. Using public transport where possible is of course preferable, but for some the lack of personal freedom is a big disadvantage, as well as the sometimes less than perfect transit networks that exist in many parts of the country.
One alternative for many people looking to commute short distances might be an e-bike, but think of it as an alternative to your car rather than a replacement for your bike. For those looking to replace their car, buying a hybrid or full electric model would be the best thing from an emissions perspective, even if the production of the cars themselves isn’t entirely without environmental problems.
New Zealand’s network of electric vehicle (EV) chargers is growing rapidly, but generally speaking it is easiest to charge at home if you’re doing daily commutes. This becomes economical if you have an electricity supplier offering a special low rate for EV charging.
On the subject of electricity, an easy and quick way to reduce your carbon footprint is to switch to a supplier that generates electricity only from renewable sources. In New Zealand, we have an abundance of renewable options, from solar, wind and hydro.

Plant trees
Planting trees requires having some space, but if you have land available, planting trees is a great way to invest in longer-term carbon sequestration. There is a lot of variability between species, but as a rule of thumb, a tree that lives to 40 or 50 years will have taken up about a ton of carbon dioxide.
Air travel is, for many of us, an essential part of our work. There is some progress in the field of aviation emissions reductions, but it is still a long way off. In the short term we have to find alternatives, whether that is in the form of teleconferencing or, if travel is essential, carbon offsetting schemes (although this is far from a perfect solution unfortunately).
Vote for climate-aware politicians and council representatives. These are the people who have the power to implement changes beyond the scope of individual actions. Make your voice heard through voting, and by contributing to discussion and consultation processes.
Community initiatives such as tree planting or shared gardens, or just maintaining wild spaces are ideal for carbon sequestration. This isn’t just because of the plants these spaces accommodate, but also because of the soil. Globally, soil holds two to three times more carbon than the atmosphere, but the ability of soil to retain this depends on it being managed well. Generally speaking, the longer and more densely planted an area of soil is, the better it will sequester carbon.

How to cope
One of the frustrations is the realisation that climate change is not something that can be left to politicians to deal with on our behalf. The urgency is simply too great. The responsibility has been implicitly devolved to the individual, without any prior consent.
But individual actions are massively important in two ways. First, they have an immediate impact on our total carbon footprint, without any of the inertia of political machinations. Secondly, by adopting and advocating for low-carbon life choices, individuals are sending a clear message to political leaders that a growing proportion of the voting population will favour policies that are aligned with similar priorities.
It is of course hard to stand your ground and stick with new lifestyle choices when you feel surrounded by people who choose not to change, or worse, actively mock and criticise. This is normal human psychology. People subconsciously tend to feel attacked if they see someone else making a so-called ethical or moral choice, as if they themselves are being judged, or criticised.
In the context of climate change, the science is so overwhelmingly clear, and the current and future impacts so manifestly important, that not to acknowledge this in a meaningful manner either reflects a lack of understanding or awareness, or is simply selfish. Rather than taking issue with those members of society, a more positive approach that can help you cope with the feeling of marginalisation is to actively seek out like-minded people.

Links

• Including animal to plant protein shifts in climate change mitigation policy: a proposed three-step strategy
• Tree Facts
• Put more carbon in soils to meet Paris climate pledges
• Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats (pdf)
• Climate explained: why plants don't simply grow faster with more carbon dioxide in air
• The rise of 'eco-anxiety': climate change affects our mental health, too

Company Directors May Be Headed For Litigation Over Climate Change

CPA INTHEBLACK - John Purcell

The Commonwealth Climate Law Initiative is investigating how company directors may be drawn into climate change-related litigation.

Australian directors face the greatest potential liability from the impact of climate change on their businesses.

At a glance A significant challenge in reducing global carbon emissions is the fact that neither national laws nor international public law are designed to address problems that have global reach. Projects such as the CCLI demonstrate adaptations to national laws and innovations to international law, while encouraging company directors to take account of climate change risk. According to the CCLI’s project report, Australian directors face the greatest potential liability from the impact of climate change on their businesses.

