(US) Kelsey Juliana: 'What If Fashion Came To Represent A New Way Of Living?'

The Guardian - Jess Cartner-Morley

The climate activist who joined forces with a billionaire designer

Kelsey Juliana: ‘We need a new way of living and fashion can help us do that.’ Photograph: Robin Loznak/Robin Loznak/Our Children's Trust

Kelsey Juliana, a youth climate activist from Oregon, is joining forces with Gabriela Hearst, a fashion designer whose clothes are worn by Lady Gaga and the Duchess of Sussex, to ignite a trend they hope will become a global sensation.

Juliana, 23, is the lead plaintiff in a group lawsuit suing the US government for breaching the human rights of her generation by failing to take action to protect the environment.
The case, Juliana v United States – which goes by the unofficial name of Youth v Gov – aims to have the US supreme court order the government to dramatically change energy policy.
Hearst – who, with her husband, John Augustine Hearst, the scion of the magazine empire, has a net worth estimated at £1.5bn – is providing financial backing for the case.
As they prepare to speak in front of an audience of designers, supermodels, editors and luxury industry CEOs at the Business of Fashion Voices conference, Juliana and Hearst hope that their constitutional action to protect the rights of young people to a clean environment can snowball into the next decade’s most era-defining trend.

Kelsey Juliana (right), Gabriela Hearst designer (centre) and Kelsey’s fellow plaintiff, Levi Draheim (left) Photograph: max.tobias@camronpr.com

“Fashion sets the tone for society. Right now, we need to imagine a new way of living and fashion can help us do that,” says Juliana. “And fashion has young people driving it, just like climate action does.”
 Juliana, who filed her case aged 15, has taken part in many protest events, including marching 1,600 miles from Nebraska to Washington DC in 2016, but believes that lawsuits give those too young to vote a way to stand up for their right to a habitable planet.

“All movements – the women’s movement, the gay rights movement – have cemented themselves in law and in the culture with a constitutional change,” says Hearst of their choice of a legislative rather than protest-based challenge. “It’s important to solidify this by going through the traditional route.”
There are currently 1,390 lawsuits against governments and fossil fuel corporations in more than 25 countries, according to the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Last month, a group of 15 young Canadians filed La Rose v Her Majesty the Queen, alleging that the Canadian government’s energy policies have violated their rights to a stable climate. Juliana notes that “there are more cases coming up all over the world”.
Many climate activists would decline an invitation to speak at a fashion event, given that it represents one of the world’s most polluting industries and sits uncomfortably at the crossroads of still-growing consumerism and increasing awareness of the need for change, but Juliana is “excited to be here. All facets of our society currently operate in a way that is problematic – the way we eat, the way we travel, what we buy. I am totally guilty of buying fast fashion, because I don’t have the resources to buy luxury fashion. But I was in Amsterdam recently and it was inspiring to see how much secondhand clothes and taking care of clothes are part of the culture there. What if we saw fashion come to represent a new way of living?”

New York fashion week’s first carbon-neutral catwalk show, hosted by Hearst in September 2019 Photograph: PIXELFORMULA/SIPA/REX/Shutterstock

Fashion has always symbolised intergenerational strife and is, in that sense, a fitting stage for a crisis in which the Greta Thunberg generation are voicing increasing anger towards older people.
“I want to be on stage to showcase how young people are stepping up to the bat, and ask the professionals and heads of industries in the audience to stand with us,” says Juliana. “My future is at risk in a way that isn’t the case for old people. I won’t sugarcoat it – I feel disappointment, disgust and rage. But my primary emotion is love – a deep, deep love for life and for the planet.”
Hearst staged New York fashion week’s first carbon-neutral catwalk show in September, working with the consultancy EcoAct to calibrate and offset each element of the carbon footprint. However, shesays: “Sometimes, I think I should just stop producing products. Definitely, people should buy less.”
Britain, she says, is better placed to lead a change of lifestyle than the US, “because here you experienced world war two and so you understand frugality and resilience, which is the mentality we are going to need to access. In America, those challenges haven’t been seen since the civil war.”
Other speakers at the Voices conference, which begins on Thursday, include the Observer journalist Carole Cadwalladr, Clare Farrell of Extinction Rebellion and the photographer Juergen Teller.

