(AU) Is Morrison Government Fit For Purpose, Or The Greatest Danger To Our National Security?

RenewEconomy - Ian Dunlop

Credit: AAP Image/Lukas Coch

Ian Dunlop Ian Dunlop was formerly an international oil, gas and coal industry executive, chair of the Australian Coal Association and CEO of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. He is co-author of “What Lies Beneath: the understatement of existential climate risk”, and of the Club of Rome’s “Climate Emergency Plan”.

The current bushfires are unprecedented in terms of their extent, intensity, fire season length, economic and social impact. They are, without doubt, intensified by human-induced climate change.
However, they are not unexpected; this is what the climate science has been telling us for years. Likewise with the drought. The fact that these warnings have been ignored by government has left the country totally unprepared to handle these disasters.
Once the initial shock at the size and speed of the fires passed, emergency action kicked-in, providing late but welcome assistance to the volunteers who have been battling fires since September. This is what Australia does well, once the decision is made, and it must be an absolute priority.
But the equally important debate around the linkage between drought, bushfires and climate change has sunk back into the swamp of government denial and diversionary tactics which created this disaster in the first place.
The overwhelming evidence is that these issues are all linked.
Weasel words from the Prime Minister that the links had always been obvious, were immediately negated by his underwhelming commitment to “evolve” his inadequate climate policy. In short, nothing will change, hopefully concerns will ease as the summer progresses, then politics-as-usual can resume.
But it will not, because the real implications are still ignored. Climate change is now an immediate existential threat to human civilisation and the greatest threat facing this country. Our drought and bushfires are a foretaste of the accelerating climate emergency which, after three decades of inaction, is locked-in for years to come.
They are early signs that irreversible climatic tipping points, which have concerned scientists for years, are starting to manifest themselves locally.
To avert escalating disasters, we must reduce carbon emissions rapidly, way beyond current policy, greater than 50% by 2030, and encourage the same action globally. In particular, all fossil fuel expansion must stop; coal, oil, gas: Adani, NW Shelf LNG, Great Australian Bight oil, fracking, the long list of NSW and Queensland coal projects, etc.
To do otherwise is simply suicidal. Australia is already more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the lower temperature limit of the 2015 Paris Agreement, and will probably hit 2°C by 2030 or earlier, the upper Paris limit, levels which will create far greater social and economic chaos than we are already seeing.
And we must act early, otherwise tipping points will trigger, moving climate change irreversibly beyond human influence. The longer action is delayed, the faster events move beyond our control. Which means we must talk about climate change right now, particularly about mitigating its impact, not just adapting to events we can no longer avoid.
Which begs the question, do we have a government fit-for-purpose, capable of facing up to this threat honestly, and managing the transformation it implies?
In short, no.
The Prime Minister, in recent comments, culminating in his National Press Club address, demonstrates that he does not understand climate risk and its implications.
Further, he shows no inclination to do so with the continual harping back to, and misrepresentation of, totally inadequate mitigation policies and a concentration on important, but secondary, emergency response and adaptation issues.
Why secondary? Because current global policies, and ours are amongst the worst, are leading to temperature increases of 3-5°C, way beyond the Paris limits, and to the triggering of climate tipping points. It is not possible for humanity to adapt to such conditions; civilisation as we know it will collapse.
Unless we start to cut emissions immediately, those outcomes will become locked-in; emergency responses and adaptation are then irrelevant.
Far more stringent global mitigation measures must be taken now, but particularly here as Australia is one of the countries most exposed to climate risk, as we are already seeing, and the fourth largest global emitter if you include exports, which is the only sensible measure in emergency circumstances.
The Coalition, with its dominance of climate deniers, dismisses such analysis out of hand. Furthermore, successive Coalition governments have created systemic barriers to climate action, not least by continually winding back Australia’s climate change research capacity by emasculating the CSIRO, disbanding the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility and much more, just when we need it most.
In particular, the Australian Public Service for years has been deliberately politicised by both main political parties, hence Scott Morrison’s edict last August that politicians decide policy and the public service just deliver as they are told.
The results speak for themselves.
The Prime Minister’s office is effectively run as a branch of the Minerals Council and other conservative interests, climate denialists to the core.
Senator Bridget McKenzie and her political advisers take it upon themselves to allocate sports grants to gain electoral advantage, irrespective of public service recommendations, apparently because everything was “within the rules”. Blatant pork-barrelling in a moral and ethical vacuum.
Then there is Angus Taylor and his letter to Clover Moore with falsified travel expenditure, questions around water misallocation, Defence procurement, former ministers’ potential conflict-of-interest with private sector employment, such as Christopher Pyne, Julie Bishop and now Brendan Nelson, the list goes on.
The Prime Minister, Matt Canavan, Josh Frydenberg, Angus Taylor and others irresponsibly promote massive fossil fuel development when they have been clearly told by scientific, risk, economic, health and many other experts in both public and private sectors of the risks that represents to the country, the economy and the communities they are supposed to represent, now witnessed by the evidence all around us.
The “frank and fearless advice” which the public service historically provided to counteract such political excess has long since evaporated.
The government’s weak Statement of Ministerial Standards is a poor substitute. It states that the government must: “act with integrity and in the best interests of the people they serve. —- at all times to the highest standards of probity.” Further: “This Statement is principles-based and is not a complete list of rules.”
 Ministers must:

• act with integrity.
• observe fairness in making official decisions, that is to act honestly and reasonably – taking proper account of the merits of the decision.
• accept accountability for the exercise of power, and ensure conduct, representation and decisions are open to public scrutiny and explanation
• take decisions in terms of advancing the public interest, based on their best judgement of what will advance the common good of the people.

Despite this soaring rhetoric, it is then left to the Prime Minister to judge whether any ministerial action is reasonable in meeting these obligations. And of course his big stay-out-of-jail card is that: “ministers take decisions based on their best judgement of what will advance the common good”.
Not surprising, if you are a climate denier, that your “best judgement” would include a large dose of fossil fuel expansion, despite the suicidal implications for the common good of the Australian and global communities.
These Standards represent a massive conflict of interest, as jurists have pointed out, with the foxes firmly in charge of the hen-house. Little wonder the government violently opposes any effective national integrity commission which might interfere with their entitlement to plunder the public purse.
Senator McKenzie’s actions contradict these principles at every level, particularly the mantra that “no rules were broken”. She and others would resign of their own volition if they had a modicum of commitment to the public interest, but clearly that will not happen, nor will they be dismissed by a weak Prime Minister.
Many commentators seem to think this is acceptable, and that her misdemeanours are just of passing interest, typical of the way politics is played these days. Not so.
Sports rorting is certainly a minor issue in the wide panoply of political decision-making, but the principles involved are fundamental to the entire basis of our democracy and its ability to take the hard decisions ahead of us on issues like climate change.
The words of Lord Acton come to mind:

“When you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men (and women) with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Our parliamentarians lack any understanding of the ethical and fiduciary responsibilities of holding public office. No doubt there are good people in parliament, but they are not making themselves heard above the slurping at the trough of political entitlement; as a result, trust in the entire political class has plummeted.
In the near future, we have to make the most difficult decision ever to confront the Australian people – how to transform our fossil-fuel dominated economy to a low-carbon footing at emergency speed. The cost of so doing will be substantial, involving sacrifice, effort, co-operation and most of all, trust.
We do have solutions if they are implemented effectively; otherwise the cost will be far greater, probably leading to the collapse of society as we know it. Fossil fuel expansion, in particular, will only hasten the collapse.
That is our choice. A successful outcome is impossible with our corrupt political system and the vested interests to which it is beholden. When climate change, the greatest threat facing the country, is not even accepted by the leadership as an issue, that leadership is untrustworthy, incapable of making ethically and morally responsible decisions, and emergency action akin to wartime is required, they must step aside.
In response to questions at the National Press Club, the Prime Minister insisted that, on climate change: “Australia is carrying its load and more. We are doing what you would expect a country like Australia to do, but what I won’t do is this: I am not going to sell out Australians”.
Absolute nonsense; this has to be the first time in Australia’s proud history that it has so cravenly shrunk from its international responsibilities on a major global issue. Selling out Australians is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing by refusing to face climate reality, making this government the greatest danger to our national security.
New governance is urgently needed, bringing together the best leaders and expertise to build a consensus for change and apply solutions effectively, fairly and rapidly.

The revolving earth pitted with its tragedies, cried in a far voice from the middle of space: “you cannot leave me to the politicians……. It cannot be left to them; not solely to them. You have to bring in the wise men”.
Neil Gunn

Links

• A call to the Australia people – demand serious action on climate change before it is too late.
• Climate Change: The fiduciary responsibility of politicians & bureaucrats.
• BOM Annual climate statement 2019
• (AU) Morrison Questions Importance Of Global Climate Treaties, To Treat Symptoms Of Climate Change
• (AU) Climate Change Is A Serious Threat To National Security
• (AU) Too Clever By Half? PM Has Let The Climate Cat Out Of The Bag – And There’s No Putting It Back
• (AU) Behind The Smokescreen, The Coalition's Stance On Climate Change Hasn't Changed At All
• (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) Empty Nets And Tropical Fish In Tasmania As Climate Change Hits Southern Ocean

Sydney Morning Herald - Royce Millar | Chris Vedelago

Rising temperatures and climate change have been blamed for the failure of stocks of some of the most popular eating fish in Australia’s Southern Ocean to recover from declines despite more than a decade of protection.
The troubling findings come as new modelling from the CSIRO shows further temperature rises already “locked in by past emissions” could see fish stocks fall by another 20 per cent within the next two decades.

Sea surface temperatures off the coast of Tasmania
November 23, 2010 -2017

Source:  IMOS (Integrated Marine Observing System)

Dr Alistair Hobday, a principal research scientist at the CSIRO, said there was “no doubt” climatechange was an important factor in the failure of some over-fished species to recover.A report by the government’s Fisheries Research and Development Corporation has found ocean temperatures increased by nearly 2 degrees over the past 80 years in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, a “global hotspot” that was warming at almost four times the global average.
The affected region sweeps from the lower east coast of Western Australia across Victoria and Tasmania to the Queensland-NSW border - one of the most productive ocean zones in the country.
Stringent new controls were introduced in 2005 to try and reverse the effects of long-term over-fishing in the area but new data shows that by 2015-16, commercial fishing operators were still catching less than half their allowed quota for more than two-thirds of species.



“When you reduce pressure [from fishing] you expect the stocks to improve. If you are catching fish and then you stop catching fish, the numbers of fish should come back. But they haven’t, and climate change is stopping that recovery in some cases, such as for jackass morwong, eastern gemfish, and blue warehou,” Dr Hobday said.
“Historically over-fished species (eastern gemfish, school shark, blue warehou and most recently redfish) have shown little sign of recovery despite over a decade of the lowest catches on record resulting from significant management changes under ... rebuilding strategies,” the research report found.
Tropical fish and other species from northern waters are now being seen in the southern ocean along with more than 100 other marine species which have been migrating. Pink snapper for example, are increasingly common in Tasmania waters, while traditional cool water fish are being pushed further south. Species of sea urchin and octopus better known in NSW and Victorian waters are now prevalent and problematic in Tasmania.


What role does climate change play in the changing composition of fish in Victoria's waters? Andy McLaughlin of McLaughlin Consolidated Fisherman believes there are other, more immediate, threats to the industry.

Of the major species sought by fishers, only flathead, gummy shark, pink ling and school whiting were returning catches of about 80 per cent of the quota.
Climate change not only increases water temperatures but also boosts acidity, reduces nutrients, and changes water currents. Oxygen levels also decline in warm water, which means the ocean can support fewer fish. The interaction of these factors forces shifts in the feeding, breeding and travel patterns of some fish species.
The FRDC report, which was produced in cooperation with fishing industry representatives, suggests that other factors that could be affecting catch rates include reduced fishing grounds from the growth of marine parks, the declining number of boats in the fleet, and increasing operational costs limiting the ability to fish.
Study participant Simon Boag, executive officer of South East Trawl Fishing Industry Association, Southern Shark Industry Alliance & Small Pelagic Fishing Industry, said that while the industry accepted the science of climate change, many working on the water had not yet seen the practical effects.

In danger

Orange Roughy	Southern Rock Lobster
Abalone	Gummy Shark
Marlin	Blue Grenadier

What they see is huge variations either way - strong currents, weak currents. We have seen the emergence of stocks of fish that have never really featured before and then they go away again."
“I think this is one of the reasons that we haven't really come up with a strategy as an industry to deal with climate change - we don't really know if things are going to get better or worse. The costs of [fish regulation] are much more extreme and much short term and real, than the long term slow and steady effects of climate change.”

Illustration: Matt Golding

In contrast, Dr Hobday said the fishing industry is increasingly of the view that climate change was exerting a noticeable influence: “Like smart farmers fishermen recognise the inescapable changes happening around them.”
The latest modelling from the CSIRO says climate change will be responsible for a damaging 1 degree rise in average water temperatures by 2040 and likely increase the intensity of extreme events.
“The majority of models also indicate that many of the [species in the SESSF] may decline in abundance by 20 per cent or more as a result of climate-related changes,” the soon-to-be-released report says.
Among those to be rated at a high risk of being affected are orange roughy, oreos, blue grenadier, southern rock lobster, abalone, marlin, and several species of shark, with some species anticipated to see drops in stock numbers of up to 50 per cent.

Links

• Climate Change Threatens The World’s Fisheries, Food Billions Of People Rely On
• Suffering In The Heat: The Rise In Marine Heatwaves Is Harming Ocean Species
• Heatwaves Sweeping Oceans ‘Like Wildfires’, Scientists Reveal
• Australia's Marine Heatwaves Provide A Glimpse Of The New Ecological Order
• Marine heatwaves threaten global biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services
• Marine heatwaves are getting hotter, lasting longer and doing more damage
• Coastal seas around New Zealand are heading into a marine heatwave, again
• Why we need to start categorising marine heatwaves like hurricanes
• Climate-driven regime shift of a temperate marine ecosystem
• Conservation implications of ecological responses to extreme weather and climate events
• Surviving Great Barrier Reef corals have higher heatwave resistance

A Better Way To Talk About The Climate Crisis

Harvard Business Review - Gretchen Gavett

ARTWORK: Thomas Jackson, Party Streamers no. 2, Tumey Hills, California, 2015. Courtesy of Ellen Miller Gallery.

Dr. Katharine Hayhoe is a professor of political science at Texas Tech University and the director of the Climate Science Center. She hosts the PBS digital series Global Weirding: Climate, Politics and Religion, is the World Evangelical Alliance’s climate ambassador, and has received a broad range of recognitions and awards, from Working Mother’s 50 Most Influential Moms to the UN Champion of the Earth in 2019. Hayhoe’s 2018 TEDWomen talk “The Most Important Thing You Can Do to Fight Climate Change: Talk About It” has received almost 2 million views. Gretchen Gavett is a senior editor at Harvard Business Review.

Many of us care about the climate, but it can be challenging to talk about. It’s easy to get bogged down in stats and statistics, for one. And it can be nerve-racking to approach someone if you don’t already know what their beliefs on the topic are. Sometimes, it’s easier to just keep our mouths shut.
Given the urgency of the climate crisis, however, many of us feel that silence is no longer an option. And Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, is the person to talk to about how to talk about climate change.
Hayhoe, whose 2018 TEDWomen talk on the subject has been viewed almost 2 million times, talks to everyone about the topic: Uber drivers, church ladies, Rotary Club members, business leaders, managers, elected officials, and more.
People may have different backgrounds and views, but she’s found a strategy that works: focusing on the heart — that is, what we collectively value — as opposed to the head.
So no matter your conversational goal, whether it’s encouraging your company to act on climate issues or getting your employees to understand how the decisions they make affect your company’s climate goals, this edited interview with Dr. Hayhoe is a great place to start.

What should any leader take into consideration when talking to people — employees, clients, suppliers, etc. — about climate change?
Ultimately, whether you’re training a new employee, reviewing best practices with a supplier, or just having a conversation about climate change with a client, follow this rule of thumb: Don’t start with fear, judgment, condemnation, or guilt. And don’t start with just overwhelming people with facts and figures. Do start by connecting the dots to what is already important to both of us, and then offer positive, beneficial, and practical solutions that we can engage in.

Why have you found that this method works best? And how does it lead people toward understanding the urgency of climate change and taking action?
Often we believe that to care about climate change we have to be a certain type of person: an environmentalist, someone who bikes to work, or is a vegan. And if we’re not any of those things, then we think, “Why should climate change matter to me?”
But the reality is that if we are a human living on planet Earth, then climate change already matters to every single one of us; we just haven’t realized it yet.
Why? Because climate change affects the economy, the availability of natural resources, prices, jobs, international competition, and more.
Failing to account for climate change in future long-range planning could lose us a competitive edge even in a best-case scenario, and potentially mean the end of a product line or an entire business in the worst case. By connecting climate impacts to what we already care about, we can recognize the importance and urgency of taking action.

So if I’m a leader, what are some specific ways in which I can communicate with my employees that sustainability is a key part of their jobs?
I would start early. During their initial training, I would explain very clearly how our products, our production, and our waste contributes to the problem of climate change. If our production is very energy intensive or produces a lot of organic waste, for example, that means we may be generating massive amounts of greenhouse gases.
If our goods are transported over long distances, that also requires fossil fuels that produce heat-trapping gases. And aside from the issue of climate change, if we produce a lot of non-recyclable waste that just piles up in landfills or the ocean, how much are we contributing to the pollution problem as well?
But I would also be sure to pair this information hand in hand with what we’re doing to fix the problems from our end and how it’s paying off. Give people analogies so it’s really clear, so they can see it.
I love giving examples of how many X worth of Y we’ve reduced; for example, something like “Through increasing the energy efficiency of our facilities, we have taken the equivalent of 500 cars off the road. Isn’t that incredible? That’s what we’ve been doing through our efforts.” Or, “We have reduced our waste by 50%. That’s the equivalent of X garbage trucks of waste per year.” Or, “We are now powered by 38 wind turbines; that’s X trainloads of coal we don’t need to use anymore.”
Finally — and this is the most important part! — I’d engage the employees themselves in the solutions. As humans, we want to be part of a solution. We want to make a difference. That is part of what gives us hope and what gives us energy, the idea that we’re actually doing something good for the world.
So, for example, I might say, “We’re aiming for an even better milestone. I want your ideas to help us get to this new milestone, too.” That’s even more incentivizing, when you feel like a company encourages you and supports you and wants you to be part of their plan.

Does this advice extend to people who might not believe that climate change is that severe — or that it exists at all? What might this kind of conversation look like in a professional setting?
Only around 10% of the population is dismissive [of climate change], but they are a very loud 10%. Glance at the comment section of any online article on climate change, check out the responses to my tweets, or search for global warming videos on YouTube — they’re everywhere. They’re even at our Thanksgiving dinner, because just about every one of us has at least one person who is dismissive in the family. I do, too!
A person who is dismissive is someone who has built their identity on rejecting the reality of a changing climate because they believe the solutions represent a direct and immediate threat to all they hold dear. And in pursuit of that goal, they will reject anything: hundreds of scientific studies, thousands of experts, even the evidence of their own eyes. So, no, there is no point talking to a dismissive about climate science or impacts, unless you enjoy banging your head against the wall.
But it can be possible to have a constructive conversation with a dismissive — and I’ve had these! — by focusing solely on solutions that they don’t see as a threat because they carry positive benefits and/or are good for their bottom line. And the fascinating thing is that once they are engaged in helping fix the problem, that very action can have the power to change a dismissive person’s mind.

I want to end by asking about the importance of climate conversation over the next few years. I’ve heard anecdotally that companies are hearing more questions from younger job candidates or employees: “What are you doing? How are you addressing climate change as a company?” Does that resonate with you at all? Should companies be preparing for more conversations like these?
We see a very strong age gradient when it comes to levels of concern about climate change primarily among conservative populations, with younger people caring much more and being much more engaged than their elders. (Among more liberal populations, levels of concern are relatively high across all age groups.)
At my own school, the number of students going to the president and asking, “What is our university doing?” has increased noticeably. I hear this anecdotally from colleagues all around the country, too. And when those students graduate, that’s what they ask in their interviews, because they want to be part of the solution.
Young people understand how urgent the problem is, and they know that there’s no time to waste. A lot of them don’t want to do a job that is not helping to fix this massive problem that we have.
If companies want to be competitive, if they want to hire the best and the brightest, the ones who are most engaged, the ones who are most in tune, the ones who really put their heart and their soul and their passion into their work, then they have to start talking about climate change differently. Because this is increasingly becoming something that young professionals really care about.

Links

• Climate Change Splits The Public Into Six Groups. Understanding Them Is Key To Future Action
• Can The Internet Survive Climate Change?
• Telling Stories To Battle Climate Change, With A Little Humor Thrown In
• The Real Reason Some Scientists Downplay The Risks Of Climate Change
• Drop The Doom And Gloom: Climate Journalism Is About Empowerment
• Communicating Climate Change, For A Change
• How To Talk Effectively About Climate Change

(AU) Bushfire Survivors Join Claim Against ANZ For Financing Climate Crisis

The Guardian - Adam Morton

Three survivors joined Friends of the Earth to accuse ANZ of misleading consumers by investing in fossil fuel projects

One survivor, Jack Egan, claims there is a clear link between ANZ’s support for fossil fuels and the exacerbated bushfires conditions. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

Three bushfire survivors have joined environment group Friends of the Earth in a legal claim against ANZ, accusing it of financing the climate crisis by funding fossil fuel projects.

The case, lodged under international guidelines agreed by members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), demands the bank disclose its greenhouse gas emissions, including “scope three” emissions resulting from its business lending and investment portfolio, and set ambitious targets that align with the Paris climate agreement.
The claim was inspired by a successful complaint against ING bank in the Netherlands by Friends of the Earth, Oxfam and Greenpeace. Mediation following that complaint led to ING committing to measure and publish its indirect emissions, reduce its thermal coal exposure to near zero by 2025 and make its portfolio consistent with the Paris goal of keeping global heating well below 2C above pre-industrial levels.
The complainants in the ANZ claim include Jack Egan, who was approached by Friends of the Earth to join the action after his home near Batemans Bay, on the New South Wales coast, was destroyed on New Year’s Eve.
Egan said there was a clear link between ANZ and other institution’s ongoing support of fossil fuels and the extreme hot and dry conditions that exacerbated the fire that left him homeless. “We are not seeking damages or compensation from ANZ, I just want them to stop fuelling dangerous climate change,” he said.
Friends of the Earth announced the action at a protest outside ANZ headquarters in Melbourne’s Docklands. It lodged the claim with the federal government’s OECD national contact point, a section of the federal treasury responsible for hearing complaints of corporate wrongdoing under the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises.

The national contact point’s initial role is to attempt to broker a mediation between the parties. If agreement cannot be reached, it can make recommendations, but cannot force parties to take action. ANZ declined to comment on Thursday.
The environment group alleges ANZ’s breaches of the OECD guidelines include misleading consumers by claiming to support the Paris agreement targets while continuing to invest in projects that undermine the meeting of those targets.
Emila Nazari, a legal officer with Friends of the Earth, said the bank had increased investment in coal 34% over the past two years as it lent $8.8bn to the fossil fuel sector. She said the bank was Australia’s largest financier of fossil fuel industries, and continued to invest billions of dollars in “climate wrecking projects” while bushfires raged across Australia.
“It is illegal for someone to light a bushfire, and we believe it is illegal for companies to finance the burning of our common home. This case is one of many to come against climate criminals,” Nazari said.
The other names attached to the action are Joanna Dodds, a Bega Valley Shire councillor and member of the group Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action, and Patrick Simons, a Friends of the Earth renewable energy campaigner whose family lost their home in NSW.

Links

• Bushfire survivors launch claim against ANZ under international law for financing climate change 
• Complaint: Friends of the Earth Australia et al., versus Australia and New Zealand Banking Group
• Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action
• Friends of the Earth Australia
• Banks boosted new lending to fossil fuel projects last year, figures show
• Opinion: Bring On The Royal Commission Into Australia's Climate Change Policy
• (AU) Fire Inquiry Must Look At Climate Change
• (AU) Could A Lawsuit Tip The Scales On Climate Policy?

(AU) Getting Down To The Business Of Evolving Australia's Climate Policy

Sydney Morning Herald - Innes Willox*

Scorched by unprecedented bushfires, our nation badly needs a global solution to climate change.
Evolving emissions policy, as the Prime Minister  has suggested, can deliver a more ambitious,  durable and trade-neutral approach, and get investment flowing to the industry and the infrastructure we need for a prosperous future.
Success requires clarity about what we’re trying to do, and smart policy design that suits the enduring needs of the community and industry.

The fire threat will become inescapably worse in a warming climate, but what if global temperatures rise by 3C rather than the target of 1.5C? Credit: Nick Moir

Many fear that the recent fires are the "new normal". The truth seems to be both better and worse than that. The specific circumstances that produced the most dire bushfire season in recorded Australian history won’t recur every year.
But an underlying increase in average temperatures and shift in rainfall patterns has made more severe bushfires more likely. That shift is guaranteed to deteriorate.
Australia is currently dealing with a 1C increase in global average temperatures over pre-industrial levels. The goal of the Paris Agreement is to keep the total increase to no more than 1.5C – with significantly greater impacts than today and requiring difficult, costly adaptation.
But the initial set of commitments that nations have made under Paris puts us on course for 3C or more.
Global central banks say that would seriously threaten the world economy. It is absolutely true that Australia (which accounted for 1.1 per cent of global emissions in 2016) can’t halt climate change alone. Nor can China (23.5 per cent), the United States (11.8 per cent) or the European Union (7.3 per cent).
Collectively, emitters of Australia’s size or smaller account for more than 30 per cent.
It takes ambitious action by all countries to achieve a net-zero-emissions world. The logic of Paris is for nations to commit to the greatest action they can, then keep upgrading those commitments towards net zero as mutual confidence grows and technology improves.
Australia’s national interest lies in everyone driving that positive spiral by going beyond minimalist compliance with current commitments. If we don’t lift our weight, it takes the moral and political pressure off emitters of all sizes and makes a global solution much harder.
We can contribute by charting our own course to net-zero emissions by 2050, backing it with policies that preserve equity and competitiveness, and co-operating internationally to improve technology and promote success.
Australia has many places to start. The federal government is developing a long-term emissions strategy, an electric vehicle strategy and a technology roadmap, it has options to expand its investment in clean innovation.
The states all target net-zero by 2050 and are developing plans to deliver; greater co-operation and co-ordination on those plans is needed.
The next integrated system plan for the national electricity market will be finalised in June. Internationally, Australia has joined a collaboration on harder-to-decarbonise industrial sectors, and Britain is asking all nations to bring deeper emissions commitments to the Glasgow climate summit in November.
Policy-making needs a clear sense of what matters and what doesn’t. Being seen to "do something" is not enough. Quality matters.
The policy principles offered by the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Climate Roundtable – a broad alliance of major Australian business, environmental, farmer, investor, union and social welfare groups – should guide any policy. It covers environmental integrity, economic efficiency, trade competitiveness, social equity and more.
Electricity is already transitioning, but badly needs clear, integrated, long-term climate policy to attract sufficient investment to meet our needs and support net zero. But the rest of the economy accounts for two-thirds of Australian emissions and needs workable pathways too.
Trade matters. Losing competitiveness via uneven international climate policies has long been our greatest reservation about Australian efforts. Different trade risks are now also opening up: Europe pushes climate in trade deals, and is developing a carbon border adjustment – potentially, tariffs on carbon-intensive imports.
Smart policy design can manage these trade risks, allowing Australia to show leadership while maintaining competitiveness. Some current shibboleths may be dispensable. Carry-over credits for past over-performance don’t help with the long-term transition to net zero, and controversy over them threatens to shut Australia out of international co-operation.


The RBA is warning climate change could lead to the next global financial break down.

The aversion to a carbon price should be rethought. What justifies it today beyond the inertia of past politics? Carbon prices are key policies for major economies on every continent except Antarctica – and Australia.
An emissions trading scheme for China’s huge power sector starts this year.
Should Australia rely solely on government regulation and public spending to reform our economy? Many different pricing models are available, not only those developed by former prime ministers John Howard, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard.
We need creative thinking. The fate of Australia’s fossil fuel exports lies ultimately with our  customers’ decisions about their energy systems in light of changing technology and preferences.
We need to be ready for those decisions.
The recently announced national hydrogen strategy is a great first step towards an economic hedge. It is an industry whose growth prospects are the inverse of the expected long-term decline in fossil exports in a world that successfully limits climate change.
The trauma and tragedy of the bushfire crisis is shaking climate politics and policy out of its rut.
Evolution is needed.
And all of us have a responsibility to shape it.

*Innes Willox is the chief executive of the Australian Industry Group.

Links

• Praise for inquiry but more investigations to come, former fire chief warns
• 'Unprecedented' fires, hail and floods cost Suncorp $674m in claims
• Death by a thousand cuts: the industry doing ‘more damage than mining’
• 'Dire outlook': Researchers call for urgent Australian climate action
• Getting down to the business of evolving Australia's climate policy
• Emergency fire near NSW border likely started by army helicopter
• Australia emits 1.2 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases. So who must act to cut emissions?
• (AU) Morrison Questions Importance Of Global Climate Treaties, To Treat Symptoms Of Climate Change
• (AU) Climate Change Is A Serious Threat To National Security
• (AU) Behind The Smokescreen, The Coalition's Stance On Climate Change Hasn't Changed At All
• (AU) Can Scott Morrison Seize This Watershed Moment For Climate Policy?
• Denmark Floats A Possible Model For Climate Policy

Trust Our Expertise Or Face Catastrophe, Amazon Peoples Warn On Environment

The Guardian - Patrick Greenfield

Indigenous leader urges focus on native knowledge as study shows rainforest areas under tribal stewardship manage carbon better

Amazon-based indigenous leader Tuntiak Katan. Photograph: Courtesy of Tuntiak Katan

Ecosystems will continue to collapse around the world unless humanity listens to the expertise of indigenous communities on how to live alongside nature, a prominent Amazon leader has warned.
Tuntiak Katan of the Ecuadorian Shuar people, who is vice-president of the pan-Amazon organisation representing communities in the river basin, said governments were spending millions of dollars on environmental consultants while largely ignoring the land management skills of the planet’s indigenous people that could help combat the climate crisis and biodiversity loss.
Speaking to the Guardian from the Ecuadorian Amazon, Katan, who became the first indigenous representative at a UN climate action summit last year, said environmental “catastrophes” such as the fires that devastated the world’s largest rainforest in 2019 would continue unless the contributions and human rights of indigenous people were respected.
Indigenous communities support around 80% of the planet’s biodiversity despite accounting for less than one twentieth of the human population, according to the World Bank.
Katan’s warning came as a new study revealed that parts of the Amazon rainforest under the stewardship of indigenous peoples sequester carbon better than areas with little protection, leading to less deforestation and degradation.
“We are the defenders of nature, of the life of the forests, of our territories,” said Katan, vice-president of Coordinator of the Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin (Coica). “The world is investing lots of money to implement public policy to combat climate change, help conservation and restoration. But these policies are made in offices by technical experts with little or no knowledge of the Earth.”
Biodiversity loss was named as the third biggest risk to the world in terms of likelihood and severity this year by the World Economic Forum, ahead of terror attacks, infectious diseases and interstate conflict.

Children from the Huni Kuin tribe on land ravaged by the 2019 Amazon fires. Photograph: David Tesinsky/Mediadrumimages

Despite the concerns expressed by the global elite in Davos, there was no indigenous representation at last week’s forum in the Swiss ski resort, according to Katan. He said he would welcome the opportunity to attend next year’s forum to outline an indigenous economic model based on maintaining the health of the world’s soils, rivers and the forest.
“If the proposals, knowledge and management practices of indigenous people are not listened to, there will be more big catastrophes. The issue of fires in the Amazon will continue, the degradation of forests and water will continue, deforestation will continue,” Katan added.
This month, the UN unveiled the draft of a Paris-style agreement on nature calling for a commitment to protect at least 30% of the planet, dramatically reduce pollution and promote the participation and practices of indigenous people.
Katan said: “We are well-coordinated with our brothers and sisters from Indonesia, the Congo, communities in the Arctic and from the Pacific. We’ve been discussing issues with our brothers and sisters from all parts of the world.
“In Indonesia, for example, they also have a lot of knowledge about how to manage tropical forests. But the same story is being repeated here as in other parts of the world: the lack of recognition of their knowledge and the lack of respect for the human rights of indigenous populations.”
Anti-indigenous sentiment is increasing in some parts of the planet. This month activists said they would sue Brazil’s far-right president Jair Bolsonaro for his latest racist comments in which he questioned the humanity of indigenous communities.
In one of his weekly Facebook broadcasts, Bolsonaro declared: “Indians are undoubtedly changing … They are increasingly becoming human beings just like us.”

A person holds cardboard crosses that read ‘indigenous land’ during a protest against budget cuts on public education by President Jair Bolsonaro’s government. Photograph: Silvia Izquierdo/AP

The new study from the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Massachusetts, found that between 2003 and 2016, 90% of net emissions came from outside protected lands in the Amazon.
Scientist and lead author Wayne Walker said: “Our work shows that forests under the stewardship of indigenous peoples and local communities continue to have better carbon outcomes than lands lacking protection, meaning that their role is critical and must be strengthened if Amazon basin countries are to succeed in maintaining this globally important resource, while also achieving their commitments under the Paris Climate Agreement.”
The findings add weight to the recommendations of a report on land use and the climate crisis by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found that areas held or managed by indigenous peoples had much less human impact on the environment.
The report also highlighted the lack of consideration of indigenous views and knowledge in understanding large regions and ecosystems.

Links

• 'Like a bomb going off': why Brazil's largest reserve is facing destruction
• The Role of Indigenous Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation (pdf)
• UN draft plan sets 2030 target to avert Earth's sixth mass extinction
• Study: Indigenous territories protect Amazon forest carbon, but aren’t immune to degradation
• Key Takeaways From The IPCC Special Report On Climate Change And Land
• Indigenous Farming Practices Failing As Climate Change Disrupts Seasons
• Why Land Rights For Indigenous Peoples Could Be The Answer To Climate Change

(AU) Morrison Questions Importance Of Global Climate Treaties, To Treat Symptoms Of Climate Change

RenewEconomy - Michael Mazengarb

AAP Image/Mick Tsikas

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has appeared to downplay the importance of major international climate change agreements in a speech to the National Press Club, that further flags his intention to focus on treating the symptoms of climate change, rather than addressing the cause.
Morrison used his speech to outline how his government will respond to the ongoing bushfire crisis and renewed calls for the government to increase action on climate change by focusing on resilience and adaptation.
“This summer is the latest chapter in the often harsh realities of living in this amazing continent. Building our national resilience means building our ability to resist, absorb, accommodate, recover, and transform in the face of such events,” Morrison said.
“And this includes the effects of longer, hotter, drier summers. Practical action on mitigation through reduced emissions needs to go hand in hand with practical action on climate resilience and adaptation.”
Despite dedicating a substantial portion of his speech speaking about the Coalition government’s need to work to adapt and increase resilience to the impacts of climate change, Morrison offered no new commitments from the governments in terms of policy or funding.
The speech further signals an intention to focus attention on the responses to the impacts and symptoms of climate change, rather than taking preventative action by accelerating reductions in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging other countries to do the same.
“Even under the most ambitious global emissions reductions targets, mitigation and adaptation both contribute to resilience. Mitigation reduces the risk and adaptation is how we prepare for the climate risk we cannot reduce.”
“We have to give them the room to adjust and not cut off response options like in gas exploration and development that help them move forward. The answer is not more taxes, and increased global bureaucracy,” Morrison added.
While Morrison is adopting a new rhetoric, with a seemingly greater focus on building resilience to climate change fuelled disasters like bushfires and drought, the Coalition government has a long track record of cutting funding to climate change adaptation bodies.
The Coalition ceased funding to the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility in 2017, a dedicated body established to examine how Australia can adapt to climate change. The Coalition also significantly cut funding to the CSIRO, leading to the science body cutting back its climate adaptation and resilience research.
A 2017 report from Deloitte Access Economics estimated that the average annual cost of natural disasters to the Australian economy in the decade to 2016 was $18.2 billion per year, or the equivalent to 1.2% of average gross domestic product. Deloitte expects the economic cost to grow to $39 billion per year on average by 2050, as the impacts of climate change continue to grow.
Despite this, in his speech Morrison suggested it was potentially futile for Australia to try and force other countries to reduce their emissions, and promoted the often repeated message of the coal lobby that Australia is doing the world a service by selling its coal to other countries.
“Of course, we know that Australia on its own cannot control the world’s climate as Australia accounts for just 1.3 per cent of global emissions. We also know that no fire event can be attributed to the actions of any one country on emissions reduction,” Morrison said.
“You will not reduce the number of coal-fired power stations in the world by forcing the shutdown of Australian coal mines in Australia and jobs that go with them,” Morrison added. “Other countries will just buy the coal from somewhere else, often poor quality with greater environmental and climate impacts.”
The National Press Club speech was Morrison’s first major speech of 2020, and the Prime Minister will hope it will help set the agenda before federal Parliament resumes in early February, after his leadership attracted immense scrutiny over a challenging summer for much of Australia.
It was a speech that was quickly slammed by environmental groups, who see the shift in focus from the Morrison government as being intended as a tactic to distract from the need to phase-out Australia’s coal industry.
“We know that climate change has exacerbated Australia’s current bushfire crisis, and yet the Prime Minister is now calling to add more fossil fuels to the fire,” Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s Dr Nikola Casule said.
“This is yet another move in a string of logic-defying false solutions to the climate crisis proposed by the Prime Minister, instead of meaningfully committing to reduce Australia’s emissions, which are driven by burning coal, oil and gas.”
“No amount of resilience building or adaptation will prepare Australia for the full brunt of global warming of 3 degrees or more – which is the trajectory we are on,” Australian Conservation Foundation’s climate change campaigner Suzanne Harter added.
Morrison appeared to question the value of global climate change agreements, like the Paris Agreement, reached in 2016, by suggesting they were too soft on some countries, and therefore it wasn’t worth Australia attempting to any additional heavy lifting to reduce global emissions.
“Agreements globally actually endorse massive increases in emissions, some from some of the world’s largest and growing economies. So understandably, this test the patience of people in countries like Australia, particularly in regional areas who asked the question, ‘why does their job have to be exported and their incomes exported to other countries?’, Morrison said.
“While global emissions under those arrangements are allowed to rise for so many, these contradictions and limitations need to be acknowledged.”
Underlining this, Morrison went on to praise the United States for the emissions reductions it has achieved, largely driven by a move towards gas away from coal, despite the Trump administration’s plans to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
“It’s worth noting that the United States has achieved higher rights of emissions reduction than many of the nations that are signatories to the Paris Agreement,” Morrison said.
“All of this is the climate action we need now, building dams, developing new crop varieties, improving planning for natural disasters is climate action now, the science tells us the effects of emissions already in the atmosphere will continue to be filled in coming decades,” Morrison told the National Press Club.
Morrison was greeted at the National Press Club by protesters from the Canberra University Students for Climate Justice, who called on the Prime Minister to ramp up the federal government’s efforts on climate change and clean energy.
“We need an immediate and rapid transition away from fossil fuels. Firefighting services and the cost of the recovery, including compensation for victims, should be paid for by the fossil fuel companies that caused this catastrophe,” coordinator Grace Hill said.

Links

• (AU) Climate Change Is A Serious Threat To National Security
• (AU) Too Clever By Half? PM Has Let The Climate Cat Out Of The Bag – And There’s No Putting It Back
• (AU) Behind The Smokescreen, The Coalition's Stance On Climate Change Hasn't Changed At All
• (AU) Can Scott Morrison Seize This Watershed Moment For Climate Policy?
• 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