The impact of climate change and marshalling global efforts towards emissions reduction present profound challenges. Neither national laws nor international public law are designed to comprehensively address problems that are interconnected and have global reach.
However, there are developments that illustrate adaptations in national laws, and novel innovations are being suggested in international law. These developments occur separately from international treaty arrangements under the United Nations Paris Agreement, where national governments commit to implementing domestic policies to reduce carbon emissions.
The Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) provides one of the most readily understandable summations of climate-related risks. There are two major categories: risks related to the physical impact of climate change, and risks related to a transition to a low-carbon economy.
Transition risk can occur from legal action brought by claimants seeking redress or wanting to force protective or remedial action. The TCFD says this could stem from “the failure of organisations to mitigate the impacts of climate change, failure to adapt to climate change, and insufficiency of disclosures around material financial risk”.
How realistic then is litigation risk to companies and their directors?
The Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative (CCLI), a research project focusing on Australia, Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom, examines the basis for directors and trustees to take account of physical climate change risk and societal responses to climate change. Each of these countries has common law legal systems where judicial decision plays a key role in interpreting statutes and in building legal rules based on an evolving body of precedent.

The CCLI's project report concludes that Australian directors face the greatest potential liability from the impact of climate change on their businesses.

The “adaptability” of corporate law, and in particular directors’ duties, within the common law tradition provides a sound and practical basis for linking climate-related financial risks with possible governance failures that spanning well-established legal expectations around identification, assessment, oversight and disclosure.
The CCLI’s project report concludes that Australian directors face the greatest potential liability from the impact of climate change on their businesses.
However, fundamental to each jurisdiction are two broad categories of directors’ duties, which the CCLI summarises as:

• Duties of trust and loyalty, including good faith, proper purposes and best interests (fiduciary).
• Duties of competence and attentiveness (due care and diligence).

Of the four countries, Australia is the most stringent in interpreting and applying these duties:

• The duty of care and diligence can be breached in circumstances of “mere” negligence.
• There is a particularly strong adherence to an objective standard of what a “reasonable director” would do.
• There is minimal scope to argue “business judgement rule” protection.

Proof of dishonesty, intention or bad faith is not required for breaches of trust and loyalty.
In these terms, managing climate-related risk falls squarely within well-understood legal expectations of active and inquiring engagement in guiding and managing the affairs of a company – matters that the CCLI says are self-evident given that Australia’s economy operates in high-risk sectors from both physical risk and transition risk perspectives.
Australia is also a well-established litigation funding market. It has a strong track record of class actions for misleading disclosures and an independent regulator willing to test the boundaries of directors’ duties and enforce existing well-understood duties relating to disclosure.
What of the more speculative realm of developments in international public law?
The International Criminal Court, which is created under Article 5 of the Rome Statute (another treaty to which Australia is a signatory), has specific and narrow jurisdiction limited to the most serious crimes recognised by the international community, including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Limited but strong lobbying is taking place to amend the Rome Statute to include an international crime of ecocide, defined as “the extensive loss or damage or destruction of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants ... has been or will be severely diminished”.
The CCLI cautions against overstating the practical likelihood of litigation, but also warns against dismissing the risk as remote or theoretical, particularly for those companies in high-risk sectors. Whether or not the advocates of ecocide succeed in their endeavours, the fact that the prospect is being canvassed adds to what should be self-evident to directors: the physical and economic transition risk realities associated with climate change.

Links

• CPA Australia Podcast: Climate-related risk disclosures. Listen now
• Financial Stability Board's Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures - linking economic and environmental policy
• Accounting for climate risk is now the auditor's business
• Reporting on climate change risk: accountants will be needed
• Company directors face questions on climate change risk
• Does ethical investment pay higher returns?
• Global food security: are we running out of time?