25/10/2020

China's Communist Party Knows How To Quell A Restive Population — But What About Its Environment?

ABC NewsAlan Weedon

The Chinese mainland traverses diverse ecosystems, all vulnerable to climate change. (International Rivers / Reuters)

Key Points
  • Water scarcity is one of the country's most-pressing environmental concerns
  • Experts say environmental threats act as a "threat multiplier" on existing tensions
  • They say China's carbon neutral pledge could also be seen as a play to take a leadership role

It's often said that China's rise will present one of the world's greatest security challenges this century.While China has promised the world a peaceful rise, its "wolf warrior diplomacy", fast-growing military, and territorial claim to most of the South China Sea despite having no legal basis, suggest otherwise.

But there's another, less understood consequence of China's rise — and that's to do with the enormous scale of its emissions.

Richard Smith, an author and US-based expert in Chinese history and economics, said China's rising emissions — constituting nearly a third of the global total — poses "the single biggest threat to life on Earth".

"What's uniquely dangerous about the Chinese case is that its emissions are … growing so fast that scientists tell us they could eventually doom the climate on their own regardless of what the rest of the world does," Mr Smith wrote in Foreign Policy magazine.

"In the most optimistic Chinese Government scenario, coal and other fossil fuels will still provide at least two-thirds of China's electricity until as late as 2050, by which time it will be too late to matter."

China recently pledged to be carbon neutral by 2060, but the country's sheer scale makes this very difficult.

China is the world's largest emitter of CO2 — one of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming — and it is also the world's largest consumer and investor in renewable energy.

However, its renewables capacity is nowhere near the levels that could allow China to wean off fossil fuels and meet its economic growth targets in the short term.


China's zero carbon road
It's official: Chinese President Xi Jinping tells the UN that China is going carbon neutral by 2060. But how does the world's largest polluter even begin to start the process? Read more

Experts have said that global warming would have profound effects on global security, as fluctuating weather patterns and increasingly scarce resources could exacerbate geopolitical tensions.

For China, environmental issues could also have profound impacts on the stability of the Chinese Communist Party's authoritarian rule — and it's something Beijing is abundantly aware of.

"There's an assumption from a lot of people that China doesn't understand that its pollution is a problem, where I think actually, Chinese leaders are much more up-to-date and aware of all the issues surrounding climate change than most Western leaders," Jonna Nyman, an expert in international energy and climate politics at the UK's University of Sheffield, told the ABC.

"The issue is the scale of the problem they're actually facing, which is gargantuan.

China's environmental 'threat multipliers'
Sediment-laden floodwaters gush through the Xiaolangdi Dam on the Yellow River in Luoyang, Henan province.(Reuters)

Pichamon Yeophantong, a political scientist and China expert at UNSW Canberra, told the ABC that environmental threats act as a "threat multiplier" on existing tensions such as China's urban-rural divide, rather than being the source of conflict.

Mr Smith said environmental stress could add further tension in regions where Beijing is sometimes viewed with suspicion, including Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia.

"In Tibet, locals have long resisted 'modernisation' efforts by China — Chinese efforts to introduce rice farming, their suppression of yak herding and forced urbanisation of Tibetan herders, the urbanised destruction of the countryside around Lhasa, the trans-Tibet railroad to China," Mr Smith said.

"In Xinjiang, Chinese resource extraction, the mines, oil drilling, the coal-to-chemicals plants have made pollution in Xinjiang worse than in Beijing.

Polluted water from a rare earths mine spews into a tailings dam in Inner Mongolia. (Reuters: David Gray)

A recent report estimated about 16,000 mosques have been destroyed in the region, which Beijing denies.

The impact of climate change on China's diverse ecosystem could also make social and economic divides even more pronounced.

For example, the vast North China Plain — a region with one of the highest population densities on Earth — may experience such severe extreme heat by the latter half of this century, it would render the region uninhabitable if emissions continued unabated.

The North China Plain is home to one of the highest concentrations of people on Earth. (ABC News: Jarrod Fankhauser)

In the Hindu Kush Himalayas (HKH), it's predicted that about a third of its glaciers will melt, even if the world keeps average temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100. If temperatures rise by 2 degrees, two-thirds of it will melt, which could intensify flooding and disrupt agricultural seasons for billions downstream.

