(AU ABC) School Strike 4 Climate: Thousands Of Young Australians Call For Urgent Action On Climate Change

ABC News

Thousands of protesters around the country joined the School Strike 4 Climate events. (ABC News: Tim Swanston)

Key Points Thousands of students and supporters turned out to events in Australia's major cities They urged the federal government to do more to ensure a renewable energy future Some said because they were too young to vote, it was the only way to make their voices heard

Thousands of students and their supporters have walked out of classrooms and workplaces to join School Strike 4 Climate events around the country, becoming part of a global youth-led movement pleading for urgent action on climate change. 

Attendees made their way to large rallies in the CBDs of every Australian capital city, with events also planned in dozens of rural and regional areas, from Alice Springs to Atherton.

Organisers are demanding the federal government turn its back on emissions-intensive energy sources, including by:

• Resourcing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led solutions that guarantee land rights
• Funding the creation of secure jobs that fast-track solutions to the climate crisis
• Funding projects that transition the economy to 100 per cent renewable energy by 2030

Taking place in the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic, all events were arranged with input from relevant state and territory health authorities, according to organisers.

There were loud cries for change, stories of grief and witty signs in abundance.

Here's what happened across the nation.

Thousands of people attended the event in Sydney.

Throngs of protesters in Sydney braved the rain to march from Sydney Town Hall to Prince Alfred Park to make their voices heard.

A key issue for many in attendance was the Morrison government's recent announcement that it would spend $600 million on a new gas-fired power station.

Protest organisers said they were hopeful between 5,000 and 10,000 people would attend the events in Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney, and crowds in harbour city were estimated to reach well into the thousands.

Hundreds of businesses around the country temporarily closed to take part in the action.

Attendees expressed disappointment over more recent investment in gas projects. (ABC News: Tim Swanston)

Further north in Darwin, crowds also spoke up about local issues, many of them drawing attention to plans to develop the Beetaloo Basin gas field. 

"The government is putting in a gas-led recovery for COVID, and that's not what we're striking for. We're striking for renewable energy," 16-year-old Leila Higgins said.

About 150 students and supporters gathered outside the city's Parliament House, and some of them said they were bitterly disappointed by an apparent lack of action.

"I think we're all extremely frustrated, especially as young people, that we're still having to come down and do these strikes," 17-year-old Bridgette Davies said.

About 150 people gathered in Darwin. (ABC News: Ian Redfearn)

Some attendees said they had been attending protests for years without change. (ABC News: Ian Redfearn)

Protesters had to be turned away from the event in Hobart from about lunchtime, after the event reached its capacity of 1,000 people.

Some Tasmanians who made it in spoke about the need to protect the state's pristine natural areas, on which the local tourism industry depends. 

Hundreds of people in Canberra gathered to make similar demands, including calls for more investment in renewable energy.

The protest in Hobart quickly reached capacity. (ABC News: Maren Preuss)

Attendees spoke about the importance of the state's pristine natural environments. (ABC News: Maren Preuss)

Organisers of the Adelaide event said about 2,000 students and young people rallied at Victoria Square before heading to King William Street, blocking traffic as they marched.

Helen Taylor's son, Leif Justham, was killed by a truck as he cycled around Australia raising awareness about global warming.

She told the rally she intended to carry on his legacy.

"Together, we thought the only thing we can do is try and share his story as far and as wide as he can so that even though nothing will bring him back, at least he'll live on through others and through his story," she said.

More than 1000 people gathered in Adelaide's CBD. (ABC News)

Thousands of people also turned out to Melbourne's Treasury Gardens before marching through the CBD, where a number of roads were blocked off to make way for the students.

Some in attendance told the ABC they were too young to vote, so were choosing to protest so their voices could be heard.

Melbourne protesters attended with coronavirus safety guidelines in mind. (ABC News: Billy Draper)

The protest drew smaller crowds than a much larger event in 2019, with protestors donning masks, keeping their distance and using hand sanitiser in a bid to remain COVID safe.

One protester, Tuan, arrived in full personal protective gear.

