The War On Global Carbon

Surviving C21 - Julian Cribb

Photo: Julian Cribb

Citizens of the USA, Australia, Brazil, Canada and elsewhere are slowly waking to the sickening awareness that they are no longer up against local political forces – but, rather, a metastasizing international power against which they are largely impotent.
Common attributes now unify the regimes of Trump, Morrison, Bolsonaro, Trudeau, Salman, and maybe also those of Johnson and Putin:

• Blind support for fossil fuels, overt denialism or a reluctance to act on climate
• Prejudice and cruelty towards immigrants, many of whom are fleeing climate disruption
• A tendency to favour ecological rapine and increased pollution
• A taste for repression and the curtailment of civic freedoms
• Spreading right-wing ideology; use of the same political strategists; rising support from religious extremists
• Heavy defence spending; a habit of engaging in needless ‘carbon wars’
• Tax breaks for the already-rich; a disinclination to tax mega-corporates
• The support of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation and its ‘shock jocks’
• Digital manipulation of public opinion by the automated spreading of falsehoods on social media via bots, trolls and data pirates.
• A tendency to lie about anything and everything – then divert public attention using emotive issues like abortion, gun control, religious freedom, terrorism, assassination.
• Use of identical ‘talking points’ and disinformation, much of it scripted by carbon-funded ‘think tanks’.
• The labelling of concerned, protesting citizens as ‘anarchists’ and ‘terrorists’ to justify use of military force against them
• The tactic of accusing their political opponents of the very offences of which they themselves are guilty.

The accumulating evidence indicates that western democracy is no longer dealing with independent national governments – but, rather, with an orchestrated transnational movement manipulating a troup of local political puppets.
Many of these leaders and their governments enjoy the funding and political support of the most powerful companies on Earth – the oil and coal majors, here termed ‘Global Carbon’, supported by  a host of shady think-tanks, institutes, media corporations and digital manipulators who manufacture and disseminate their propaganda to create a global ‘echo chamber’.
The Global Carbon regime is unlike any previous political movement. It has no interest in social wellbeing, health, education, equality, justice, the environment or any of the issues that traditionally occupy the political discourse in democracies. It is motivated solely by money – and the power it confers. It is responsible for 9 million deaths annually – a fresh Holocaust every 8 months.
If it were a country, Global Carbon would be the largest economy on Earth, with annual retail energy use worth around US$24 trillion. This compares with, say, the US GDP of US$21tr or China’s $14tr. To this is added the value of its byproducts like petrochemicals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, dyes, textiles and plastics. This cyclopaean financial clout is increasingly being deployed to influence the result in any country on Earth where they still have elections.
Why, then, is Global Carbon a thing? Previously, these fossil fuel corporates operated independently, competed vigorously with one another and dealt individually with national governments – as Shell did in Nigeria or Exxon in the US.
The answer is fear.
Global Carbon – a loose alliance of 100+ oil, coal and gas mega-corporates and their ancillaries – are collectively terrified that the worldwide movement by citizens and governments to prevent catastrophic climate change is going to put them out of business (exemplified by the case of coal) or at least severely impair their licence to print money and pillage the planet ad libitum. It is a fear not without foundation: calls to lock up carbon and ‘leave it in the ground’ are multiplying from science as well as civil society.
Furthermore, the rise of green-tinged governments – especially in Europe – citizen movements like Extinction Rebellion and outspoken youth like Greta Thunberg – has  shaken them. This has resulting in calls to crack down on these ‘anarchists’, in susceptible democracies like Australia, the US, Canada and Brazil.
Global Carbon believes it is in a fight for its life.
The principle that “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” has impelled onetime competitors to make common cause, to undermine and – if possible – defeat the worldwide movement to save humanity from an uninhabitable, hothouse Earth.
The stark similarities between the affected governments is powerful proof they are no longer independent nations ruled by their own elected governments. They are separate countries increasingly animated by an identical purpose – a regime motivated solely by carbon profit, disinterested in all other aspects of civic governance.
Recent false bushfire arson claims in Australia highlight how these forces now co-ordinate globally. Allegedly the claims were started by Australian resources interests, then multiplied by social media bots and trolls, amplified by right-wing politicians and media corporations, taken up globally by Donald Trump Jr, Fox News and members of the US Republican party to create a global ‘echo chamber’.  
The implications of this for the future of democracy are grim. As Global Carbon grows and flexes its muscle, it becomes harder and harder for an opposition party in any individual country to win an election, because it is not just up against its national opponents – but is also engaging the most potent international cartel on the Planet.
There is only one way to defeat such a monster. If it is truly a regime, then there must be global regime change. The citizens of Earth must rise up and impose their collective will on the rich and malevolent few. They must shun their products, prosecute to the full extent of the law, exact just taxes and outlaw the corrupt alliances that bind carbon to politics.
Like any global conflict, the road to victory will be long, and will be accompanied by much blood, toil, sweat and tears, as Churchill might have forewarned.
First, however, it is necessary, for each citizen to grasp how great and grave is our peril – and for that the dwindling voice of the free press daily plays a critical and valiant role.