The Hindu Kush Himalayas feed river basins used by almost 2 billion people. (ABC News: Jarrod Fankhauser)


Meanwhile, recent research by not-for-profit Climate Central suggested that sea-level rise will plunge China's coastal cities lower than tide levels by 2050 more than previously predicted, even if emissions are reduced moderately.

"[Data shows] China is a country with high vulnerability to climate change and is more vulnerable to climate change than the global average in many ways, including sea-level rise," Hongyu Guo, assistant director at Beijing's environmental advocacy body Greenovation Hub, told the ABC.

Water scarcity has led to dry farming beds along the Yongding River, south-west of Beijing. (ABC News: Brant Cumming)

"According to the China Maritime Disaster Bulletin, China's coastal sea level has been rising at an accelerating pace in the past 40 years.

The threat from within

In the short term, one of the most pressing issues for China is arguably water scarcity.

China is home to 20 per cent of the global population, but the country has access to only 7 per cent of the globe's fresh water, according to a 2018 report from China Dialogue, a non-profit organisation looking into China's environmental challenges.

About 80 per cent of the water it does have is concentrated in the south.

Meanwhile China's north, which has 64 per cent of China's farmland and more than 696 million people, suffers from acute water stress (where total water consumption — including agriculture, industrial and drinking water use — drops below 500 cubic metres per person, per year).

To ease this pressure, Beijing built the South-North canal, which transfers drinking water 1,500 kilometres from southern China to Beijing.

When it was completed in 2018, the South-North canal was the most expensive and biggest engineering project of its type.  (ABC News: Brant Cumming)

However, the sheer volume of China's water consumption means infrastructure like the canal isn't the silver bullet to solve the country's water woes.


'Great walls' of trees




In 2017, government statistics figures showed agriculture and industry — also concentrated in the north — consumed about 84 per cent of the country's water.

Meanwhile, the overuse of pesticides and fertilisers for agriculture has polluted 70 per cent of China's water table, according to government surveys.

Charles Parton, author of China Dialogue's 2018 report and the UK Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee Special Adviser on China, concluded that water scarcity could present a grave threat to China's stability.

"Clearly if a sudden water crisis were to hit, some very hard choices would be forced upon the Government between agriculture, power generation, industry and everyday use by the people," Mr Parton wrote.

"The threat is worse than just to food security, economic prosperity and social wellbeing: the likelihood of those and other factors leading to large-scale unrest is something which must terrify the [Chinese Communist] Party."
Local vulnerabilities, global ramifications
China's damming of its reaches of the Mekong River has courted significant controversy. (Flickr: International Rivers)


Water scarcity has led to dry farming beds along the Yongding River, south-west of Beijing. (ABC News: Brant Cumming)

Water has also been a contentious issue between China and countries downstream, including Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam.

To date, China has no formal water treaties with those countries.

In April this year, American environmental consultancy Eyes on Earth accused China of withholding water during a 2019 drought that devastated communities downstream.

The Mekong River Commission confirmed China withheld critical data from its Mekong water stations.

Dr Yeophantong said conflicts involving Asia's largest rivers, including the Mekong, could turn into "a catastrophe that has spill-over effects on other countries", as climate change is tipped to exacerbate floods and drier monsoon seasons, which could significantly disrupt livelihoods.

David Molden, director-general at the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), an inter-governmental panel for the HKH, said neighbouring countries — including nuclear-armed Pakistan, India and China — needed to establish "escape valves" to avoid conflict.

The Himalayan ranges on the Indian-Chinese border seen from space. (NASA Johnson)

"You've got [conflicts between] India-China, India-Pakistan, and you've got Myanmar as well. So this is a conflict-prone region," Mr Molden said.

"If we can focus on science, if we can focus on the environment, we can create important [multilateral] discussion platforms where [countries] can work together."

Last week, the eight countries that make up the region — Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Nepal, Myanmar and Pakistan — signed a joint declaration at an ICIMOD-brokered summit to investigate the establishment of a HKH multilateral bloc.

 China's Himalayan portions are due to experience profound environmental change this century. (Flickr)

Dr Yeophantong said issues over the Mekong could prompt China to launch a similar initiative with its South-East Asian neighbours.

"But at the same time, both India and China are so focused on the military and security aspects they are neglecting the environmental dimension."