"The climate crisis is a health crisis — that's why I'm dressed in PPE," he said.

This protester arrived in full personal protective equipment. (ABC News: Billy Draper)

Thiruavana Arunchalamelantheral, a Year 12 student at Melbourne Girls College and the environment captain, dismissed comments from detractors that the students should have stayed at school.

"To be honest I have learned a lot more stuff at the strike than I learned in the classroom," she said.

"I think we should all be here, learn more stuff about what's happening, climate change, the environment and sustainability."

Organisers expected thousands of people would attend the protest in Melbourne. (ABC News: Billy Draper)

At the event in Brisbane, hundreds of people gathered in King George Square to demand no new coal, oil or gas projects.

Hundreds of protesters filled King George Square for the event in Brisbane. (ABC News: Jessica Ross)

It was a similar scene in Perth, where people gathered on the Supreme Court gardens to demand the Morrison government switch its gas-fired COVID-19 economic recovery plan to a renewable energy one.

Huge climate strikes today across Australia. Tens of thousands of people. Soon the rest of the world will join in... #schoolstrike4climate #ClimateStrike https://t.co/J066GWj7I8

— Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) May 21, 2021

They also want oil and gas company Woodside to abandon plans for its Scarborough gas project in the state's north.

Organiser Mena Tabshabar said the government's climate inaction left her with no option but to act.

"The government is currently investing billions of dollars of public money into the gas industry," Ms Tabshabar said.

"The choice will have disastrous consequences for both the economy and the environment."

Some students said their schools dissuaded them from attending, while others said their schools were very supportive even allowing the posting of flyers about the event on school grounds.

Attendees at the Perth event have urged the federal government to re-think its plans for a gas-led economy recovery. (ABC News: Samia O'Keefe)

Earlier this week, a report by the International Energy Agency found immediate action was needed to meet a target net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 — including no new investment in new oil, gas and coal projects.

A day later, the federal government was slammed by environmental groups for announcing the $600 million Hunter Valley power station. 

Climate change is wreaking havoc on our health. What's our plan to fix things?

What's being done to improve Australians' health in the face of accelerating climate change? Read more

The government is also tipping tens of millions of dollars into fast-tracking the development of the gas-rich Beetaloo Basin in the Northern Territory, a key pillar of its planned recovery from the coronavirus-induced economic downturn.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison recently said the nation remained on track to meet its Paris Agreement target of a 26 to 28 per cent reduction on the country's emissions from 2005 levels by 2030.

But he came under pressure at a recent global climate summit to set a more ambitious target, as several other countries did.

The next round of global climate talks — where emissions reduction strategies are likely to be reviewed and updated — is due to take place in Scotland in November.

Links

• School strike for climate change protests take place across Australia
• 'It's our future': Climate strike draws 'hundreds of thousands' to rallies across Australia demanding action
• School strike for climate: thousands take to streets around Australia
• School climate strikes resume around Australia with more to come
• Students make united call against gas funding through School Strike for Climate
• Thousands of students walk out of classrooms to protest Government’s climate change action
• The number of Australians who don't believe in climate change has taken a sharp decline, poll reveals

(AU The Guardian) Why Is Australia Building A $600m Gas Power Plant As World Experts Warn Against Fossil Fuels?

The Guardian - Adam Morton

Morrison government says it will provide cheap energy but experts say renewables are already providing cheaper, cleaner alternatives. So who’s right?

Morrison government has committed $600m towards more gas-fired power, including a plant in the Hunter Valley, but experts say move makes no commercial or environmental sense. Photograph: Vasily Fedosenko/Reuters

Guardian Environmental Investigations The 2021 Federal Budget Was Light On Climate And Environment Measures. But Here’s What You Should Know Ashes To Ashes: Pentecostalism, The PM And The Climate Crisis  Toondah harbour wetlands: developer accused of not being honest about its plans Coalition government spent just 16 cents on climate crisis out of every $100, analysis finds The Coalition is backing a gas plant that also runs on hydrogen. Is this the future or a folly? ‘I’m not selling’: what happens when an Australian town is consumed by a US coalminer? Coalition must ‘urgently explain’ more than $30m it paid for western Sydney airport offsets, federal Labor says ‘Deeply concerning’: government consultant made millions from NSW environmental offsets

The Morrison government says it will spend up to $600m on a new gas-fired power plant in New South Wales – the latest in a series of announcements dedicating taxpayers funds to greater fossil fuel use.

Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency has released a landmark report saying there should be no new investments in coal, oil or gas if the world is to keep open a narrow possibility of meeting the goals of the Paris climate agreement and reaching net zero global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. It has laid out a pathway that could get the world there.

What gives? Here’s what you need to know.

So what is the latest gas announcement?

The energy and emissions reduction minister, Angus Taylor, says unallocated funding in last week’s budget will be committed to the public-owned Snowy Hydro Ltd to build a 660MW gas plant at Kurri Kurri in the Hunter Valley.

An environmental impact statement (EIS) lodged with the NSW government shows the Kurri Kurri plant would be rarely used – which in itself is not necessarily a big deal.

It would be a “peaking” gas plant, designed just to be turned on to fill gaps when needed. Snowy Hydro says it expects the plant will be just 2% of its full capacity across the year. It would be expected to be powered initially by diesel – an even more expensive and polluting fuel – before receiving its gas supply.

Taylor suggested on Wednesday that it could also use some hydrogen blended in with the gas to lower its emissions. The Snowy Hydro EIS said there was potential for this in the future should hydrogen became economically viable but it would require the plant to be modified.

Coalition quietly adds fossil fuel industry leaders to emissions reduction panel.  Read more

The Kurri Kurri announcement followed EnergyAustralia saying it would build a 316MW gas plant, Tallawarra B, with $83m in NSW and federal government support. That plant has been described as a gas-hydrogen hybrid – it has committed to blending in 5% of hydrogen into the gas fuel from 2025.

Why is the government investing in gas power?

Taylor and Scott Morrison say another 1,000 of new “dispatchable” electricity – that, unlike solar and wind, can be called on when needed – is needed when the Liddell coal-fired plant shuts in 2023.

It says this must be from burning gas, which it says is essential to the future grid. Morrison warned nine months ago that the government would build this amount of gas capacity if the private sector didn’t.

The government has wavered on the actual figure a bit – Morrison told the ABC last year the gap was about 250MW – but has returned to the 1,000MW goal set in September last year.

Taylor says the two plants announced this month are part of the government’s much-vaunted “gas-fired recovery” from recession.

Does this stand up to scrutiny?

Not according to many energy analysts, the climate science community, or the head of the government’s Energy Security Board, Kerry Schott.

There are a long list of arguments against the government investing in new gas, from a variety of angles. They include:

• Schott telling Guardian Australia, and the government, that the case for a gas plant in the Hunter Valley “doesn’t stack up” commercially given there is an abundance of cheaper and cleaner alternatives flooding the market.
  
  
• The Australian Energy Market Operator (Aemo) finding there is no need to replace the exiting Liddell coal plant in 2023 because the gap to ensure grid reliability was only 154MW, and that has already been covered by other commitments.
  
  
• A taskforce advising governments about the impact of the Liddell closure backing this up by finding NSW did not find an additional 1,000MW to keep the lights on, and listing a range of committed and probable projects that it found would be “more than sufficient”.
  
  
• Aemo finding that while between 6 and 19GW of new dispatchable power would be needed over the next 20 years under an optimal future grid – ie, a grid that runs nearly entirely on solar and wind as coal is pushed off the field. It could come from a range of sources including batteries, pumped hydro and demand management. It said new gas was an option but – in apparent contradiction of Morrison’s claims that gas generation would bring prices down – that it was likely to be more expensive than other options.
  
  
• That by directly interfering in the electricity market the federal government is likely to further discourage the private investment needed to deliver the huge amount of dispatchable generation needed over the years ahead. This argument suggests an overarching policy that sets an emissions trajectory – such as a carbon price – would be a cheaper and more effective approach that could guide private investment.
  