Links

• Young Canadians Sue Government For Failing To Act On Climate Change
• Students Want International Court Of Justice To Rule On Climate Change
• Young Climate Activists ‘Most At Risk’ Of Being Spied On By AFP
• Kids Suing Governments About Climate: It's A Global Trend
• Kids Suing The US Over Climate Change Are Getting Global Support
• Climate Change Activists Worldwide Look To Courts As A Powerful New Ally

(AU) Some Hope Amongst The Climate Change Foolishness

Canberra Times - Mary McMillan*



Regular readers of my column will know I usually try to take a light-hearted approach in my writing - exploring current issues in science with, hopefully, a touch of humour.
But today, I am not feeling particularly light hearted. And there's nothing funny about the situation we are currently facing.
I live in an area that, like much of Australia, is being affected by bushfires. An area where people have lost their properties, their livelihoods and their lives.
And yet, daily, we see in newspapers, on social media and coming out of politicians' mouths, a denial of the science that says climate change is behind this.
So here's a brief lesson in climate science.
Human activities - burning fossil fuels, our transportation, agricultural practices and changes in land use - produce greenhouse gasses. They produce more greenhouse gas than can be taken up by carbon sinks - plants, soil and oceans. The excess gas released into the atmosphere creates an insulting blanket around the earth, trapping more solar radiation. The end result: the earth gets hotter.
We learn in primary school science classes that fire needs three things: it needs fuel, it needs a source of ignition, and it needs oxygen. Climate change is causing increased temperatures. Climate change is resulting in less rainfall. Combined these create more dry fuel, ready to burn. Add a source of ignition, whether the action of an individual person, or work of nature, and, well ... we all know the result.
Yes, bushfires have always been a threat in Australia. But the science tells us that, unless we do something, this threat is only going to increase.
But there is hope. Around the world we have smart people working on solutions that can help to stop the progression of climate change.
We have scientists and engineers developing more efficient alternative energy sources, which can reduce our reliance on burning coal and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
We have companies starting to provide new, more environmentally friendly transport options.
We have researchers developing materials and products that can be used to replace plastics and concrete, again reducing emissions.
We have scientists who can advise on ways we can change our land usage and management to capture more carbon.
Scientists have been warning us about what is going to happen, and why. Scientists are also providing solutions.
Now we just need our politicians, our decision-makers, to listen.

*Dr Mary McMillan is a lecturer at the School of Science and Technology, University of New England

Links

• (AU) Australia Could Fall Apart Under Climate Change. But There’s A Way To Avoid It
• (UK) Climate Change: Thousands Invited To Join Citizens' Assembly
• Earth's Rocks Can Absorb A Shocking Amount Of Carbon: Here’s How
• How Much Would It Cost To Stop Climate Change? It's A Staggering Amount
• You Can't Save The Climate By Going Vegan. Corporate Polluters Must Be Held Accountable.
• An Audacious Plan To Stop Climate Change: Remake The Entire Economy
• What Is Climate Change And What Can We Do About It?

(US) As Smoke From Bushfires Chokes Sydney, Australian Prime Minister Dodges On Climate Change

TIME - Rachael Bunyan

As hazardous smoke from raging bushfires blanket Sydney’s landmarks on Thursday, the Australian Prime Minister refused to admit a direct link between the fires and the country’s carbon emissions, which are among the highest per capita in the world.

Health officials have issued warnings over “hazardous” air pollution levels as Sydney’s Opera House was shrouded with smoke. The smoke around Sydney and the north-coast is set to settle and remain in the area for the rest of Thursday, fire officials said. Members of the public, especially those with respiratory health issues, are advised to avoid all outdoor physical activities.
Fires have devastated large areas of the country since Oct. 20. New South Wales has seen the most severe and dangerous fires, with six people killed and around 1.7 million hectares burned. Climate Change has played a key role in the bushfires, Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology has said. They said: “Climate change is influencing the frequency and severity of dangerous bushfire conditions in Australia and other regions of the world.”

A fire rages in Bobin, 350km north of Sydney on Nov. 9, as firefighters try to contain dozens of out-of-control blazes that are raging in the state of New South Wales. Peter Parks—AFP/Getty Images

However, amid the bushfire crisis, Scott Morrison, Australia’s Prime Minister has argued that there is no direct link between Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and the severity of the fires burning across the country.
He told ABC AU during a radio interview on Thursday that there was no “credible scientific evidence” that cutting carbon emissions could reduce the severity of the fires.

At first, Morrison acknowledged the contribution of climate change has had on the bushfires in Australia.
“These are things that are very well known to the government — the contribution of these issues to global weather conditions and to conditions here in Australia are known and acknowledged,” he said. “In February I acknowledged the contribution of those factors to what was happening in Australia — amongst many other issues.”
But, he then argued that the actions of Australia are not impacting the bushfires.
“The suggestion that in any way shape or form that Australia, accountable for 1.3% of the world’s emissions, that the individual actions of Australia are impacting directly on specific fire events, whether it’s here or anywhere else in the world, that doesn’t bear up to credible scientific evidence either.
“Climate change is a global phenomenon and we’re doing our bit as part of the response to climate change — we’re taking action on climate change,” he added. “But I think to suggest that at just 1.3% of global emissions, that Australia doing something more or less would change the fire outcome this season — I don’t think that stands up to any credible scientific evidence at all.”


Raging Bushfires Devastate Large Areas Of Australia

Australia only accounts for 1.3% of global emissions when calculating the carbon dioxide released within a country. According to research by science and policy institute Climate Analytics, Australia also produces another 3.6% in global emissions as a result of coal, oil and gas exports.
This latest research, published in July this year, argues that Australia is in fact responsible for nearly 5% of global emissions. In addition, Australia’s population is 0.3% of the global total, meaning this level of global emissions is highly disproportionate, argues Peter Thorne, a climate change expert at Maynooth University in Ireland. “[The 1.3% figure] doesn’t include exports either,” he said. “It ignores the fact that it makes Australia per capita one of the very worst offenders.”
Indeed, Climate Analytics argue that Australia remains one of the world’s highest per capita carbon dioxide emitters. On a per capita basis, they argue, Australia’s carbon footprint, including exports, surpasses China, the U.S. and India.
In February this year, Australia’s sparse drought-stricken lands featured on TIME’s cover. The conditions Australia experienced earlier this year count as the most severe in its modern history.
Scientists have long warned that increasingly hot and dry climates, the result of the climate crisis, will lead to a worsening of wildfires around the world. And we are seeing the effects in Australia with unprecedented early fires. The wildfires also aggravate climate change by destroying treats that could absorb carbon in the atmosphere.
“Climate change is a likely factor,” argues Thorne. “It’s changing the odds because it’s hotter and is drier on average in the summer in Australia.”
Thorne said that while it is difficult to attribute particular events exactly to climate change, “what is undoubtedly true is that we are changing and shifting the odds of the events occurring to be much more likely.”
“Historically, Australian emissions have had a demonstrable impact, along with the emissions of other countries.”

RFS Firefighters battle a spot fire on Nov. 13 in Hillville, Australia. Sam Mooy—Getty Images

The Bureau of Meteorology argue that in southern and eastern Australia, where the fires are currently spreading, they have observed more extreme conditions during the summer months, including an earlier start to the bushfire season.
“These trends towards more dangerous bushfire conditions are at least partly attributable to human-caused climate change, including through increased temperatures,” they added.
Morrison has faced criticism this month of avoiding the issue of climate change a group of former Australian fire chiefs. They said that the government “fundamentally doesn’t like talking about climate change” and that politics is getting in the way.
“Just a 1 C temperature rise has meant the extremes are far more extreme, and it is placing lives at risk, including firefighters,” Greg Mullins, the former chief of NSW Fire and Rescue, said on Nov. 14. “Climate change has supercharged the bushfire problem.”
Politicians and mayors residing over areas affected by the bushfires have also been critical of Morrison’s response to the climate emergency. For them, there is no doubt that the devastating bushfires area a result of climate change.
Carol Sparks, the Mayor of Glen Innes, where two people died in early November, argued that the government, including Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack, needed to refer to scientific evidence. “I think that Michael McCormack needs to read the science, and that is what I am going by, is the science,” she said.
“It is not a political thing — it is a scientific fact that we are going through climate change,” she added.
Chris Bowen, the Australian Labor Party’s health spokesperson accused the Australian government and international community of not acting quick enough on climate change.
“The world, and Australia, has failed to act with appropriate seriousness and haste, and so we will need specific policies to deal with the health impacts of climate change,” Bowen said at a lecture at Sydney University on Wednesday.
“The Australian government needs to be far more proactive in looking for climate solutions,” echoes Thorne. They could easily produce enough renewable energy from wind and solar, not just for themselves but for others.”
Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. Since Morrison’s government scrapped the national carbon price in 2014, total national emissions have increased each year, according to a report published by Australia’s environment department in August this year.
National emissions increased by 3.1m tonnes in the year up to March 2019 and are estimated to be 538.9m tonnes, according to the report. The 0.6% increase in emissions are largely due to the liquefied natural gas (LNG) export industry.


Air Pollution

Links

• (AU) Scott Morrison Says No Evidence Links Australia's Carbon Emissions To Bushfires
• What are the links between climate change and bushfires? – explainer
• Former Australian fire chiefs say Coalition ignored their advice because of climate change politics
• Australia's east coast threatened by blazes ahead of catastrophic danger day – as it happened
• Coalition grilled on regional jobs package – as it happened
• Stripped bare: Australia's hidden climate crisis
• Scott Morrison ducks questions on Australia's emissions strategy for 2050
• Evaluating the significance of Australia’s global fossil fuel carbon footprint (pdf)
• Regional mayors criticise politicians for failing to link climate change and deadly bushfires
• Terrified of Climate Change? You Might Have Eco-Anxiety
• One Whale Is Worth Thousands of Trees in Climate Fight, New Report Says
• How Climate Change Is Clobbering Kids' Health
• Flood-Ravaged Venice in a State of Emergency as Mayor Blames Climate Change for 'Dramatic Situation'

(AU) Scott Morrison Says No Evidence Links Australia's Carbon Emissions To Bushfires

The Guardian - Paul Karp

PM suggests Australia could increase emissions without worsening current fire season, and says government finalising plans to crack down on environmental protests

Former fire chiefs have accused Scott Morrison’s government of avoiding the issue of climate change. On Thursday the PM said there was no ‘credible scientific evidence’ that cutting Australia’s emissions could reduce the severity of bushfires. Photograph: Steven Saphore/AAP

Scott Morrison has argued there is no direct link between Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and the severity of fires ravaging the continent, even suggesting Australia could increase its emissions without making the current fire season worse.

Under pressure due to a record season of early bushfires and the accusation by a coalition of former fire chiefs that the government has avoided the issue of climate change, Morrison said on Thursday there was no “credible scientific evidence” that cutting Australia’s emissions could reduce the severity of bushfires.
On Thursday Morrison defended the government’s handling of the bushfire season, telling ABC’s AM it had put additional resources into emergency services and praising the “outstanding” response and coordination of state governments.

Morrison said he “took issue” with the suggestion by Greg Mullins, the former chief of NSW Fire and Rescue, and 23 other fire chiefs that the government was not adequately prepared.
Explaining why he didn’t meet Mullins, Morrison said the government already had the same advice about the impact of climate change from “existing fire chiefs doing the existing job”.

At first, Morrison appeared to accept that climate change was affecting the severity and frequency of bushfires.
“These are things that are very well known to the government – the contribution of these issues to global weather conditions and to conditions here in Australia are known and acknowledged,” he said.
“In February I acknowledged the contribution of those factors to what was happening in Australia – amongst many other issues.”
Morrison then said “the suggestion that any way shape or form that Australia, accountable for 1.3% of the world’s emissions, that the individual actions of Australia are impacting directly on specific fire events, whether it’s here or anywhere else in the world, that doesn’t bear up to credible scientific evidence either”.
“Climate change is a global phenomenon and we’re doing our bit as part of the response to climate change – we’re taking action on climate change,” he said.
“But I think to suggest that at just 1.3% of emissions, that Australia doing something more or less would change the fire outcome this season – I don’t think that stands up to any credible scientific evidence at all.”
The comments follow a controversy in September when the minister responsible for drought and natural disasters, David Littleproud, said he doesn’t “know if climate change is manmade”, before a total about-face.
The link between rising greenhouse gas emissions and increased bushfire risk is complex but, according to major science agencies, clear. Warmer weather increases the number of days each year on which there is high or extreme bushfire risk.
Australia’s response to climate change has been ranked one of the worst in the G20, with rising greenhouse gas emissions since the Abbott government abolished the carbon price in 2014.
Australia’s target of 26%-28% emissions reduction by 2030 will require it to cut emissions by 695m tonnes cumulatively across the next decade.
The Morrison government said more than half of that cut, 367m tonnes, would come from carryover credits from overperformance of earlier targets and not from practical emissions reduction.
The centrepiece of federal climate policy is the $2.55bn emissions reduction fund, now rebadged as the climate solutions fund, a reverse auction processes that pays landowners and businesses to cut pollution.
The most recent auction bought emissions cuts equivalent to only 0.01% of Australia’s annual greenhouse gas pollution after officials found just three projects worth backing.
The government has been quietly pursuing an overhaul of the emissions reduction fund, appointing a panel of four business leaders and policy experts to suggest options to expand it, and will consider the issue with the states at a meeting of energy ministers on Friday.
On Thursday Morrison refused to give further details of his proposed crackdown on environmental protests and secondary boycotts, saying the government would make announcements when it had “finalised those arrangements”.
The attorney general, Christian Porter, has suggested measures could include extending the prohibition on secondary boycotts to environmental campaigns, and a crackdown on environmental litigation and use of litigation funders for class actions against mining companies.
In a speech to the Business Council on Wednesday, Morrison flagged an overhaul of environmental approvals for major projects to reduce the length of time it takes for businesses to navigate environmental approvals.

Links

• Australia fires: Victoria issues code red bushfire warning amid thunderstorm asthma threat
• What are the links between climate change and bushfires? – explainer
• Former Australian fire chiefs say Coalition ignored their advice because of climate change politics
• Australia's east coast threatened by blazes ahead of catastrophic danger day – as it happened
• Coalition grilled on regional jobs package – as it happened
• Stripped bare: Australia's hidden climate crisis
• Scott Morrison ducks questions on Australia's emissions strategy for 2050
• Littleproud's confusion and PM's reluctance only reinforce Australia's climate reputation
• 'Like nothing we've seen': Queensland bushfires tear through rainforest

Global GDP Will Suffer At Least A 3% Hit By 2050 From Unchecked Climate Change, Say Economists

MarketWatch - Rachel Koning Beals

North America and Western Europe have more breathing room

2°C of warming expected by 2050 in a high-emissions scenario might shave between 2.5%-7.5% from global GDP, with the worst affected countries being in Africa and Asia: Oxford Economics. Getty Images

The global economy will be at least 3% smaller by 2050 owed solely to the effects of unchecked climate change, including severe weather and rising sea levels.
That’s a figure laid out in a framework from data experts at The Economist Intelligence Unit released Wednesday. Its findings track with select other climate-linked economic warnings sounded recently, including in the long view from central bankers.
Africa is the least resilient region to the impact of climate change and its economy will likely contract by at least 4.7% by 2050 based on environmental factors alone, while not taking into account other cyclical economic tendencies. Next comes Latin America (with an expected 3.8% hit), the Middle East (3.7%), Eastern Europe (3%) and Asia-Pacific (2.6%).
More-resilient North America’s economy is pegged to be 1.1% smaller because of climate change by 2050, while Western Europe should prepare for a climate-related contraction of 1.7%. Both regions are wealthier and more prepared to tackle climate change from an institutional standpoint than other parts of the globe, EIU said.
“The impacts of climate change are already being felt — we are already seeing the effects of more extreme weather events — but the economic impacts will only grow over time,” said John Ferguson, the group’s country analysis director. “It’s important to remember that a 3% loss of real GDP in 2050 is highly significant for the global economy, and that there will be economic losses in every year of the coming three decades.”
The EIU also admitted there’s uncertainty in forecasting the impacts of climate change. For example, the researchers have assumed that countries will make a modest effort to meet their goals as stated in their own contributions to the Paris Climate Agreement. However, the progress in this space and the implementation of these policies could easily disappoint, the EIU said. In fact, the economic impacts could be much worse than those highlighted in the model. President Donald Trump has started the process to pull the U.S. out of the Paris pact, mainly citing what he argues is noncompliance from China and other big emitters.
Oxford Economics offers a more alarming estimate, though one stretched over a longer time frame.
In the absence of efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth is currently on course to warm by around 4°C by 2100, these researchers emphasized. If so, this could strip 30% off the level of global GDP by that date, based on the top end of an estimate range.
More immediately, according to the Oxford Economics study, 2°C of warming expected by 2050 in a high-emissions scenario might shave between 2.5%-7.5% from global GDP, with the worst affected countries being in Africa and Asia.
“So, while over a 10-year horizon the costs seem unlikely to be significant enough to affect our forecasts, the window of indiscernibility looks to be closing rapidly,” the researchers said in a white paper available to its clients.
Many of the world’s top central banks want to move the global financial system away from a reliance on industries — including fossil-fuel giants Exxon XOM, +0.31%   and Chevron CVX, +0.76%   — that scientists largely have cited as posing increased risk for contributing to extreme changes in weather, large fires, rising sea levels and flooding.
The U.S. Fed has been the laggard among is central-bank peers in this regard. However, a rapidly changing climate may present just the kind of “shock” to the economic system that she and colleagues believe can no longer be ignored, Fed Gov. Lael Brainard said in prepared remarks to a recent first-of-its-kind Fed summit.
“There has been an increased willingness to engage on climate-change issues,” New York Fed President John Williams said in remarks earlier this month. “As the Fed, we are careful not to tell Congress what to do, but we can inform the debate.”
Bank of England Gov. Mark Carney said in an October speech in Tokyo that central banks will have to consider the physical risks of climate change when weighing monetary policy. That ranges from the impact on mortgages from flooding to severe weather’s toll on the pricing of government bonds.

Links

• Economist Intelligence Unit: Resilience to climate change?
• Economist Intelligence Unit: Australia
• Economies In Asia Pacific Forecast To Shrink By Over 2 Per Cent Due To Climate Change: Study
• How climate change is ‘creating a dilemma’ for the world’s central bankers
• Banks increasingly unload flooded-out mortgages at taxpayer expense
• (AU) Climate Change And The Economy Are Linked — It's Time The Morrison Government Accepts That
• A Globalised Solar-Powered Future Is Wholly Unrealistic – And Our Economy Is The Reason Why
• Scientists And Economists Are Warning The World's Governments That Climate Change Will Destroy Capitalism As We Know It
• Climate Change Could Cost The U.S. Up To 10.5 Percent Of Its GDP By 2100, Study Finds
• Green Growth Is Trusted To Fix Climate Change – Here’s The Problem With That
• Moody’s Analytics Says Climate Change Could Cost US$69 Trillion By 2100
• Norway's $US1 Trillion Sovereign Wealth Fund To Dump Billions In Coal Investments

Economies In Asia Pacific Forecast To Shrink By Over 2 Per Cent Due To Climate Change: Study

TODAY - Navene Elangovan

The economies of developing countries tend to depend on agriculture, which is vulnerable to climate change, a study found. Malay Mail Online

SINGAPORE — The Asia-Pacific economy will shrink by 2.6 per cent by 2050 due to its inability to withstand climate change, a study found.
This is slightly lower than the global average shrinkage of 3 per cent.
The study assessed 82 countries to determine their Climate Change Resilience Index, or how their economies will be affected based on their capacity to withstand climate change.
A summary of the findings were released on Wednesday (Nov 20) by research and analysis company The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), which is the research arm of newspaper The Economist.
Mr John Ferguson, the EIU’s country analysis director, told TODAY that climate change will have a limited impact on Singapore’s economy even though developing countries within Asia Pacific will be affected.
“High levels of income per head, a lack of dependence on agricultural commodity exports for growth, and the Government's strong ability and willingness to intervene to mitigate the impact of climate change will alleviate related risks for Singapore to a significant extent.”
However, he said that as a small island nation, Singapore will be vulnerable to increasing floods and weather-related disasters such as changes to climate patterns and rising sea levels.
“Some supply-chain risks also exist, particularly if Singapore's imported food supplies are affected by increasing climatic volatility,” he added.

How countries were assessed
The ability and willingness of countries to confront climate change were examined in line with eight indicators:

• The loss of land or physical capital due to extreme weather
• The impact on public services, basic needs and government spending
• The impact on agriculture
• Loss of labour productivity
• Tourism losses
• Trade losses
• Cost of adaptation to climate change
• Cost to mitigate climate change

Where the different regions stand
Among the seven regions assessed, researchers expect North America to suffer the least amount of real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) loss (of 1.1 per cent) by 2050.
Conversely, it found that the region which is least resilient to climate change is Africa (loss of 4.7 per cent).
The level of real GDP loss forecasted for all regions:

• North America – 1.1 per cent
• Western Europe – 1.7 per cent
• Asia Pacific – 2.6 per cent
• Eastern Europe – 3 per cent
• Middle East – 3.7 per cent
• Latin America – 3.8 per cent
• Africa – 4.7 per cent

North America and Western Europe took the top spots because both regions are richer and more prepared to tackle climate change. They are thus likely to see the least impact economically.
Africa took the bottom spot because it faces higher average temperatures and lower levels of economic development. Policymakers there will also face challenges meeting their objectives for policies related to climate change.

Why poorer countries would be hit hardest

Countries which are poorer and have higher average temperatures will be the most affected.

Nearly all low-income countries are tropical, increasing their exposure to global warming, the report said.
Poor quality of infrastructure and housing also make these countries less resilient to extreme weather.
Another reason: The economies of developing countries tend to depend on agriculture, which is vulnerable to climate change. A rise in temperature could lead to more competition over dwindling fertile land and deteriorating food security, increasing the possibility of social unrest.
Within Asia Pacific, developing countries such as Bangladesh will be affected by climate change the most.

What else is needed for climate resilience
While a rich country is better prepared to confront its challenges and so has an advantage in withstanding climate change, the institutional quality of a country matters as well, the report stated. This refers to attributes such as the level of corruption, the quality of the bureaucracy and the protection of property rights in a country.
Institutional quality is thus tied to a country’s initiatives to adapt to climate change, such as building flood defences. Institutional quality can also affect policies which aim to reduce carbon emissions, such as carbon taxes.
The United States is an example of a North American economy that is well-prepared to confront economic and social challenges related to climate change, the study found.
It has a well-funded research and development sector as well as strong national institutions.
It is also less exposed to geographic risks related to climate change as compared to developing countries.
The report noted that US President Donald Trump may have negative polices on climate change such as withdrawing from the Paris Climate Change Agreement, showing that strong institutions do not always facilitate climate-friendly policies, but policies can still be formed and implemented quickly when there is political will.

Links

• Global GDP Will Suffer At Least A 3% Hit By 2050 From Unchecked Climate Change, Say Economists
• Climate change an urgent problem with ‘very major consequences’, says PM Lee
• Why climate change should matter to Singaporeans and what the Govt is doing about it
• More S’poreans aware of climate change but not doing enough to slow crisis, say activists
• How the food that Singaporeans eat contributes to climate change
• Why we need to use nature in the fight against climate change
• Economist Intelligence Unit: Resilience to climate change?
• How climate change is ‘creating a dilemma’ for the world’s central bankers
• Banks increasingly unload flooded-out mortgages at taxpayer expense
• Economist Intelligence Unit: Australia

(AU) Climate Change The Biggest Threat To Great Barrier Reef: Ley

Sydney Morning Herald - Tony Moore

Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley and Queensland's Environment Minister Leeanne Enoch released a statement on Tuesday afternoon acknowledging climate change as the biggest threat to the health of the Great Barrier Reef.
The United Nations scientific body, UNESCO, will in 2020 make a decision on whether or not to list the Queensland's Great Barrier Reef as a world-heritage site that is in danger.

Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley. Credit: Lukas Coch/AAP

The Great Barrier Reef has been a UNESCO world-heritage listed site since 1981.The two environment ministers - part of the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Forum - met in Townsville on Tuesday to discuss the progress of policies set over the past five years to protect the Great Barrier Reef.
They will on December 1 release the report that will be provided to UNESCO's world heritage committee, which will ultimately make the ruling on the future listing of the Great Barrier Reef.
Ms Ley said she was confident the policies of both governments would protect the Great Barrier Reef of the impacts of climate change.
"There is clear acceptance of the science and it is also telling us that we are taking important steps to strengthen the Reef’s resilience," Mr Ley said in a statement.
"This year’s reef Outlook Report highlighted the challenges we face but it was also clear about the steps we can and are taking to protect its future and its World Heritage status."
The Great Barrier Reef Management Authority's August 2019 Outlook Report downgraded the future health of the Great Barrier Reef from "poor to very poor".
In September 2019, the Queensland government moved away from voluntary measures by agricultural groups to control sediment run-off into coastal reef areas to a new system where minimum standards for nutrient run-off are set and enforced by the Queensland government.
Ms Enoch said that decision was one of a number which showed governments were taking concerted steps to protect the Great Barrier Reef.
A project to slowly reduce eroded soil flowing down the Burdekin River onto the Great Barrier Reef has also received recognition by Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk.
"These regulations, along with other efforts including tree-clearing laws and action on climate change, are all steps that are being taken by the Queensland Government to support the health of the Reef and prevent it from being listed by the World Heritage Committee as in-danger next year," Ms Enoch said.
"The partnerships being developed with traditional owners are driving key recommendations under the Reef 2050 plan, and the work of Indigenous rangers on the land and sea are also proving vital to protect precious ecosystems."
The two levels of government "endorsed" the existing range of policies, despite conservationists arguing for a faster shift from carbon-intensive energy sources and agriculture sources.
Conservation groups argue a faster shift towards renewable energy is needed because the the world's atmospheric temperature has risen by more than one degree centigrade, an issue highlighted by the Federal Government's own Great Barrier Reef Management Authority's in it's 2019 Outlook Report.
Australia is a signatory to international efforts to keep atmospheric warming below two degrees.
"The rapid increase in greenhouse gas emissions has caused an estimated one-degree centigrade increase in global average temperature since pre-industrial times," the report says.
"The rising global temperature is causing an increase in sea temperature, which has a multitude of impacts, including destructive marine heatwaves."
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority released this blunt statement in July 2019: "Only the strongest and fastest possible actions to decrease global greenhouse gas emissions will reduce the risks and limit the impacts of climate change on the reef. "

Queensland's Great Barrier Reef

No commitment was made by either environment minister to increase the pace of a shift towards renewable energy.
Queensland promises to provide 20 per cent of it energy by 2020 from renewable energy sources and 50 per cent by 2030.
The Australian government has a commitment to provide 23.5 per cent of its energy from renewable energy by 2020.

Links

• Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2019
• Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan
• Great Barrier Reef Blueprint for Resilience
• AgForce Backs Calls For Review Of Consensus Science On Great Barrier Reef
• Great Barrier Reef Outlook Now 'Very Poor', Australian Government Review Says
• Great Barrier Reef Authority Urges 'Fastest Possible Action' On Emissions
• Morrison Government Experts Say Australia Must 'Do More' On Climate
• ‘Sadness, Disgust, Anger’: Fear For The Great Barrier Reef Made Climate Change Feel Urgent
• Radical Climate Action 'Critical' To Great Barrier Reef's Survival, Government Body Says
• Legal Protections Urged As Science Gears Up To Aid Great Barrier Reef
• The Great Barrier Reef Is “In For A Rough Ride”