When announcing China's carbon neutrality pledge last month, President Xi Jinping told delegates at a virtual General Assembly meeting that "humankind can no longer afford to ignore the repeated warnings of nature".

President Xi Jinping's carbon neutral pledge at last month's UN General Assembly. (video)

While his statement could have been read as an environmental call-to-arms, the pledge can also provide China with an edge over the US in their strategic rivalry.

"I could see [the pledge] being a key trigger for worries among some Western states, because I think the US under Donald Trump has really left a massive power vacuum," Sheffield's Dr Nyman said.

"Things like this new pledge, alongside other Chinese leadership initiatives, have really stepped in to fill that gap."

But regardless of whether or not China wins in the geopolitical stakes, there's one battle Beijing ultimately needs to win.

"They just have to be confronted on this."

Links

The Undeniable Link Between Weather Disasters And Climate Change

Washington PostSarah Kaplan

Michael Parkin for The Washington Post

Climate Curious

What is the link between climate change and the natural disasters we are currently experiencing?

— Magdalena, Maryland

By many measures, 2020 has been disastrous. Hurricanes in the Atlantic are so numerous that there are not enough letters in the Latin alphabet to name them all. Fires in California torched more than 4 million acres, smashing the state’s record for land burned in a single season. In the first nine months of this year, at least 188 people have been killed in a record-tying 16 weather disasters that cost $1 billion or more. 

The nation now spends almost 10 times as much responding to and recovering from natural events as it did in the 1980s. And that’s just the United States. Don’t forget the bush fires in Australia, floods in Central Africa and the powerful Cyclone Amphan, which killed dozens of people in India and Bangladesh.

2020 has also been hot. During one of the Northern Hemisphere’s warmest winters on record, the Great Lakes never froze, Russian officials in Moscow had to import fake snow for the holidays, and the fire season in parched California began months ahead of schedule. 

Temperatures soared in the Siberian Arctic, melting permafrost and fueling devastating, carbon-spewing fires. In Baghdad, where the mercury hit an unprecedented 125 degrees Fahrenheit in July, vegetation withered and metal door handles burned to the touch. 

Heat waves have smashed records from Phoenix to Hong Kong. Earth overall is on track to have its second-hottest year on record.

But how do scientists know this year’s weather disasters are linked to climate?

Let’s begin with the easiest to explain: coastal flooding. By melting polar ice sheets, human-caused warming has raised the global average sea level between eight and nine inches since the start of the industrial era. In some places, a variety of other factors — regional ocean currents, erosion, settling of the ground — can make the change even more extreme. One study of a “hot spot” along the Outer Banks of North Carolina found that sea levels were rising as fast as an inch per year.

The higher the baseline sea level, the easier it is for a simple high tide to send water surging into communities. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, flooding during high tides has doubled in the United States in the past 20 years.

Rising waters also increase the risk of flooding during hurricanes. In the Bay of Bengal, where sea levels are rising twice as fast as the global average, storm surge from Cyclone Amphan exceeded 16 feet and reached almost 10 miles inland.

But increased storm surge is just the start of ways climate change has made hurricanes worse. Storms draw strength from energy in the ocean. As water warms and evaporates, it can interact with weather disturbances to create a swirling cell of rising humid air, falling rain and raging winds. 

The warmer the water, the more intense the resulting storm. With global sea surface temperature increasing 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, studies show the chance of a given tropical storm becoming a hurricane that is Category 3 or greater has grown 8 percent every 10 years.

Higher ocean temperatures also make hurricanes more likely to rapidly intensify, catching forecasters and communities off guard. The Gulf Coast saw the consequences of this pattern in August, when the winds of Hurricane Laura increased 65 miles per hour in the 24 hours just before the storm made landfall. The storm killed 42 people and caused $14 billion in damage, ranking it among the 20 costliest Atlantic hurricanes on record.

In Lake Charles, La., a city of nearly 80,000 that was struck by Hurricane Delta six weeks after surviving Laura, the devastation has been profound. “We need help,” Mayor Nic Hunter pleaded in a Facebook video. “This truly is an American tragedy.”

The warmer air, meanwhile, allows for wetter hurricanes. This is a consequence of a physical phenomenon known as the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, which shows that for every 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming, the atmosphere can hold 7 percent more moisture. Because the relationship between temperature and moisture isn’t linear, even small amounts of warming can create exponentially more destructive storms.