  
• Last, but by no means least, gas is a fossil fuel that releases about half the emissions of coal when burned, and contributes even more to global heating once methane that leaks during extraction and piping is counted. The argument is backing the option to support the electricity grid that adds greenhouse gas emissions when there are cleaner and cheaper alternatives.

Sounds comprehensive. How does the government respond?

It says the new capacity is needed to keep prices down, and quotes the former chief scientist Alan Finkel as saying gas is the perfect complement to solar and wind.

Finkel’s view on this is contentious, and was criticised by 25 scientists in a letter last year, but he maintains gas has played a role in other places where they have moved away from coal in past decades – England and California, for example – and could allow for a quicker transition to a mostly renewable grid.

Opponents point out there were fewer cheap alternatives to gas when those other places made the shift.

The government’s use of Finkel’s advice is selective. He has also argued the country should be aiming to use as little gas as possible given it is a fossil fuel. By contrast, Morrison and Taylor say they want to significantly expand the amount of gas available for use in Australia, and say it is good for the climate.

On emissions, Taylor and Morrison argue Australia is doing much better than some other countries because its emissions are already 19% lower than they were in 2005.

The parts they leave out:

• Most of the reduction is due to a substantial drop in land-clearing and native forestry in some states and has had little to do with restructuring a still mostly a fossil fuel-based economy.
  
  
• About two-thirds of the 19% cut came when Labor was in power federally, not the Coalition.
  
  
• A small chunk of the 19% is due to coronavirus-related shutdowns last year. Emissions from some sectors, such as transport, may increase this year.
  
  
• Official government projections released in December forecast there would be only a 6.8% fall over the decade to 2030, with emissions from transport, mining and agriculture either flatlining or increasing under existing policies.
  
  
• The Morrison government has taken steps to slow the shift to a clean energy grid by allowing federal support for large-scale renewable energy to lapse after the national renewable energy target was met two years ago.
  
  
• Most comparable nations, including all members of the G7, have shifted gears in recent months and increased their commitments for the next decade to make much deeper cuts in emissions than Australia is planning. Meeting some of the targets will be challenging, but they are increasingly introducing policies to meet them – see, for example, Joe Biden’s proposals in the US and what Boris Johnson is doing in the UK.
  
  

Climate pledges compared
2030 emissions reduction targets relative to 2005 levels
Showing the minimum pledge value if there is a range

Guardian graphic | Source: Investor Group on Climate Change

Is there any scenario under which Australia would build more gas plants while cutting emissions?

Perhaps.

Aemo found gas-fired power would decline under the cheapest approach to building a future grid. It already provides less than 7% of electricity and that is expected to shrink over the next few years.

But there is an argument that it would make sense to have more gas-fired capacity available if a number of coal plants shut earlier than scheduled due to the influx of solar making them unviable economically.

Under that scenario – which would be good for the climate, but could be problematic for a grid that is transforming in the absence of an overarching national policy – gas plants would be used less often than cheaper batteries and pumped hydro storage, but could fill some gaps in the system, particularly when backup was needed for longer stretches. It would effectively be taking an “all of the above” approach to ensuring the system worked.

The result may be that the number of gas plants connected to the grid increases, but less gas is burned overall.

But Aemo suggested this would not be the cheapest way to address the problem. If governments build stronger electricity connections between the states as planned, that could do the same job. It would significantly increase capacity to move supply across the eastern seaboard, and the need for gas backup would fall.

And it should be noted, of course, that this is not the government’s argument for building gas power. Morrison and Taylor say they want to extract and burn more gas to drive economic growth.

The budget included $59m in federal funding for gas expansion and $30m to support a company owned by the billionaire Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest on plans for another proposed new gas-hydrogen plant at Port Kembla.

The federal government has criticised and vetoed attempts by state governments and federal agencies to accelerate the spread of renewable energy, has appointed fossil fuel advocates to advise on energy policy and – as we said before – not acknowledged the role gas plays in the climate crisis.

OK, then. What did the International Energy Agency say?