Links

• New report shows just 100 companies are source of over 70% of emissions
• Big oil is the new big tobacco. Congress must use its power to investigate
• What Exxon knew about the Earth's melting Arctic
• Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from TobaccoSmoke to Climate Change
• Organized Climate Change Denial
• The Lancet Commission on pollution and health
• Fossil Fuels
• Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene
• Time to speak the unspeakable
• The Dark Age of Science Denial
• The methane gun
• Australia Is Committing Climate Suicide
• There is no link': the climate doubters within Scott Morrison's government

European Parliament Endorses $1.6 Trillion Investment Plan For Green New Deal

RenewEconomy - Michael Mazengarb



The European Union is set to allocate up to a quarter of its annual budget towards tackling climate change, as part of a plan to attract as much as €1 trillion (A$1.61 trillion) in new investment to drive the transition towards clean technologies.
The world’s first major ‘green new deal’ will see theEU accelerate its push towards decarbonisation. The European Commission estimates that the bloc has already reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 23 per cent between 1990 and 2018, while the value of its economy grew by 61% over the same period.
“People are at the core of the European Green Deal, our vision to make Europe climate-neutral by 2050. The transformation ahead of us is unprecedented. And it will only work if it is just – and if it works for all,” President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said.
“We will support our people and our regions that need to make bigger efforts in this transformation, to make sure that we leave no one behind. The Green Deal comes with important investment needs, which we will turn into investment opportunities. The plan that we present today, to mobilise at least €1 trillion, will show the direction and unleash a green investment wave.”
The plan has been developed by the European Commission and won the support of the EU parliament this week, with MEPs voting to endorse the plan. Implementation of the European Green Deal will require further amendments to EU legislation, including the setting of interim emissions reduction targets.
“Parliament overwhelmingly supported the Commission’s proposal on the Green Deal and welcomes the fact that there will be consistency between all European Union policies and the objectives of the Green Deal. Agriculture, trade and economic governance and other policy areas must now be seen and analysed in the context of the Green Deal”, the EU parliament’s environment committee chair Pascal Canfin said.
The plan will see more €500 billion allocated from the budget of the European Union Commission, which it hopes will leverage further private sector investment to reach the €1 trillion investment goal over the next 10-years.
In May 2018, the European Union established a 25% climate mainstreaming target, which sees 25% of EU expenditure contributing to its climate change objectives.
The European Green Deal’s Investment Plan will include a Just Transition Mechanism to provide investment support to communities disproportionately impacted by the transition away from emissions intensive industries, and help them transition to a zero carbon economy.
To access the funds, EU member countries will need to develop just transition plans, which identify regions that require investment support to undertake measures like the closure and rehabilitation of coal mines and coal fired power stations, and to build new industries and reskill workers in low emissions industries.
“The Just Transition Mechanism will help support those most affected by making investments more attractive and proposing a package of financial and practical support worth at least €100 billion. This is our pledge of solidarity and fairness,” executive vice-president for the European Green Deal Frans Timmermans said
While the plan has received in-principle support from most of the European Union parliamentarians, European Greens members were keen to ensure the allocation of funding was directly tied to a transition away from coal.
In particular, Poland, which has large reserves of brown coal which is used to generate around a third of its total electricity production, in addition to producing around half its electricity using black coal, is a key target for coal-phase out demands.
“No money should be distributed from this fund before there are clear commitments and concrete dates for the coal phase-out from member states,” European Green MEP Niklas Nienass said.
“Poland should sign up to EU climate targets before being eligible to money under the Just Transition Fund.”
Environmental groups, including Greenpeace EU’s Sebastian Mang, echoed the concern about funds being allocated to countries that have softer commitments to transition away from fossil fuels.
“If this funding is really meant to promote a green transition, it must only be available to governments that are committed to that transition and have a clear plan to ditch coal. If they want the cash, the likes of Poland and the Czech Republic will have to prove they are serious about tackling the climate emergency,” Mang said.
“For the European Green Deal to be successful, all funding, including from the EU budget, needs to stop supporting fossil fuels, nuclear energy and other destructive industries.”
The European Union has a target to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent by 2030 and is recently endorsed the formal adoption of a target to achieve zero net emissions by 2050, each based on 1990 levels.
The EU Green Deal resolution was endorsed with 482 votes for, 136 against and 95 abstentions. Further legislative amendments will be required to implement the plan.

Links

• The EU's Green dreams
• Biodiversity must be a key plank of the European Green Deal ǀ View
• Green Deal 'man on the moon moment' for Europe
• EP Research briefing on the European Green Deal
• Green deal for Europe: First reactions
• The European Parliament declares climate emergency
• Climate change should be EU Parliament’s first priority, according to citizens

Opinion: Bring On The Royal Commission Into Australia's Climate Change Policy

Canberra Times - Crispin Hull

Bring on the royal commission into the fires. Bring on a broad-ranging inquiry and a commissioner who is someone of independence, competence and integrity. This week's essay by former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull makes this more imperative that ever.

Malcolm Turnbull this week decried climate change denialism in opinion pieces in The Guardian and TIME Magazine. Picture: Shutterstock

Mr Turnbull drew some sensible conclusions about what Australia must do about climate change, but what he did not say is of more import.
In an essay commissioned by The Guardian Australia for its 2020 Vision series, Turnbull wrote, quite reasonably: "The lies of the deniers have to be rejected ... Climate change is real ... Our response must be real too - a resilient, competitive, net zero-emission economy - as we work to make our nation, and our planet, safe for our children and grandchildren."
This is the view of the man who was prime minister for three years and in cabinet for five years, including a stint as Environment Minister. So the big question is: why didn't his view become Australian law and policy?
More broadly, the Australian people are entitled to an answer to the critical question: how did the three major political parties so comprehensively fail to deliver the climate policy the nation has needed for more than a decade?
A big part of the answer to that question must be within the power and knowledge of Turnbull to answer. He was at the helm when it should have happened. He was at the helm when he wanted it to happen, and he was at the helm when it didn't happen. Why was that? How did that happen?
Why weren't the lies of the deniers rejected?
Prime Minister Scott Morrison should be questioned about why he gave coal such symbolic power, and continues to give it such actual power in Australia's parliament.
We know that Australian policy alone would not have affected the fires, but effective Australian policy would have given us the moral high ground to urge other nations to do a lot more so future effects would be lessened. This is important, because Australia is among the countries likely to be most affected by climate change, as we have seen this summer.
Let's go back to the beginning with this royal commission (and by the way, why can't we give these inquiries a different name - an Australian Commission of Inquiry, for example?).
The starting point is December 2, 2009. A day after Tony Abbott replaced Turnbull as Liberal leader, the Greens voted with the Liberal and National Parties in the Senate to reject Labor's carbon-pricing scheme.
Those Green senators, especially then-leader Bob Brown, should be put in the box at the inquiry and asked what possessed them to side with conservatives to defeat a pretty good start to addressing, in the words of then-prime minister Kevin Rudd, "the great moral challenge of our generation".
Then when the bill got knocked back in the Senate, Labor did nothing. Rudd and the senior Labor leaders in 2009 should be asked why they allowed short-term political considerations to take priority, and why they did not then and there put the bill up a second time and go to a double dissolution to address this "great moral challenge".
Why didn't Rudd stare down the Greens and give them a last chance to support his carbon-pricing scheme or face a double dissolution with Labor putting the Greens last on their how-to-vote-cards?

Tony Abbott rode a campaign against Julia Gillard's carbon-pricing mechanism into the prime ministership. Picture: Shutterstock

Rudd should then be asked why, in April, 2010, he chose to defer further action on the "moral challenge" to 2013.
The Australian people are also entitled to answers when it comes to what happened to the Liberal Party when Abbott took the helm.
How is it that a Rhodes Scholar like Tony Abbott can pretend not to understand basic climate science and say it is "crap" and order his party to reverse Turnbull's support for carbon pricing? Why did the leader of a so-called free-enterprise party reject the market approach?
He should be asked whether the financial support of the fossil industry affected that decision. Or whether it was just political expediency to run an anti-carbon-tax scare campaign.
The inquiry should dig deep and hard into the finances of the Liberal and National parties to find out the level of donations and ask the donors in the witness box why they gave the money and what policy positions they expected in return.
Abbott should be grilled about his habit of announcing emissions targets but doing little or nothing to achieve them.
Julia Gillard should be questioned, too, about walking away from carbon pricing after her factional supporter Bill Shorten specifically cited Rudd's walking away from that very carbon pricing as a reason for her challenging his leadership.
To her credit, though, she returned to it - because it was good policy. Tragically for her, the way she took the prime ministership tainted what she did as prime minister. Like Malcolm Fraser, she should have waited for it to fall into her lap, but didn't.
Abbott should be grilled about why he repealed the Gillard carbon price when it was working so well to reduce emissions.
The Australian people are entitled to know what promises Turnbull made as a condition of getting the prime ministership - promises that hamstrung him into weak policies that favoured fossil-fuel industries.
How could he sweep away the knights and dames with such ease, but not redo climate policy? Why did he get done over at every turn like no other prime minister? How and why were all his climate policies stymied? Why did he do nothing about it?
Why didn't he come out early on when he was popular, reveal to the Australian people what the troglodytes were doing, and reverse it?
Prime Minister Scott Morrison should be questioned about why he gave coal such symbolic power, and continues to give it such actual power in Australia's parliament.
Every Coalition MP since 2009 should be grilled about how and why they voted for pro-fossil-fuel policies, their diaries examined for meetings and their accounts audited for fossil-fuel donations. Because even after these fires, they are still at it.
As to the fires themselves, the Victorian royal commission into the 2009 Black Saturday fires did the hard work on the technicalities of fighting fire and reducing the risk to lives and property. And it was very successful. In those fires, 179 people died. This time, with a greater area burned, 27 people have died. Lessons have obviously been learned.
And the greater lesson is that hard policy and technical work in all fields of endeavour does more than any glib slogan.
The commission should also put the lie to the greenies preventing hazard-reduction burning, because it was the heating climate that reduced the window for safe burning. It should reveal all the public service advice about not only combatting the foreseen huge fire risk, but also combatting the global heating that causes it. And it should ask the politicians why they rejected so much of it.

Links

• ACT would support royal commission into bushfires
• Opinion: Australia must declare World War Zero on carbon emissions
• Opinion: We've already had countless fire inquiries. What good will another do?
• PM to hold royal commission into bushfires
• How royal commissions can both help and hinder
• New powers push a political response to bushfires
• Morrison could ditch Kyoto credits
• Scott Morrison flags bushfires royal commission and says Coalition could bolster emissions reduction
• Bushfire lessons available to act on ahead of royal commission, experts say
• Scott Morrison to take proposal for bushfire royal commission to Cabinet

'You Need To Act Now': Meet 4 Girls Working To Save The Warming World

NPR - Anya Kamenetz

LA Johnson/NPR

A teenage girl, Greta Thunberg, has become the world-famous face of the climate strike movement. But she's far from alone: Thunberg has helped rally and inspire others — especially girls.
NPR talked to four teenage climate activists, all girls, from the U.S. and Australia, alongside their mothers. These teenagers are juggling activism with schoolwork and personal time. And their families are working hard to support them as they grapple with the heavy emotions that come with fighting for the future.
In Castlemaine, Australia, Milou Albrecht, 15, co-founded School Strike for Climate Australia, which organizes student walkouts. As massive bush fires engulf parts of her home country, Albrecht's group has been pressuring the German corporation Siemens to withdraw from an Australian coal mining project.
In New York City, Xiye Bastida, 17, led her school in the city's first big student climate strike last March, and along with traveling and public speaking, she and some of her classmates have continued to strike on Fridays ever since. ("Gym is on Fridays, so I have a very low grade in gym," she notes.)
In Louisiana, 16-year-old Jayden Foytlin was one of 21 young people who sued the federal government for violating their rights to a livable planet. The young plaintiffs hailed from communities around the country that have been directly affected by global warming — Foytlin, for example, is from south Louisiana, where her home has been flooded in storms.
The lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, was recently thrown out by a federal appeals court. But Foytlin says she's formed lasting friendships with the other plaintiffs. "We all share one thing in common — we really care about where we're from, and how we are going to continue to live [here]."
In upstate New York, Scout Pronto Breslin, 16, is focused on wildlife. She lives in Rhinebeck, and is the founder of a group called Hudson Valley Wild. "I volunteer at a wildlife rehab clinic," she says, explaining what motivated her activism."The birds there often come in with blood poisoning because of illegal toxins from chemical runoff and fertilizer."
Pronto Breslin advises other teens to find what really interests them about the climate movement. She says it could be composting in their schools, gardening, nature: "Once you find something that you really love, then that will just give you motivation to keep going with it."

Girls to the front
It's no coincidence that teenage girls are especially visible right now as climate leaders, says Katharine Wilkinson.

LA Johnson/NPR

---

Education

Giving Schools — And Students — The Tools They Need In The Fight To Save The Planet

---

"The youth movement is such a great example of the way in which girls and young women are stepping into the heart of this space, and showing us what it looks like to lead with courage and imagination and incredible moral clarity."
Wilkinson works with a solutions-focused climate organization called Project Drawdown, and delivered a TED talk on how empowering women and girls can help stop global warming.
"When we think about the nexus of climate and gender, there are three big points of intersection," she tells NPR.
"One is that the impacts of climate change hit women and girls first and worst," particularly in the developing world and in poor communities.
The second, she says, is that "gender equality is itself a climate solution," with women's education and equity leading to smaller family sizes and, research shows, better land management practices.
And the third is what Wilkinson calls "transformational leadership that is grounded in intersectional feminism and what we might consider more feminine approaches to leading."

We all need to save the world. It's not up to girls. As much as we admire and love what they're doing. It also doesn't absolve us of responsibility.
Jennifer Breslin

Scout Pronto Breslin's mother, Jennifer Breslin, used to work on gender equity issues at the United Nations. She agrees with Wilkinson: "I think it's really amazing how many young women are involved in this."
On the other hand, she says, "I don't believe 'Girls are going to save the world.' We all need to save the world. It's not up to girls. As much as we admire and love what they're doing, it also doesn't absolve us of responsibility."

Raised to care for the Earth
Each of these girls expressed her own, independent commitment to the climate crisis — but it's impossible to ignore the upbringings that sparked their engagement.

LA Johnson/NPR

"My mom and my dad always taught me what it was to take care of the Earth," Xiye Bastida says.
Bastida — who has been described as New York City's Greta Thunberg — is the daughter of Geraldine Patrick Encina, a scholar in residence at the Union Theological Seminary's Center for Earth Ethics, and an environmental activist since her own teenage years in Chile. Bastida's father is a member of the indigenous Otomi Toltec nation in Mexico, which advocates for the protection of their local water and land.

---

Life Kit

How To Talk To Kids About Climate Change

---

Geraldine Patrick Encina says the family follows indigenous traditions. "We will do at least one ceremony, you know, to the waters or to the land frequently, maybe once a week."Milou Albrecht is the daughter of Susan Burke, a psychologist who works in climate adaptation and disaster recovery. Burke and her husband raised their three children for years in an eco-friendly, rural, intentional community. Albrecht says she grew up going to environmental protests, and that they were "heaps of fun."
Social justice was part of Scout Pronto Breslin's upbringing, too. Aside from her mother's work in areas including sustainable development, her father was an anti-apartheid activist in South Africa, and currently works for the U.N.
And Jayden Foytlin's mother is Cherri Foytlin, a direct action climate activist of Afro-Latina-Indigenous descent who is known for opposing an oil pipeline in south Louisiana.
"Some families, they go to baseball games or

---

Education

8 Ways To Teach Climate Change

In Almost Any Classroom

---

ballerina concerts," notes Cherri. "Well, it's always been a family function for us to go to marches or meetings or meet with the community and learn how to organize."

It's always been a family function for us to go to marches or meetings or meet with the community and learn how to organize.
Cherri Foytlin

All of the teenagers, however, made the point that they had friends in the movement whose parents were less aware, less involved or less supportive than their own.
"I have a few friends whose parents will tell them, 'You can not go to that meeting until you finish your homework,' or, 'You have to stop skipping school on Fridays,' " says Xiye Bastida. She calls it "a very fine line because no parent wants their kid to fail school."

Supporting, but also stepping back

LA Johnson/NPR

Young climate change activists need support, they and their parents say, especially emotional support. "The toughest moments have been when Xiye just needs a hug," says her mother, Geraldine Patrick Encina.
Climate change is enormous and tragic. It feels very personal to young people in particular, who are more likely than older generations to say that it impacts them personally. That makes it similar to other youth-led movements, such as Black Lives Matter and the March for Our Lives movement against gun violence.

The toughest moments have been when Xiye just needs a hug.
Geraldine Patrick Encina

At the same time, eco-anxiety, depression and secondary traumatic stress are normal psychological reactions to learning about the reality of human-caused environmental destruction. That's according to psychologist Renee Lertzman, who has been working in this area for decades. She compares the situation of these teenagers to her own upbringing in the nuclear age.
"Anyone who's my age knows what it's like to grow up with the threat of nuclear war around you all the time, and how terrifying that is," she says. "So I have a lot of empathy and compassion for what it's like to be a young person in the context of an existential threat. I feel concern, and I feel like we need to be thoughtful about how we navigate this."
She says young people need to hear, "It's not all on them."
On the positive side, Susan Burke, Milou Albrecht's psychologist mother, says getting involved with a cause you care about can be protective for mental health. "It's great to take action on things that are worrying you because action is one of the best antidotes to despair and helplessness and hopelessness."
But Burke cautions that this work must be child-led — you can't push your children to get involved.

It's great to take action on things that are worrying you because action is one of the best antidotes to despair and helplessness and hopelessness.
Susan Burke

Albrecht says her parents are good at listening and supporting, "but also kind of stepping back and let me do my thing."
Scout Pronto Breslin's mom, Jennifer Breslin, agrees with that approach. "We need to not micromanage them. It's really hard. You kind of want to jump in and say, 'Why don't you try this?' "
Many youth and student groups have created guidelines for adult allies on how to be supportive without taking over.

Balancing school, life and activism

LA Johnson/NPR

Many activists are also high-achieving students with multiple AP classes and packed schedules. Bastida says to make room for the school strike planning and the traveling and speaking she's doing, she's dropped gymnastics and Model United Nations. No regrets, she says: "Model U.N. is so stressful. I am more nervous about Model U.N. than [lobbying] the actual U.N. Kids are crazy competitive. I'm not trying to be part of that."

---

Education

Most Teachers Don't Teach Climate Change;

4 In 5 Parents Wish They Did

---

Nevertheless, they all say that they have to — and their parents encourage them to — make room for downtime and hobbies.
Foytlin likes to draw and play with her little brother. Bastida likes Netflix and taking baths, and she says, "My dad tells me every day, 'You cannot fix the world if you do not fix up your room.' "
Pronto Breslin likes taking walks in the woods with her golden retriever, Tess; playing the guitar and listening to Elvis and the Beatles. And Albrecht likes gardening.
Each of these girls says it's important to find joy in the moment, and in the friendships they are making as they work for a better future.
"We advocate [so much] for urgency," Bastida says. "We are saying you need to act now. You need to do this fast. But you cannot live your life in that way. And I think that's the trickiest part — how do you live in a state of urgency without feeling that within you? So we have to remain centered not only in our families, but our communities, in organizing. When we organize, we model the world we want to see.

Links

• A Rising Generation Asserts Itself On Climate Change
• How empowering women and girls can help stop global warming
• Most American teens are frightened by climate change, poll finds, and about 1 in 4 are taking action
• Youth Strike 4 Climate: Adult Allies Guide
• It's No Accident That Girls Are Leading The Climate Movement
• Our Young Girls Are Bearing The Burden Of Climate Action. But Should They Be?
• Climate Activist Greta Thunberg On The Power Of A Movement
• Youth Leaders At U.N. Demand Bold Climate Change Action
• We Underestimate Young People Because It's Convenient

(AU) Climate Change: Platypus On The ‘Brink Of Extinction’

NEWS.com.au

Researchers have found that climate threats and habitat destruction are pushing platypuses towards extinction.

Drought and heatwaves are exacerbating the threats posed by dam building, land clearing and predators. Picture: Supplied

One of Australia’s most-loved mammals, the platypus, is being pushed towards the “brink of extinction” by climate threats and habitat destruction, researchers say.
Platypus numbers may have halved or more since Europeans arrived in Australia, according to a study published in the scientific journal Biological Conservation.
The research predicts that local extinctions may have occurred across 40 per cent of the species’ range due to dam building, land clearing and other disruptions.
Under current climate and threats, the researchers predicted platypus numbers would decline between 47 per cent and 66 per cent over 50 years.

Programs to relocate platypuses are being proposed. Picture: Australian Platypus Park

When adjusted for projected climate change, the research found that increased drought frequencies and duration were predicted to further reduce platypus populations by between 51 and 73 per cent.
“These dangers further expose the platypus to even worse local extinctions with no capacity to repopulate areas,” lead author and researcher at the University of NSW’s Centre for Ecosystem Science, Gilad Bino, told The Age.
The trajectory could place the mammal on the “brink of extinction”, he said.
Even before Australia’s devastating bushfire season – which have killed millions of the nation’s wildlife – the platypus population was suffering as a result of the intensifying drought and heatwave.
Disruption of Murray Darling and Great Dividing Range habitats means “the consequences are grim for the platypus”, said director of the UNSW centre and another of the study’s authors, Richard Kingsford.
“This is impacting their ability to survive during these extended dry periods and increased demand for water.
“If we lost the platypus from Australian rivers, you would say, ‘What sort of government policies or care allow that to happen?’” Prof Kingsford said.
“What sort of nonchalance and disregard for one of the world’s most important species has allowed this to happen?”
A NSW environment spokeswoman told the publication that the Government “recognises that a range of factors, exacerbated by the current prolonged drought conditions, may be placing the long-term viability of platypus populations at risk”.
The researchers said there was an “urgent need” to implement national conservation efforts for the platypus by increasing surveys, tracking trends, mitigating threats and improving management of their habitat in rivers.
The study was the first nationwide attempt to establish a so-called metapopulation model for the platypus.

Links

• A stitch in time – Synergistic impacts to platypus metapopulation extinction risk
• Platypus on brink of extinction
• Platypus extinction looms unless urgent action is taken, UNSW study finds
• Extreme drought pushing platypus population to 'brink of extinction'
• Horrifying koala warning after fires
• (AU) 'Silent Death': Australia's Bushfires Push Countless Species To Extinction
• Spiders Are Threatened By Climate Change – And Even The Biggest Arachnophobes Should Be Worried
• Koalas On The Decline — Dangerous New Threats, Emerging Solutions
• Climate Change Sparks Fears For Flying Foxes After 23,000 Deaths

(AU) Editorial: Climate Change Impossible To Deny

Canberra Times - Editorial

Is it possible that even if the earth was reduced to a burnt out husk and the last humans were sheltering in the deepest caves they could find there would still be a climate change denier up the back saying "it wasn't us, it's just the natural order of things"?

Pooh Corner on the Kings Highway between Canberra and the NSW South Coast. It survived the bushfires, but will it be so lucky next time? Rising temperatures are already changing our world. Picture: Dion Georgopoulos.

That seems likely given the reaction by the usual suspects to last week's findings the 2010s were the hottest decade on record.
While not necessarily interesting reading in themselves, the comment threads on some of the news reports of the joint NASA and NOAA finding are notable in that they appear to plumb new depths of human stupidity, self-delusion and wishful thinking.
The Bureau of Meteorology had confirmed 2019 was the hottest year ever in Australia just the week before with temperatures 1.52 degrees above the long-term average.
2020 is also on track to be right up there with early indications it will be one of the five hottest years ever in this country.
While 2016 remains the hottest year ever recorded across the globe, 2019 is now in second place.
Data collated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows warming has accelerated over the past 40 years. Annual global average surface temperatures are increasing at about .18 degrees a decade.
Given the fires in Australia and the Amazon, increased hurricane activity in the Bahamas, reductions in ice cover in the Bering and Chukchi seas, melting permafrost in Alaska and Siberia, heatwaves in Europe and cyclones in Mozambique it is obvious the planet is undergoing major changes.
Our children, and our children's children, will live in a world very different, and significantly less hospitable, to the one we know.

Stopping emissions from increasing is one thing; working out how to put the genie back into the bottle - if that is even possible - is going to be another.

"But", the deniers will cry, "how can we be sure it is humans who are causing this?"
Join the dots. Despite the best efforts of the Kyoto and the Paris agreements global greenhouse emissions hit a record high in 2019. According to the Washington Post "the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now sits at the highest level in human history - a level probably not seen on the planet for three million years".
The multi-trillion dollar question is whether or not this is reversible. Have we reached a tipping point of no return or is it still possible to turn this around before Parramatta and Bankstown become beachside suburbs?
Any honest answer to this question has to be along the lines of "maybe, maybe not". That is because the best advice available suggests the best time to have done something about this will always be "yesterday".
The longer we hold off, the greater the changes we are going to have to make to achieve carbon dioxide targets that would have been relatively easy to reach a decade or two decades ago.
We also need to take into account the fact significant warming has already occurred. Whole countries, including Switzerland and Kazakhstan according to some reports, have already warmed beyond the two degrees celsius the IPCC considers manageable.
Stopping emissions from increasing is one thing; working out how to put the genie back into the bottle - if that is even possible - is going to be another.
One of the few bright spots this week was Science Minister, Karen Andrews's, call for the deniers to get over themselves.
"Every second we spend discussing whether or not climate change is real is a second that we don't spend talking about, putting into place, strategies to mitigate the effects," she said.
That is a welcome change of pace for this government. We hope her more intransigent colleagues are listening.

Links

• (AU) Australia's Wildfires Provide A Scorching Warning On Climate Change To The Rest Of Earth
• (AU) Bushfire Tragedy Shows Need For Climate Leadership
• (AU) Australia’s Bushfires Have Exposed Its Leaders’ Failings
• Trade Deals May Be An Effective Method Of Enforcing Climate ActionLoud Environmental Protests Are A Great Australian Tradition
• There’s An Effective And Progressive Solution For Climate Change. Why Won’t Democrats Embrace It?
• Drought Plan Must Factor In Climate Change
• Editorial: Surviving Climate Change Means An End To Burning Fossil Fuels. Prepare Yourself For Sacrifices
• The Guardian View On Climate Breakdown: An Emergency For All, But Especially The Poor
• Adani Decision Must Not Be Last Word In Climate Fight
• Coalition Is To Blame For Uncertainty Over Climate Costs
• Both Parties Still In Climate Policy Black Hole

(AU) Behind The Smokescreen, The Coalition's Stance On Climate Change Hasn't Changed At All

The Guardian - Greg Jericho

If Scotty from Marketing and his coal-fired peers really believed in the climate crisis, they’d be doing something about it. Behind the smokescreen, the Coalition's stance on climate change hasn't changed at all.

The government’s actions over the past decade mean they have not earned the benefit of doubt, rather they have earned our total scepticism. Photograph: Robert Cianflone/Getty Images

The speed with which the conservative side of politics and the media has gone from assuring us climate change was not a problem, so we don’t need to worry about reducing emissions, to asserting that climate change is a problem, but we still don’t need to worry about reducing emissions, is breathtaking. Literally, given the levels of smoke still around.

You don’t get a cookie for saying you think climate change is real.
I’m sorry, you don’t. All you get is the capacity to say you have reached 1990 levels of comprehension – as that was when the first IPCC report was issued. You don’t get a prize for spending 30 years doing all you can to halt, undermine and dismantle action to reduce emissions, only to now say: “Hey, climate change is real.”
Consider that the Sydney Morning Herald this week ran a front page story headlined “Minister slams climate debate”, with the lead that “Australia’s bushfire crisis has prompted a blunt warning from Science Minister Karen Andrews to those she says are wasting time arguing about whether climate change is real”.
Oh good, that’s all sorted then.

But when you read on, you see nothing in her statement suggest one iota of a shift in the government’s position on emissions. She told the Herald: “My starting position in the discussion tomorrow will be that the climate has changed and it continues to change. We need to focus on the steps to adapt and mitigate the impact of those changes.”
The important point is she desires to mitigate the impact of the change, not to mitigate the actual change.
Right now the government is indulging in the equivalent of responding to polio by promising to invest in more iron lungs. And bizarrely, it is getting credit for it.
Adaptation is not mitigation.

The need for action on climate change is the need to reduce emissions

What is being said now is no different to what was said by Tony Abbott back when he was prime minister. In 2015, Abbott told parliament: “As far as the government is concerned, climate change is real. Mankind makes a contribution, and it is important to have strong and effective action to deal with it.
“We have met and beaten our Kyoto targets ... We are on track to meet and beat our current commitments to reduce emissions by 2020 by 13 per cent on 2005 levels.”
He then concluded: “I’m not going to put someone’s job at risk, a region’s, town’s future at risk, I’m not going to put up electricity prices to do it, I’m not going to put a tax on them to do it. I’m going to achieve it in the way we’ve met our Kyoto 2020 targets, meet and beat, and we’ve done that through better technology, through the policies we’ve put through the emissions reduction fund, and we’re going to continue to do that because it is really important.”
Oh sorry, that wasn’t Abbott, that was Scott Morrison in his interview with David Speers last Sunday.
If you can discern any difference in language between what Morrison is now saying and what Abbott said in 2015, then your level of reading between the lines has become so great you are seeing things that are not there.
Just because we all desire the Coalition to do something on climate change doesn’t actually mean they will.

Climate change protesters take to the streets in Sydney. Photograph: Steven Saphore/AAP

And their actions over the past decade mean they have not earned the benefit of doubt, rather they have earned our total scepticism.
The same goes for the conservative media. This week the NT News was getting praise for its front page, in which it stated: “What Australian needs now is real, affordable solutions – not armies of keyboard warriors.”
But aside from the pretty random sideswipe at keyboard warriors, the statement is the perfect representation of meaningless dribble designed to sound like a bold stance.
You know what is a real and affordable solution? Putting a price on carbon. And yet in the NT News editorial, the word emissions was not even mentioned, and I am prepared to bet my superannuation fund they would not suggest a price on carbon was an affordable solution.
Similarly the Daily Telegraph’s editorial on Thursday on “Moving climate debate forward” praised the government’s policy and demanded the ALP come clean with how much theirs would cost.
Give me strength.
It seems that moving forward is reenacting the exact same coverage that occurred during the last election.
You can’t say you agree with the science on climate change and then completely disregard the science that calls for the need to reduce emission by 45% from 2010 levels as soon as possible and to get to zero net emissions by at least 2050.
Saying you agree with the science of climate change but that you believe the government’s current plan is adequate is like saying you agree with vaccination, but you chose to only get one of your three kids immunised because, heck, that is more affordable.
The cheapest way to deal with the cost of climate change is to reduce our emissions and prevent, as much as is possible, further increases in global temperatures.
Dealing with climate change will be tough – people will lose jobs, the prices of some things will rise, but the cost of inaction is going to be much greater and more damaging – both to our economy and to our society.
Fortunately, the path to a vibrant emissions-free economy remains, and as Ross Garnaut has pointed out, such a shift will be extremely beneficial for our economy if we act now.
Indeed perhaps the most frustrating thing about the past decade is that not only have we have wasted a chance to reduce emissions, we have forgone the opportunity to set up our economy for the next 100 years.
Do not fall for the government’s spin. The need for action on climate change is the need to reduce emissions and to also take a leading role in that fight on the international stage.Climate Change
So when you hear someone in government say they believe in climate change, ask what they are doing about reducing emissions; everything else is spin.

Links

• The government has been forced to talk about climate change, so it’s taking a subtle – and sinister – approach
• The Coalition isn't being honest about the climate crisis. But neither is Labor
• UN Climate Change
• David Attenborough Says Australia's Bushfires A 'Major International Catastrophe' And Calls For Climate Action
• (AU) Opinion: In Australia’s Raging Bushfires, A Climate-Change Warning To Its Leaders — And Ours
• (AU) Explainer: What Are The Underlying Causes Of Australia's Shocking Bushfire Season?
• (AU) PM’s Popularity Takes A Dive, As Leading Scientists Fire Back Over Climate Pitch
• (AU) Reading The Smoke Signals From Morrison On Climate Change
• (AU) Australia's Fires Are Terrifying. Will They Get World Leaders To Act On Climate Change?
• (AU) Malcolm Turnbull: Scott Morrison Can't Afford To Waste The Bushfire Crisis When Australia Urgently Needs Its Own Green New Deal
• (AU) PM Morrison Flags Climate Policy Change
• (AU) The Coalition's Toxic Denial Of Climate Change Is Destroying Us