This was especially evident during Hurricane Harvey, which in 2017 dropped a stunning 60 inches of rain on South Texas, the most precipitation ever recorded from a single storm in the United States. 

Multiple studies have shown that climate change increased precipitation during the storm by at least 15 percent, and one study found that events like it are now six times more likely than they were just a few decades ago.

The flip side of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation is that a warmer atmosphere is able to suck more moisture from vegetation and soils, drying out fuels and setting the stage for worse wildfires. Scientists quantify this using a metric called the vapor pressure deficit (VPD), which calculates the difference between how much water vapor the air can hold and how much it actually does hold. A high VPD means an exceptionally “thirsty” atmosphere, and scientists say VPD levels in California this year were at their highest in 40 years.

A landmark study in 2016 found that climate change was responsible for more than half of the increase in fuel dryness in western U.S. forests in the past 50 years. As the world continues to warm, the West’s dry season will lengthen and the number of days when conditions are ripe for extreme fire behavior will spike.

The events of this year are yet another sign of how incremental increases in temperature can lead to exponentially worse natural disasters, experts say. The global average temperature has increased a little more than 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the preindustrial era, a number that may seem small. 

But research shows that human-caused warming has already doubled the amount of western forest burned since 1984. This year is California’s worst fire season on record, with five of California’s six biggest recorded wildfires, including the state’s first million-acre “gigafire” since 1932.

“It’s really been a shocking escalation,” said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California at Los Angeles.

But that nonlinear relationship between rising temperatures and escalating impacts does have a silver lining, Swain said. If natural disasters become exponentially worse with every degree of warming, the future will become exponentially safer with every degree of warming humanity manages to avert.

(CAN) The Myth Of Electric Cars: Why We Also Need To Focus On Buses And Trains

The Conversation

Do we need this many vehicles on the road? (Shutterstock)

Author
 is Postdoctoral Researcher, Environmental Engineering, University of Toronto  

California recently announced that it plans to ban the sales of gas-powered vehicles by 2035, Ontario has invested $500 million in the production of electric vehicles (EVs) and Tesla is quickly becoming the world’s highest-valued car company.

It almost seems like owning an electric vehicle is a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, but it isn’t. What we should also be focused on is whether anyone should use a private vehicle at all.

As a researcher in sustainable mobility, I know this answer is unsatisfying. But this is where my latest research has led.

Battery EVs, such as the Tesla Model 3 — the best selling EV in Canada in 2020 — have no tailpipe emissions. But they do have higher production and manufacturing emissions than conventional vehicles, and often run on electricity that comes from fossil fuels.

Almost 18 per cent of the electricity generated in Canada came from fossil fuels in 2019, ranging from zero in Québec to 90 per cent in Alberta.

Researchers like me compare the greenhouse gas emissions of an alternative vehicle, such as an EV, with those of a conventional vehicle over a vehicle lifetime, an exercise known as a life-cycle assessment. For example, a Tesla Model 3 compared with a Toyota Corolla can provide up to 75 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases emitted per kilometre travelled in Québec, but no reductions in Alberta.

Hundreds of millions of new cars

To avoid extreme and irreversible impacts on ecosystems, communities and the overall global economy, we must keep the increase in global average temperatures to less than 2 C — and ideally 1.5 C — above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100.

We can translate these climate change targets into actionable plans. First, we estimate greenhouse gas emissions budgets using energy and climate models for each sector of the economy and for each country. Then we simulate future emissions, taking alternative technologies into account, as well as future potential economic and societal developments.

I looked at the U.S. passenger vehicle fleet, which adds up to about 260 million vehicles, to answer a simple question: Could the greenhouse gas emissions from the sector be brought in line with climate targets by replacing gasoline-powered vehicles with EVs?

The results were shocking. Assuming no changes to travel behaviours and a decarbonization of 80 per cent of electricity, meeting a 2 C target could require up to 300 million EVs, or 90 per cent of the projected U.S. fleet, by 2050. That would require all new purchased vehicles to be electric from 2035 onwards.