The IEA is a traditionally pretty conservative organisation on the shift away from fossil fuels. The oil and gas industry, in particular, has cited its previous reports to defend its case that new gas projects can still be built as the world addresses climate change.

Its report on Tuesday changed all that. It found there was a “narrow and extremely challenging” pathway for the world to both meet the goals of the Paris agreement and get to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 – but it meant there should be no new investments in oil and gas fields and coal power plants, starting immediately.

It found wealthy developed countries such as Australia should be moving to net zero emissions first, before 2050. That means phasing out dirty coal plants by 2030, having zero emissions electricity grids and banning new petrol and diesel car sales by 2035.

Global investment needs to shift much more rapidly away from fossil fuels to clean and zero emissions solutions. Spending on clean energy should more than double to US$5tn (A$6.4tn) a year by 2030.

Crucially, the IEA chief Fatih Birol said the technology needed to reach net zero was largely already with us – but it needed support to be developed much more rapidly.

Links

• Kurri Kurri decision an extraordinary intervention in market
• Why is the government going to build a gas-fired power station?
• Gas-fired path to COVID recovery?
• A Government rescue for a crisis that isn't happening
• 'Narrow but achievable': Immediate action needed to meet 2050 climate goals, IEA says
• Federal government will spend $600 million on new Kurri Kurri gas plant in the NSW Hunter Valley
• ‘I’m not here to spruik for energy industry’: PM slams criticism of new power plant
• Hunter Valley gas plant ‘would only operate a week a year’
• $3b-plus pumped into fossil fuels this year. Is that ‘adapting to climate change’?
• The 2021 federal budget was light on climate and environment measures. But here’s what you should know
• Coalition government spent just 16 cents on climate crisis out of every $100, analysis finds
• Ashes to ashes: Pentecostalism, the PM and the climate crisis
• The Coalition is backing a gas plant that also runs on hydrogen. Is this the future or a folly?

(AU Canberra Times) John Hewson: Reckless Morrison Government Must Move On Climate Change

Canberra Times - John Hewson

IGNORANT: The Morrison government is becoming one of the most-reckless in Australia's history. Picture: Shutterstock

Author Dr John Hewson AM is an honorary professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, and is a former leader of the Liberal party.

The Morrison government's response to climate is bizarrely slipping through layers of irresponsibility - if not financial, societal and environmental insanity.

The first law of digging holes is that once you get to the bottom, you stop digging. Not so with the government's climate hole being dug by its intransigence.

Since Morrison's appalling and embarrassing performance at Biden's virtual climate summit, in front of 39 other global leaders, the government has been doubling down in its intransigence.

This government, globally designated as a laggard on climate, is fast becoming the most radical and reckless in our history.

It ignores the science. It refuses to heed the warnings of global leaders such as Biden and Johnson.

It claims the mantle of "conservative", but readily ignores market forces and realities.

It easily sacrifices our national interest in its political expediency.

In doing so, it wastes enormous amounts of taxpayers' money, often to the benefit of its mates and financial supporters, stealing the future of our children.

The government cries are "technology not taxes" and brags that it is are "technology neutral" - which means it gives priority to yesterday's technologies for fossil fuel projects over new, world-leading, proven, lower emissions alternatives.

Just in recent days, we have seen Resources Minister Keith Pitt veto support from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund for a wind farm that had been recommended by the independent Board of NAIF, promising 250 jobs.

At the same time, Pitt is seeking to legislate himself even more power over NAIF and its investments.

Emissions Reductions Minister Angus Taylor has deliberately muddied the waters on electric vehicles, arguing against incentives and claiming, on the basis of misleading data, that hybrids are a more cost-effective means of emissions reductions.

He is doing all he can to delay the transition.

The government also committed, carte blanche, more than $2 billion to the last two oil refineries, even though it had committed a similar amount during the pandemic to keep four refineries open, only to see two close anyway.

This locks us into very dirty fuel for another seven years, fuel that won't Euro 6 emissions standards - the pollution from which kills many more people than the road toll annually.

This week, the government has approved $600 million in spending on a new gas-fired 660MW power plant in the Hunter (no link to the state by-election next weekend) - even though the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) had found that the closure of the Liddell coal-fired power plant would create a maximum shortage of just 154MW, and ignoring several cheaper alternatives, offering less emissions.

The proposed gas plant will be a stranded asset within a decade.

To add insult to injury, the government has awarded the project to Snowy Hydro, which is already wasting some $15-plus billion in developing Snowy Hydro 2.0, against a feasibility assessment that argues strongly against it and AEMO warning that it wouldn't be required until 2042.

The government also expanded the Australian Renewable Energy Agency's (ARENA) remit to fund carbon capture and storage projects, and possibly gas projects, following on from a budget commitment of some $264 million, and after governments of both colours have spent more than $1.3 billion achieving basically nothing.

And in the face of considerable evidence that it would require a sizeable carbon price for it ever to be commercially viable in power generation.

With the Abbott government having failed in its attempt to close down ARENA, the Morrison government is now driving it to support non-renewable, even fossil fuel, projects.

The government has committed more than $3 billion to fossil fuel projects this year alone, but only spent $30 million on battery and renewable energy projects.

Against all this, the International Energy Agency - traditionally more aligned with the fossil fuel industry - has this week released a report that directly challenges continued support for fossil fuels.

Indeed, it says no new fossil fuel projects should be approved beyond 2021.

The road map is comprehensive and achievable. Renewable energy should overtake coal by 2025, and oil and gas by 2030.

The energy transformation is to be based on solar, wind, bioenergy and hydrogen.

About 85 per cent of the required transition will be based on existing, proven technologies, and about 50 per cent to then reach net-zero 2050.

The report also calls for a rapid expansion of electric vehicles - 65 per cent of the global fleet by 2030, and 100 per cent by 2050.

It's time to stop digging, Mr Morrison - accept the climate imperatives and meet your responsibilities.

Links

• (AU Canberra Times) Australia Remains In A Climate Transition Muddle
• (AU) Wake Up, Mr Morrison: Australia’s Slack Climate Effort Leaves Our Children 10 Times More Work To Do 
• (AU) The Verdict On Australia’s Emissions Targets: Catastrophic
• (AU) Our Survival As A Species Requires Urgent Action
• Australia, the climate laggard, could lead the world: over to you, PM
• Australia needs to cut emissions by at least 50% by 2030 to meet Paris goals, experts say
• Wake up, Mr Morrison: Australia’s slack climate effort leaves our children 10 times more work to do

(AU ABC) Australian National University Commits To 'Below Zero' Carbon Emissions By 2030

ABC News - Harry Frost

The ANU is the second university in the world to commit to a 'below zero' carbon emissions target. (ABC News: Tamara Penniket)

Key Points The ANU has committed to removing more CO2 from the atmosphere than it puts out by 2030 The university also has a target to be carbon neutral by 2025 It says it will achieve its targets through emissions reduction and sequestration technologies, and not through purchasing carbon offsets

The Australian National University has become the first university in the country to commit to reducing carbon emissions to below zero by 2030.

The move is part of what the ANU is calling its Below Zero Initiative, aimed at setting a leadership example in taking action on climate change.

ANU vice-chancellor Brian Schmidt said the university has also committed to net-zero emissions by 2025 as a stepping stone.

"Climate change is already here. The past decade includes nine of the 10 hottest years on record around the world — 2019 was Australia's hottest year ever," Professor Schmidt said.

"Unfortunately, the world is on track to warm by between 2.8 and 3.2 degrees Celsius by the end of this century.

"Achieving below zero is ambitious and it will involve big changes to the way we do things — but as the national university, we must show leadership in driving a societal transformation to address climate change."

The ANU is only the second in the world to announce a below zero emissions strategy, after a university in Finland.

Vice-chancellor Brian Schmidt says the ANU has an obligation to be a leader in addressing climate change.

ANU promises to achieve target through emissions reduction, not purchasing offsets

The ANU estimates it currently produces more than 55,000 tonnes of CO2 in a typical year, primarily through work travel and natural gas use.

Director of the university's Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions Professor Mark Howden said the ANU intended to meet the target by fully transitioning off gas and cutting business travel and waste.

"Simple things like making [the ANU's] buildings more energy efficient, less leaky in terms of losing heat or gaining cold depending on the season, replacing gas heaters with electric heaters, ensuring the building usage is appropriate; not cooling or heating or lighting rooms that aren't being used," Professor Howden said.

"In terms of transport emissions, we're moving away from our fossil fuel-based vehicles into electric vehicles and in terms of work travel we're cutting down on that as much as possible."

Institute for Climate director Mark Howden says work travel and natural gas are the primary sources of the ANU's carbon emissions. (Supplied: ANU)

The below zero plan would then go a step further through carbon sequestration measures, becoming a "carbon sink".

The university acknowledges that will require the development of carbon removal or negative emissions technologies.

And making its nine-year target even more ambitious is a promise by the ANU to phase out purchasing carbon offsets to meet its 2030 goal.

"It certainly is a stretch target," Professor Howden said. 

"But what we see repeatedly coming from the science is that we haven't had much time to act— we do need to make very significant reductions right now if we're going to avoid the sorts of climate futures we don't want."

ANU remains financier of fossil fuel industries

The university faced criticism in 2014 from a number of parties, including then federal education minister Christopher Pyne, after it announced a plan to divest itself of shares in seven resource and mining companies including Santos and Iluka Resources in a move toward more socially responsible investments.

While it has not committed to fully divesting from fossil fuels, the ANU is working towards reducing the "carbon intensity" of its $1.5 billion portfolio.

In 2019 the ANU's investments were 56 per cent less carbon intensive than benchmark investors such as the ASX200, according to its socially responsible investment report.

That same report showed the ANU financed more than 24,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions through its infrastructure holdings, almost half of that coming from the Kwinana power station in Western Australia.

Professor Howden said the university looks at investments from a "risk management" perspective.

"Climate change is one of those risks that needed to be managed," Professor Howden said.

Links

• ANU Below Zero
• Australian National University aims for negative carbon emissions by 2030 
• University leads way on 2030 emissions cut
• Australian National University will be carbon negative by 2030

(The Guardian) How We Talk About The Climate Crisis Is Increasingly Crucial To Tackling It

The Guardian - Susanna Rustin

Our emotional register – how ‘doomy’ or ‘hopeful’ we are – will inevitably shape the policies we put forward

Greta Thunberg delivers a speech after a Fridays for Future climate protest in Lausanne, Switzerland, January 2020. Photograph: Jean-Christophe Bott/AP

Author Susanna Rustin is a Guardian columnist and leader writer

As the climate emergency creeps closer to the top of the political agenda, where it belongs, an argument is raging over communication. Exactly what to say about the environmental crisis, and how, is an important question for all sorts of people and organisations, including governments.

It is particularly pressing for journalists, authors and broadcasters. For us, communication is not an adjunct to other activities such as policymaking or campaigning. It is our main job. People need to know what is happening to glaciers, forests and endangered species, and what is being done about this. But information requires interpretation. And while editorial judgments influence the way that all subjects are covered, storytelling about the climate emergency is particularly fraught.

These tensions are nothing new. For several decades, a disinformation campaign led by fossil fuel companies and their allies meant that the overwhelming scientific consensus about the risks of global heating was obscured. The BBC, among other organisations, mistakenly attempted to “balance” the warnings about humanity’s worsening predicament with lies. Greens of all shades were rightly enraged.

Global renewable energy industry grew at fastest rate since 1999 last year. Read more

This phase of climate communication led to enormously harmful delays. But the disagreements did not end when the global warming deniers were forced to retreat. Instead, new divisions have either appeared or become more obvious: while those on the left back strong action by governments, those on the right put more emphasis on markets and individuals.

But there is another dimension to the controversy over climate communication. This is an argument as much about mood as about content. At its heart is the question: how “depressing” or “hopeful” should we be?

One version of this conflict has played out in the contrasting approaches of two of the UK’s most influential environmental communicators. In an article in 2018, the campaigning Guardian columnist George Monbiot attacked David Attenborough and the BBC for conveying a false impression, in the Dynasties series, of a pristine wilderness, and for failing to report the true extent of ecological destruction.

Attenborough has become more outspoken recently, telling a parliamentary select committee two years ago that “we cannot be radical enough” on emissions. But for many years, the alarm bells in his programmes were drowned out by animal noises and wonderment. Ten years ago, he told me that the BBC impartiality drummed into him as a young man made him “uneasy” about political statements long after he became convinced that global heating was taking place. Instead, he aimed to cultivate love of the natural world in the hope that this would motivate people to protect it.

A more recent spat illustrates similar tensions from a different angle. Michael E Mann is a US climate scientist whose latest book, The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet, takes aim at the shape-shifting efforts of climate deniers. He describes the new, “softer” tactics adopted by the fossil fuel lobby and its techno-utopian enablers. These include downplaying the dangers of global heating and trying to delay regulatory action. But along with them, Mann attacks a number of writers for engaging in what he calls “doomism” or “despair-mongering”.

One of his targets is the journalist David Wallace-Wells, author of an influential book called The Uninhabitable Earth. Another is the British academic Jem Bendell, who advocates an approach he describes as “deep adaptation” to an anticipated “societal collapse”. While Mann praises Greta Thunberg, who famously told world leaders “I want you to panic”, in general he thinks the word “panic” should be avoided.

While this debate could be seen as a distraction from the more important story of what is actually going on and what needs to be done, I think the argument about how to talk and think about the climate crisis is increasingly central.

Divisions shouldn’t be exaggerated. Mann said in a recent interview that he falls victim to “doomism” himself at times. On an emotional level, he recognises that fear is a natural reaction to what is going on. And, in an important sense, he, Bendell, Wallace-Wells and Thunberg are on the same side: they all recognise global heating as an existential threat. But the point is, major differences of philosophy and strategy also have to be reckoned with, even among those who see themselves as on the same side (against heating).

The deals struck by governments at the Cop26 talks in November will determine what progress on climate the world is able to make over the next decade. Compared with this, the question of how cheerful or miserable you or I or anyone else feels about the situation, and how we encourage others to feel about it, might seem trivial. But I think this emotional register is important, particularly for progressives with their ideological commitment to the idea that things should improve. The socialist critic Raymond Williams used the term “structure of feeling” to describe the way that the cultural life of a democracy could be shaped, from the bottom up.

So what is the “structure of feeling” about the climate at the moment? A recent poll of 1.2 million people by the UN found that two-thirds believe global heating is an “emergency”; in the UK the figure was 81%. What lies beneath such headlines is hard to know. Do most people think things will work out in the end; that the warnings of disaster will turn out to have been exaggerated? Or are millions, even billions of us, living in terror that they won’t?

Mann is far from alone in his hostility to gloominess. Others, too, see it as a gateway to nihilism; and fear that those who anticipate a grim spiral of chaos and scarcity will push reactionary policies focused on controlling borders and resources.

Others, including me, think that while it’s right to be hopeful about the post-carbon future, to embrace the prospect of green jobs and cleaner air, too much optimism also carries risks. The situation is sad and very dangerous. Like a person with a serious illness, we need first to admit this; and then do every single thing we can to preserve life.

Links

• Why Communication Is Critical To Tackling The Climate Crisis
• Do We Need More Scary Climate Change Articles? Maybe.
• Is News Media Doing Enough To Change The Climate Crisis Narrative?
• When “Creatives” Turn Destructive: Image-Makers And The Climate Crisis
• 20 Climate Change Documentaries You Need To Watch Because This Planet Is NOT Fine
• (AU) Tim Flannery: We Need To Talk To Our Kids About The Climate Crisis. But Courage Fails Me When I Look At My Son
• Climate Primer: How To Talk About Climate Change
• The 12 Arguments Every Climate Denier Uses – And How To Debunk Them
• When Facts Fail To Convince, Storytelling May Do The Trick
• What I Learned Covering The Climate Crisis For 15 Years