EV charging stations in Oslo, Norway. (Shutterstock)

To put that into perspective, there are currently 880,000 EVs in the U.S., or 0.3 per cent of the fleet. Even the most optimistic projections from the International Energy Agency suggest that the U.S. fleet will only be at about 50 per cent electrified by 2050.

Massive and rapid electrification

Still, 90 per cent is theoretically possible, isn’t it? Probably, but is it desirable?

In order to hit that target, we’d need to very rapidly overcome all the challenges associated with EV adoption, such as range anxiety, the higher purchase cost and availability of charging infrastructure.

A rapid pace of electrification would severely challenge the electricity infrastructure and the supply chain of many critical materials for the batteries, such as lithium, manganese and cobalt. It would require vast capacity of renewable energy sources and transmission lines, widespread charging infrastructure, a co-ordination between two historically distinct sectors (electricity and transportation systems) and rapid innovations in electric battery technologies. I am not saying it’s impossible, but I believe it’s unlikely.

So what? Shall we give up, accept our collective fate and stop our efforts at electrification?

On the contrary, I think we should re-examine our priorities and dare to ask an even more critical question: Do we need that many vehicles on the road?

Buses, trains and bikes

Simply put, there are three ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger transport: avoid the need to travel, shift the transportation modes or improve the technologies. EVs only tackle one side of the problem, the technological one.

And while EVs do decrease emissions compared with conventional vehicles, we should be comparing them to buses, trains and bikes. When we do, their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions disappears because of their life cycle emissions and the limited number of people they carry at one time.

An electric tram in Sapporo, Japan. (Shutterstock)


If we truly want to solve our climate problems, we need to deploy EVs along with other measures, such as public transit and active mobility. This fact is critical, especially given the recent decreases in public transit ridership in the U.S., mostly due to increasing vehicle ownership, low gasoline prices and the advent of ride-hailing (Uber, Lyft).

Governments need to massively invest in public transit, cycling and walking infrastructure to make them larger, safer and more reliable. And we need to reassess our transportation needs and priorities.

The road to decarbonization is long and winding. But if we are willing to get out of our cars and take a shortcut through the forest, we might get there a lot faster. 

Links

24/10/2020

(AU) Queensland Teenagers Lodge Legal Action Against Adani Coal Mine To Save Great Barrier Reef

ABC NewsStephen Long
Claire Galvin wants the environmental approvals given to Adani's Carmichael mine revoked. (Supplied: Claire Galvin)



Claire Galvin grew up in Cairns and fell in love with the Great Barrier Reef.

"I spent my life snorkelling the reef," the 19-year-old says.

"Every time we go out to the reef it's absolutely stunning."

She's worried that burning coal from Adani's Carmichael mine, and the new coal region it's opening up in Queensland, will threaten the reef's survival.

"The impacts of the carbon emissions will devastate the reef and we don't want that to happen," she said.

Today, Ms Galvin and north Queensland year 12 student Brooklyn O'Hearn are launching a last-ditch attempt to challenge the approval of Adani's Carmichael mine and railway project.

Claire Galvin (left) and Brooklyn O'Hearn want the Great Barrier Reef to remain a wonder for generations to come. (Supplied: Claire Galvin)

A law firm acting for them has written to Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley calling for a revocation of the environmental approvals given to Adani's venture.

A spokesperson for Ms Ley confirmed the minister's office had received the correspondence and said the minister would consider it in due course.

The letter has argued the previous minister, Greg Hunt, failed to properly assess the implications for climate change and the reef when he approved the venture in 2015 — relying on reports from experts working under strict court rules that require them to give impartial evidence.

"The robust independent scientific evidence" being presented to Ms Ley shows the project "will have a significant impact on the Great Barrier Reef that was not identified in the assessment" according to Ariane Wilkinson of the law firm Environmental Justice Australia.

When he gave it the go-ahead back in 2015, Mr Hunt said he could not form a "robust conclusion" about whether the Adani mine would contribute to global warming and further endanger the Great Barrier Reef, partly because it could not be known whether its output would merely replace coal currently provided by other suppliers.

Claire Galvin wants other children to have the chance to snorkel on the reef like she did growing up. (Supplied: Claire Galvin)


This argument is plain wrong, according to Paul Burke, an economist at the Crawford School at Australian National University.

"The 'substitution effect' assumption that a large new coal mine will have no implications for emissions is highly implausible," he said.

"A new coal mine puts additional coal into the market, brings the price down and encourages coal use across the world."

In his export report, Associate Professor Burke concludes up to half of the coal from the Adani mine would add to, rather than supplant, supply from other mines and that it would also displace lower emissions energy sources such as gas and renewables.

Although Adani's initial mine will be much smaller, it has approval to extract up to 60 million tonnes of coal a year, which would make it one of the largest mines in the world.

Analysts also believe the railway Adani is building to shift coal to the port will facilitate the development of the proposed China Stone and Hyde Corner projects nearby, with their substantial output further contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate scientist Bill Hare, who has provided an export report for the challenge, said he was "increasingly outraged at the failure of governments everywhere to consider the overall climate consequences of these kinds of actions".

The Great Barrier Reef is at risk of being destroyed by coral bleaching caused by climate change. (Supplied: Queensland Museum, Gary Cranitch)

A spokesperson for Adani said the company's Carmichael coal mine was "one of the most rigorously assessed projects in Australian history, as it was subject to eight years of comprehensive assessment, review and legal challenges".

"Over the past decade activists have unsuccessfully tried to use the Australian legal system to argue that Adani's Carmichael mine should not be approved because of the emissions created when coal is used to generate electricity overseas and the impact that would have on the Great Barrier Reef," the spokesperson said.

Since Adani's venture was given environmental approval, the Great Barrier Reef has suffered a series of mass coral bleaching events caused by rising sea temperatures linked to global warming.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, even if the world achieves its goal under the Paris Agreement of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the world will still suffer a loss of 70 to 90 per cent of reef-building corals.

If temperatures rise by 2 per cent or more above pre-industrial levels, the Great Barrier Reef would be destroyed with 99 per cent of corals being lost.

Professor Hare said burning all the coal approved for mining at Adani's Queensland site would alone use up 3.3 per cent of the world's remaining 'carbon budget' for limiting warming to 1.5C.

If the two nearby mines also go ahead, this would rise to almost 6 per cent.

Brooklyn (left) and Claire argue former environment minister Greg Hunt failed to properly assess the implications for the reef when he approved the mine in 2015. (Supplied: Claire Galvin)


"I think the only responsible thing for the Australian Government to do is to review the licenses for these projects and to stop them," he said.

In central Queensland communities that rely on coal mining jobs, there is extensive support for the Adani mine, but Ms Galvin points out that in the community she grew up on the reef, a World Heritage-listed natural wonder, drives the tourism and underpins the economy.

"Minister Ley has a choice," she says.

The reality is it's a long shot — but a teenager can dare to dream.

Links

(AU) While The World Races To Net-Zero Carbon, Australia Is A Non-Starter

Sydney Morning HeraldNick O'Malley

Author
Nick O’Malley is National Environment and Climate Editor for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
The horror of the Fukushima disaster prompted Japan to turn its back on nuclear power and re-embrace coal almost a decade ago, leading the world’s third largest economy to become its greatest importer of coal and a key customer of Australian carbon. This is about to change.

The Mount Piper power plant, near Lithgow, is scheduled to close in 2043. Credit: Janie Barrett

On Wednesday it was reported that Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga will announce next week that Japan will pursue a net-zero emissions target by 2050, building on the nation’s earlier goal of an 80 per cent reduction.

It brings Japan into line with the United Kingdom and the European Union. And earlier this month, China's President Xi Jinping shocked the United Nations general assembly by declaring a 2060 net-zero target.

Joe Biden, too, has vowed the United States will pursue a 2050 net-zero target should he win the November 3 election.

The International Energy Agency, not a body known for climate hysteria, has for the first time included in its annual energy outlook document a net-zero model.

Even before Japan’s, the IEA judged that 125 countries had adopted or were seriously considering various net-zero targets. Uruguay leads the charge with a goal to hit the goal by 2030.

There is more than empty sloganeering going on here. As the IEA notes, we must reach net-zero by 2050 to have even a 50 per cent chance of meeting Paris climate goals. To do that, we either learn how to cheaply suck carbon out of the sky or dramatically cut emissions.

While all Australian state and territory governments have set net-zero targets, the federal government still opposes the notion.

To be clear, the government says it will meet its Paris obligation to reach net zero in the second half of the century, but Energy and Emissions Minister Angus Taylor says the government will not commit to a 2050 goal without a roadmap for how to achieve it.

“Our approach is not to have a target without a plan,” Taylor told the ABC earlier this year. The problem with this approach is that even without a plan, net-zero goals serve a very real purpose.

To start with, says Anna Skarbek, chief executive of the ClimateWorks policy advisory body with Monash University, goals allow for “backcasting” rather than “forecasting”. That is, they allow the leaders of major institutions or nations to look back – from the imagined point of a realised policy outcome – and work out what steps are most crucial to achieve it.

Second, she says, they catalyse the efforts of the various individuals and bodies that will need to act in concert to achieve these goals.

Third, they spontaneously draw out of the woodwork contributions to reach those goals from actors who might otherwise have remained silent.

Fourth, they allow for careful long-term planning, which in the context of climate change is crucial as governments must put energy policy in place that will play out over decades.

For these reasons, says Skarbek, net-zero goals rapidly change the entire policy and political environment around them. They are intrinsically important.

In the IEA’s view, the path to net zero is difficult but possible. According to its 2020 energy outlook document there is so little time left to achieve the goal that “if any sub-sector or industry were to prove a laggard, no other sector would be likely to be able to move any faster to make up the difference”.

Setting a course to net zero by 2050 would require the world to reduce emissions by 40 per cent over the next decade. It would demand that governments keep voters onside as they introduced potentially unpopular new regulations to alter ingrained behaviour, and it would require new technologies to be developed and distributed at an unprecedented rate.

Australia might better contribute to this effort if it had a goal, even without a plan.

David Attenborough: Climate Change Must Not Be Ignored Even During A Pandemic

 Huffington Post - Jeremy Blum

Environmental activists Attenborough and Greta Thunberg spoke together during a recent panel and had much in common, despite being 77 years apart.

In a frank panel discussion alongside teenage environmental activist Greta Thunberg, legendary nature broadcaster David Attenborough said that he hoped the countries of the world would continue to keep the imminent threat of climate change in mind despite the pandemic that has dominated 2020. 

“I am worried that people will take their eyes off the environmental issue because of the immediate problems they have on COVID,” Attenborough said on the panel, which was titled “David and Greta in Conversation: The Planetary Crisis” and part of Wildscreen Festival, a celebration of wildlife on film. “And of course it’s put off a series of conferences in which all the nations get together and talk.”

Attenborough, who called the COVID-19 pandemic a “disaster for all of us” in a podcast appearance earlier this month, was referring to conferences like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was originally scheduled for November 2020 in Glasgow but shifted to 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Thunberg also stressed the importance of keeping climate change in mind, and despite their 77-year age difference, the pair had nothing but mutual respect for each other, with the elder statesmen of nature documentaries calling Thunberg’s activism efforts “absolutely astonishing.”

“You have activated young people around the world, all over the place, who are up in arms about whats happening,” Attenborough said to Thunberg. “And if there is any sign of hope, and there is, to be truthful compared to what there was 25 years ago, it’s because of what you’ve done and what you’ve done for young people.”

Thunberg, for her part, heaped praise on “A Life on Our Planet,” Attenborough’s latest film that is part biopic, part cautionary tale on the future of Earth. 

“When I saw your newest film, I was positively surprised on how well it connected all of these different issues, like the climate crisis, loss of biodiversity, loss of fertile soil, overfishing and all these different problems piling up on each other,” Thunberg said. “We fail today so bad to connect these issues.”

Thunberg said that her own upcoming film — “I Am Greta,” which will premiere on Hulu on Nov. 13 — was in comparison more focused on her personal journey as an activist, which she saw as emblematic of the world’s “absurd reality that we are focusing on the individual, on activists ... rather than actually seeing the problem.”

This brought Attenborough back to his point on COVID-19, international conferences and the tendency for nations to treat discussions of climate change like a bargaining table, with every politician looking out for their respective country’s priorities first and foremost.

“The world has to unite. It’s an era of internationalism, not nationalism,” Attenborough said. “ ... If you’re faced with a crisis of the proportion of the epidemic they’re facing, it’s difficult to lift your eyes from immediate problems ... But we have to do that, we really, really have to do that and I just think the future of the world depends on it.”

Links

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative