25/05/2021

(CA ) Young Climate Activists Beat Germany's Government In Court. Could It Happen Here?

CBC News - Evan Dyer

The German government's defeat suggests youth-led climate lawsuits can be more than merely symbolic

A youth climate protester carries a sign at Queen Street West and Bay Street in downtown Toronto on Friday, March 19, 2021. (Sam Nar/CBC)

Young climate activists in Canada have turned to the courts in their fight to goad governments into taking their near-term climate commitments seriously. If the German experience is any guide, they may be on to something.

In a decision closely watched by the 22 young plaintiffs behind two climate lawsuits in Canada, Germany's constitutional court on April 29 sided with nine young Germans against their federal government. The court agreed the country's landmark climate legislation, passed in 2019, put too much of a burden on future generations and didn't take enough responsibility in the present.

"The provisions irreversibly offload major emission reduction burdens onto periods after 2030," the court ruled, ordering the government to change the legislation.

Felix Ekardt, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told CBC News his team "got the court to recognize for the first time that freedom must be guaranteed not only here and now, but also intertemporally and globally — that is, across generations and across state borders."

Germany's Minister of Economy and Energy Peter Altmaier agreed, calling it "epochal for climate protection and the rights of young people."
We feel that we are not being heard ... that lawmakers today aren't going to have to deal with the impacts and effects of their decisions in the way that we, the youth, will."
- Plaintiff Lauren Wright of Saskatoon
Not long after the court ruling, Germany's leaders (already feeling heat from a Green Party surge in the polls) quickly emerged with a new draft law that increases the emissions cut target for the end of the decade dramatically — from 55 per cent below 1990 levels to 65 per cent. They also brought forward their net-zero target date by five years.

German Environment Minister Svenja Schulze said the new law takes on a "gigantic" task. "For the first time, the most strenuous part of climate protection is not being postponed to the distant future," she said. "The Constitutional Court ordered us to do this and the government reacted very quickly."

A morale booster

Ekardt remains cautious about his legal team's achievement. "The government and parliament have only adjusted the target. It remains to be seen whether real measures will follow," he told CBC. "Moreover, even the targets have been inadequately adjusted."

Still, for 16-year-old Lauren Wright of Saskatoon — a plaintiff in a similar case against the Canadian government — the German verdict was "a big source of optimism."

"The quick turnaround time between the victory and measurable change starting to become enacted is very, very good to see," she told CBC News.

Thirteen of the 15 plaintiffs suing the Canadian government over its role in climate change stand together on the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery in 2019. (Our Children's Trust)
Wright is part of a lawsuit sponsored by the David Suzuki Foundation and the Oregon-based Our Children's Trust. The suit is intended to force the federal government to adopt more stringent emissions targets. Our Children's Trust has sponsored a similar lawsuit against the U.S. government since 2015.

Another youth-based lawsuit, sponsored by the Canadian non-governmental organization Ecojustice, takes aim at the decision by the government of Ontario Premier Doug Ford to roll back the province's climate targets in 2018.

Most affected, least consulted

"The majority of our plaintiffs cannot vote. We are below voting age," said Wright. "I cannot contribute my voice in a way that I can elect people to positions of power.

"We feel that we are not being heard, that we're going to be disproportionately affected by these issues, that lawmakers today aren't going to have to deal with the impacts and effects of their decisions in the way that we, the youth, will."

Many courts have turned out to be receptive to that argument. The first breakthrough came in the Netherlands in 2019, when the Supreme Court ordered the government to cut the nation's greenhouse gas emissions by 25 per cent from 1990 levels by the end of 2020.

Vancouver attorney Chris Tollefson represents Wright and 14 other youth plaintiffs in the case LaRose v. HM The Queen.

"Increasingly, we're seeing very encouraging results in these kinds of cases," he told CBC News. "Courts increasingly are recognizing that there is a generational rights issue here, that these young people deserve at least to be heard."

Governments push back

Both the Ford government and the federal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have fought to keep these lawsuits from moving forward in Canada — by filing motions that seek to prevent the young plaintiffs from making their cases in court.

The federal government has been more successful.

Last October, Federal Court Justice Michael Manson granted the government's motion to strike the LaRose lawsuit. Government lawyers had argued that the case was too political and the conduct alleged too broad — and that, in any case, there was no binding climate target for Canada to violate.

"That was a very disheartening moment for us in the case," said Wright.

This month, lawyers for the young plaintiffs filed an appeal of that decision, which they hope will be heard this fall. 

Ontario strikes out

Just a few weeks after the federal government's success in court, Ontario tried and failed to strike the Mathur et al lawsuit.

"Our clients decided to take Premier Ford to court over this because the Ford government did something that few governments have done in light of the scientific consensus on climate change," lawyer Fraser Thomson told CBC News. "They have chosen to weaken our targets, to go backwards."

In 2019, thousands of students around the world took to the streets for climate marches. (Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)
Ontario's move to roll back targets in 2018 left the provincial government with a vulnerability its federal counterpart doesn't share. Though the province argued that the case took the court "well beyond its institutional capacity," Superior Court Justice Carole J. Brown saw it differently.

"For the first time in any court case in Canada, a court has affirmed that my clients have the right and the ability to take their government to court under the highest law in the land, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," said Thomson. "And they have a right to a hearing on a full evidentiary record."

Next steps 

"I think it's a very intriguing argument," said constitutional expert Carissima Mathen, a professor of law at the University of Ottawa. "It is one that has not obviously been put forward in the context of the Canadian charter before, and it would rely on a number of premises being accepted.

"One is that the current model by which we structure voting and participation is somehow deficient in providing for the interests of those who can't vote, and that simply by virtue of their age, they are structurally disadvantaged in how public policy decisions are made.

"It's a lift."

Mathen said that if the federal case is permitted to proceed, she would expect it to go all the way before the government accepts a defeat.

Headed for the Supreme Court

"I would be very surprised if any government would respond to a decision rendered by a court lower than the Supreme Court, because this is such a novel argument, such a profound argument, potentially about the reach of the Canadian charter," Mathen said.

"Of course, you can win on the argument. And then the next step, the really important final step, is what does the court do?"

Mathen said a court ruling in favour of the plaintiffs in either the federal or the Ontario lawsuit would lead to a range of possible remedies — starting with mere "declaratory relief," which would see the court determine that rights have been (or could be) violated and direct the government to take those rights into account.

"And then there's a continuum of much more interventionist remedies that the court could invoke, such as actually making some kind of order," she said. "I see that as less likely. Generally, Canadian courts have been less willing to intervene in that way and actually direct the government to take a decision, especially one that is quite complicated."

Ekardt said he expects the arguments that convinced judges in Germany will be equally convincing here.

"I am not an expert on Canadian constitutional law. But we argue exclusively with typical core elements of liberal-democratic constitutions — fundamental rights to freedom and to the elementary preconditions of freedom such as life, health and subsistence," he said.

Although his plaintiffs have suffered one legal setback, Tollefson said he shares Ekardt's optimism. 

"We're very confident about this lawsuit."

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , , ,

(AU AFR) A Warming Climate For Disclosure-Related Litigation

AFR - Will Heath | Daisy Mallett | Emma Newnham

Authors
Will Heath, Daisy Mallett, and Emma Newnham work at the international law firm King & Wood Mallesons.
Australia is the second-most active place for climate litigation after the US, which should ring alarm bells for company boards.

At its annual general meeting in May, Rio Tinto’s board supported two shareholder-requisitioned climate change-related resolutions, in an Australian first. Each resolution passed with 99 per cent support.

Other major ASX-listed entities have also committed to putting their climate reporting to a non-binding vote at their 2022 AGMs.

Driving this momentum are initiatives like the Say on Climate campaign. It seeks to compel listed companies to adopt climate targets, transition plans and rolling status reporting through AGM agitation.

Rio Tinto chairman Simon Thompson: listed companies and their boards face a hard task in engaging with climate activists and managing shareholder expectations. Trevor Collens

Debate continues on climate activism and the political heat is likely to increase in the lead up to COP26 in Glasgow and a federal election.

In this context, listed companies and their boards face unenviable jobs in engaging with those activists and managing shareholder and community expectations.

At King & Wood Mallesons, we’re telling our clients and their boards to keep in mind two key considerations: first, work out what you are going to disclose in relation to climate targets and transition plans; and, second, understand the risks of disclosure.

Who says what?

Climate change disclosure is a particularly complex and rapidly evolving area. There are a range of voluntary reporting frameworks and standards.

Certain regulators publicly support the framework developed by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). However, none of the frameworks or standards have been definitively adopted by governments or regulators in Australia, leaving listed companies and boards to navigate the thicket.

At the Rio Tinto AGM in Perth in May, shareholders requisitioned two climate change-related resolutions that passed with 99 per cent support. Trevor Collens

Our own King & Wood Mallesons analysis of climate disclosures by the top 50 ASX companies in 2020 identified that over 80 per cent reported against TCFD, with a majority also reporting against other voluntary frameworks or standards including the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) sustainability standards and the CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project).

Grappling with various voluntary benchmarks against which to make disclosure is only part of the problem. Other issues for listed companies include how to undertake scenario analysis and how individual scenarios should be applied in particular industries, locations and circumstances.

More work is needed to simplify and conform the reporting frameworks and standards to reduce the reporting burden for listed companies and increase the consistency of climate-related disclosures.

The International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation recently announced plans to establish an International Sustainability Standards Board. This complements the publication of a prototype climate-related financial disclosure standard by a group of standard setters, including the GRI, CDP and International Integrated Reporting Council.

More disclosure for directors As listed companies and boards move to report voluntarily on climate change targets, they expose themselves to a real threat of litigation.

It is no secret that Australia’s securities and disclosure laws impose liability without regard to fault. Liability can be imposed for honest, inadvertent mistakes in ASX releases. Moreover, liability for directors is unnecessarily and anomalously duplicated so that directors can be held liable for breaching their statutory duty of care, despite being found innocent of disclosure breaches.

In this context, it is no surprise that two barristers recently published an opinion confirming that, in their view, companies and boards who make disclosure on climate targets face potential liability for misleading and deceptive conduct (and other breaches of law) if they do not have reasonable grounds to support the express and implied representations contained in disclosures on climate change commitments.

This risk of litigation is no longer a matter of opinion.

We have been reporting on climate change litigation in Australia, which is now seen as the second most active jurisdiction for such litigation after the United States. While this may be a badge of pride for plaintiff lawyers, it should ring alarm bells for listed companies and boards.

To date, most climate litigation in Australia has been commenced by groups wanting to bring about behavioural change rather than to extract damages. However, lawsuits in the United States illustrate that claims for compensation are in the climate activist’s playbook.

Finally, when it comes to directors’ duties, Australian law outdoes the United States. The courts of Delaware – where many major US-listed companies are incorporated – recognise a business judgment rule that essentially protects directors who act rationally and in good faith in the company’s interests.

In contrast, Australian law and courts do not appear to defer to directors’ commercial judgments in relation to compliance risk management and disclosures. In particular, recent Australian court decisions have held that company directors cannot rely on the business judgment rule defence in relation to ASX disclosures and other compliance matters.

Until there is a rebalancing of disclosure and governance rules and reform on litigation funding, we think litigation on climate-related disclosures will continue to heat up.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , , , ,

(AU SMH) Foreign Diplomats Hear Critical Report On Australian Climate Policy

Sydney Morning Herald - Nick O'Malley

A prominent public policy organisation has briefed a group of diplomats and foreign mission staff on what it says are misleading figures used by the federal government about the scale of Australian greenhouse gas emission reductions.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison at the start of the White House climate summit in April. Credit: Jessica Hromas

The progressive Australia Institute held the briefing on its analysis for diplomats and staff representing just under 50 foreign missions, including most of the Group of 20 wealthy nations on Thursday in Canberra.

The institute told the diplomats that though Prime Minister Scott Morrison told leaders at United States President Joe Biden’s climate summit in April that Australia had reduced emissions by more “than most other similar economies”, once changes in land use were removed from the calculations, national emissions had actually increased by seven per cent since 2005.

When emissions reductions from not clearing land for agriculture are included, Australia in 2019 had reduced its emissions by 19 per cent from 2005 levels, meeting Kyoto commitments and putting it on track to meet Paris commitments.

A spokesman for Energy and Emissions Minister Angus Taylor said the Australia Institute research had “zero credibility”.
Climate policy
Australia pressured to step up climate action during G7 talks

“Left wing political groups like the Australia Institute will never acknowledge Australia’s achievements in this space, because it doesn’t suit their biased agenda,” he said.

Norwegian Ambassador Paul Larsen, who attended the briefing, said he was aware of the Australia Institute as a well-respected research institution with a “government critical approach.”

He said he saw the point that the institute was making, and the figures presented were new to many who attended.

But he said Norway would not be criticising Australia, noting it was a significant exporter of fossil fuels itself, and Australia was meeting the targets set in the Kyoto climate agreement by the standards Australia had negotiated.

“This [method of emissions accounting] was part of the negotiations and I think nobody can criticise Australia for negotiating well,” Mr Larsen said.

Norway had chosen not to include carbon stored in its forestry sector because it would have made it “too easy” to meet reductions targets, he said.

Mr Larsen said he was aware of both the federal government’s so-called gas-led recovery and its “technology not taxes” strategy to bring down emissions. Gas had helped Europe reduce emissions, he said, adding Norway had adopted a “tax and technology” approach, and was rapidly and dramatically increasing the price emitters had to pay in tax in order to drive down its national emissions.

A spokeswoman for the British High Commission said it would share the Australia Institute report, to be published in full on Monday, with UK teams working on the UN Climate Change Conference, known as COP26, to be held in Glasgow in November.

Richie Merzian, the former climate diplomat who is now director of the Australia Institute’s climate and energy program, said the purpose of the briefing was to let foreign governments know that in its view Australia might be meeting its targets, but its policies were failing to meet the Paris Agreement’s goal of decarbonising economies.
Paris Agreement
Australia left behind as global climate action gathers pace

Director of the Centre for Climate and Energy Policy at Australian National University Frank Jotzo, who has also seen the report, said its analysis was correct, “unsurprisingly as it is simply taken from the national emissions inventory.”

He said almost all the 19 per cent reduction of emissions achieved in Australia since 2005 was due to shrinking the amount of land cleared for agriculture.

But he said these reductions were genuine and were in keeping with what is known as “the Australia clause” in the Kyoto agreement.

Professor Jotzo said no other developed nations used this as a meaningful part of achieving emissions targets.

He said Australia could do far more to reduce emissions from inefficient industrial, transport and manufacturing practices, though significant advances are being made in the electricity sector with the adoption of renewables.

Professor Jotzo said Australia might be badly received if it berates other developed nations that have succeeded in reducing energy related emissions, while Australia has taken the “easier path” of including reduced emission associated with cuts in land clearing, yet not strengthening its 2030 target.

Over recent months Mr Morrison has shifted his rhetoric on climate, saying his preference is to reach net zero by 2050, but so far Australia has kept its 2030 reduction target of 26-28 per cent of 2005 levels.

Norway’s target is a reduction of at least 50 per cent and towards 55 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030, broadly in line with the new United States target.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , , , ,

24/05/2021

(UK The Conversation) Net Zero Will Mean Breaking Bad Habits, But Can We Get There In Time?

The Conversation - 

Commuting by car can be tough to give up. daisy / shutterstock

Author
 is Professor of Environmental Psychology, University of Bath.
Three-fifths of the measures required to get to “net zero” emissions will require at least some degree of behavioural and social change, according to the UK government’s climate advisers, the Committee on Climate Change.

But this only factors in changes in consumer behaviour, such as switching from petrol to electric cars, or gas boilers to heat pumps. This is a very narrow definition of behavioural and social change. People are not only consumers – they are citizens, parents, members of communities, employees, employers and political actors.

 As an environmental psychologist, I have long been interested in how changes to our everyday behaviour can help fight climate change. These changes aren’t limited to people buying electric cars and eating less red meat, though such consumer behaviour is important.

Other changes will include more people accepting large-scale low-carbon infrastructure, or deciding to take political action (voting, protesting, boycotting) or community and voluntary action. And it will also mean more people creating and disseminating narratives that normalise and promote low-carbon lifestyles, and calling out inaction from businesses, governments, friends and family.

Using this broader definition of “behaviour change” implies that closer to 100% of what is required to get to net zero will require at least some degree of behavioural change, because it involves decision-making by people as agents of change.

A matter of when

Researchers are increasingly recognising the importance not only of how to intervene to achieve social and lifestyle change, but also when. Much of our behaviour is habitual – unconscious routines triggered by contextual cues (“it’s 8am, time to drive to work”) rather than conscious deliberation of alternatives (“which mode of transport would be best today?”).

Habits are among the strongest impediments to lifestyle change, acting to “lock in” behaviour. Similarly, organisational and policy change can be stymied by routines and preference for the status quo.

Much of our behaviour is habitual.

But since habits and routines are cued by stable contexts like work starting in the same place and at the same time every day, a change in context disrupts habits.

Consistent with this, sudden “moments of change” have been identified as one of the most important levers for lifestyle change. Research shows that disruptions – either personal (such as moving home) or societal (economic downturn, extreme weather) – can provide opportunities to reshape social practices, for example shifting from commuting by car to home-working.

Furthermore, interventions targeted to these moments of change are more effective than at other times. For example, measures to cut car use and save energy are more effective when timed to just after relocation. Other opportunities to intervene include milestones such as a new year or turning 18, having a child, retiring or COVID-19.

The pandemic has demonstrated just how large-scale and rapid behaviour change can be. A shift into what we might call “lockdown living” has inadvertently reduced carbon emissions. As we come out of lockdown, how can we learn from this change?

Moments of COVID change

COVID-19 has led to maybe the most significant disruption to lifestyles since the second world war. Citizens are working, consuming and interacting in new ways – some of which may be more desirable both personally and environmentally.

COVID restrictions have led to less commuting, flying, consumption and food waste, and more climate-friendly hobbies such as gardening and reading. Many people intend to retain these imposed lifestyle changes once restrictions are lifted because they afford wider benefits, such as saving money and improving health and wellbeing.

Importantly, of course, intentions do not always lead to behaviour change. Since new habits take two to three months to form, lockdown periods in most countries have been long enough to establish new routines. However, when restrictions are lifted, there is a risk of recidivism into pre-existing habits, particularly if economic stimulus measures promote unfettered, high-carbon consumption.

So while COVID-19 may represent a unique window of opportunity, a switch to low-carbon lifestyles is only likely to occur with appropriate infrastructure and incentives to promote and lock in new routines.

Fortunately, there is strong public support for a green recovery and policies, including shifting to low-carbon transport or reducing consumption of red meat. This provides a mandate for bold climate change measures to establish and lock in low-carbon habits.

As COVID restrictions ease in the UK and elsewhere, and people once again change their behaviour, we must think about how to “build back better”. Achieving net-zero will be central to that mission, and whether it is accomplished will depend, in large part, on behaviour change.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , ,

(AU SBS) Australia Accused Of Being 'Out-Of-Step' On Climate As G7 Agrees To Stop International Funding For Coal

SBS

In a communique, the Group of Seven nations - the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan - plus the European Union said "international investments in unabated coal must stop now".

The IEA says all future fossil fuel projects must be dropped to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Source: AP
Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has warned that Australia is more "out-of-step" with its allies than ever on the issue of climate change after G7 countries agreed to stop international funding for coal-fired power.

The world’s seven largest advanced economies agreed on Friday to stop international financing of coal projects that emit carbon by the end of this year, and phase out such support for all fossil fuels, to meet globally agreed climate change targets.

Stopping fossil fuel funding is seen as a major step the world can make to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times, which scientists say would avoid the most devastating impacts of climate change.

Australia doesn't finance overseas coal projects, but Mr Turnbull said Australia's “coal-hugging gas-loving sentiment” made it an outlier.

“I cannot recall Australia ever being so out-of-step with our friends and allies as we are today on climate,” he tweeted. Dr Simon Bradshaw, a researcher on climate science and impacts at the Climate Council, said such projects are proof Australia is behind the rest of the world on climate change.

“This is hugely significant for Australia, and it’s really showing just how out-of-step we now are with international action on climate change and fossil fuels,” he told SBS News.

“By continuing to fund fossil fuels, we’re really starting to trash our reputation internationally. Our biggest allies and trading partners are sure of where they’re going - out of coal and into renewables. We need to be doing the same.”

Dr Bradshaw warned there were “very clear implications” for Australia’s future, saying we will “trash our international reputation” and put ourselves at “a lot of economic self-harm”.

“We have to stop hedging our future economy on coal and gas. This is gonna further speed the world’s move beyond fossil fuels. It’s gonna further diminish the market for coal and gas exports.

"It’s really telling us yet again that we need to be moving further away from fossil fuels as a nation, and explore the enormous potential in renewable energy.”

Australia was a guest at the virtual G7 meeting, with Environment Minister Sussan Ley telling peers the country is "building climate resilience through practical actions to adapt and manage risks, and protect communities, lives and livelihoods".

Energy Minister Angus Taylor, meanwhile, said Australia supported and welcomed the G7's focus on action.

"For our part, we are committed to achieving net zero emissions as soon as we can, and preferably by 2050, and to meeting and exceeding our 2030 commitment, as we already have with our 2020 commitments," he said. "We are already well and truly on track to do this."

'International investments in unabated coal must stop now'

The G7 getting Japan on board to end international financing of coal projects in such a short timeframe means those countries, such as China, which still back coal are increasingly isolated and could face more pressure to stop.

In a communique, which Reuters saw and reported on earlier, the Group of Seven nations - the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan - plus the European Union said "international investments in unabated coal must stop now".

"(We) commit to take concrete steps towards an absolute end to new direct government support for unabated international thermal coal power generation by the end of 2021, including through Official Development Assistance, export finance, investment, and financial and trade promotion support," they said. 

School students hold up placards as they march at a School Strike 4 Climate rally during a mass school strike for climate action in Melbourne on May 21, 2021. GETTY

Coal is considered unabated when it is burned for power or heat without using technology to capture the resulting emissions, a system not yet widely used in power generation.

Alok Sharma, president of the COP26 climate summit, has made halting international coal financing a "personal priority" to help end of the world's reliance on the fossil fuel, calling for the UN summit in November to be the one "that consigns coal to history".

He called on China to set out its "near-term policies that will then help to deliver the longer-term targets and the whole of the Chinese system needs to deliver on what President Xi Jinping has set out as his policy goals".

Calls from green groups to 'be more specific'

The G7 nations also agreed to "work with other global partners to accelerate the deployment of zero emission vehicles", "overwhelmingly" decarbonising the power sector in the 2030s and moving away from international fossil fuel financing, although no specific date was given for that goal.

They reiterated their commitment to the 2015 Paris Agreement aim to cap the rise in temperatures to as close as possible to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times and to the developed country climate finance goal to mobilise US$100 billion annually by 2020 through to 2025.

US climate envoy John Kerry urged countries in the Group of 20 world's largest economies to match the measures.

But some green groups said while they welcomed the steps, the G7 needed to set a stricter timetable.

Rebecca Newsom, head of politics at Greenpeace UK, said: "Too many of these pledges remain vague when we need them to be specific and set out timetabled action."

In a report earlier this week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) made its starkest warning yet, saying investors should not fund new oil, gas and coal supply projects if the world wants to reach net zero emissions by mid-century.

The number of countries which have pledged to reach net zero has grown, but even if their commitments are fully achieved, there will still be 22 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide worldwide in 2050 which would lead to temperature rise of around 2.1C by 2100, the IEA said in its "Net Zero by 2050" report.

Additional reporting by Reuters.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , ,

(AU The Guardian) The Coalition Doesn’t Want To Focus On Climate Change – But Australia Will Be Forced To

The Guardian - 

Announcing a new gas-fired power plant when a report urges the world to reduce emissions is in keeping with the climate policy farce

‘When the science and economics of climate change demand transition to renewables, of course this government would invest in an asset no private investors would touch with a 10-foot carbon rod.’ Photograph: Dean Lewins/AAP


Author
Greg Jericho writes on economics for Guardian Australia. He is a former public servant and author of the book The Rise of the Fifth Estate: Social Media and Blogging in Australian Politics.
This week we took another spin on the deranged carousel that is Australian climate change policy as the government announced it will fund a gas-fired power station at the very moment an international report detailed the need to do the exact opposite.

I wish this was a new development, but it just felt like a repeat of late 2018, when less than a year before the federal election, the IPCC released a report stating that if nations acted together we could limit the increase in global temperatures to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

We had to get to net zero emissions by 2050 and achieve a global 45% cut in emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 if we started straight away.

We didn’t.
Australia, led then as now by those who profess not to be climate change deniers but who are able to pull off the most astonishing imitation, set about undermining attempts to limit emissions.

In the 2019 election Scott Morrison declared that Labor was going to end the weekend because it had a policy of achieving a target of 50% of new car sales being electric by 2030.

It didn’t matter that the Coalition’s own policy at the time had a similar (if undefined) target. Reality is not something that ever gets in the way of an electoral con.

The ALP was also relentlessly asked to cost its target of a 45% cut in emissions by 2030 while the Coalition was able to skate by saying theirs would be cheaper (because theirs only involved a 26% cut).

Now, alas, nothing has improved – that target still remains; but the ALP’s is gone, yet to be replaced.

Thus it felt very familiar when this week, again within a year of the next election, a major international climate change report was released announcing a path to net zero emissions by 2050.
There is little hope the next election will have any focus on climate change other than to sow fear
The International Energy Agency’s “Net Zero by 2050” roadmap report gave some clear detail of what needs to be done in five year intervals out to 2050.

It noted, for example, that by 2030 60% of new car sales should be electric, with no internal combustion cars being sold after 2035.

I suppose the weekend will just be abolished at that point …

The roadmap also calls for an end to new oil and gas fields or coalmines and that “unabated natural gas‐fired generation peaks by 2030 and is 90% lower by 2040.”

So it was oddly in keeping with the climate change policy farce that is the Coalition that it chose the same day the report was released to announce it was going to spend $600m on a gas fired power-plant in the Hunter region.

When the science and economics of climate change demand transition to renewables, of course this government would invest in an asset no private investors would touch with a 10-foot carbon rod.

The report suggests by 2030 we need to cut emissions to 38% below 2020 levels. By contrast, it argues if nations barely co-operate we will likely achieve a mere 13% cut over the next decade and will only reach net zero emissions by 2087.

By that time the world will almost definitely be 2C warmer than pre-industrial levels and there would be a 50% chance of reaching 2.7C by 2100.

 
Australia, of course, is doing worse than that. Currently we are on track to emit only 7% less in 2030 than we did last year.

We are not the world’s leader but its anchor.

There is little hope that the next election will have any focus on climate change other than to sow fear, and yet it should be the number one issue.

The report notes that the move to net zero emissions will “affect multiple aspects of people’s lives – from transport, heating and cooking to urban planning and jobs”.

The choice is whether we act in a manner that will manage that change with the least social and economic damage to people’s lives, or as is currently the case under the Morrison government, we put off paying the cost until it is much greater.

And worse, it will be at a time when action will be forced on us by other nations and by the climate itself.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , , , , ,

23/05/2021

(Live Science) The 5 Mass Extinction Events That Shaped The History Of Earth — And The 6th That's Happening Now

Live Science - ,

The death of the dinosaurs was just one of five global events that saw millions of species wiped out. How do these events happen? And how can we stop it happening again?
Can we stop another mass extinction? (Image credit: Getty Images)


For the last 10,000 years, Earth has been in the midst of yet another extinction event that is rapidly removing animals from our planet. 

Scientists define a mass extinction as around three-quarters of all species dying out over a short geological time, which is anything less than 2.8 million years, according to The Conversation. Right now, humans find themselves at the beginning of the latest mass extinction, which is moving much faster than any of the others. Since 1970, the populations of vertebrate species have declined by an average of 68%, and currently more than 35,000 species are considered to be threatened with extinction, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). During the 20th century alone, as many as 543 land vertebrates became extinct, according to a research article in the journal PNAS.

Are humans to blame?

 
Ever since the beginning of the pollutant-pumping industrial revolution in 1760, humans have been the main contributor to Earth's current environmental crisis. From greenhouse gas emissions and ozone depletion to deforestation, plastic pile-up and the illegal animal trade, humans have actively stripped the world of some species and threatened many more.

There are those who argue that climate change and the extinction of animal species are a natural part of life, and in some ways that’s true. After all, the first five mass extinctions occurred without the presence of humans. However, the difference is the speed at which these mass extinctions happen.

Fossil records don't just tell us what creatures existed before us, but also how long a species can naturally survive before becoming extinct without human interference. This is referred to as the background rate, and it is equal to around one species extinction per 1 million species per year. Currently, because of human activity, the actual background rate is tens of thousands of times higher, meaning species are becoming extinct much faster than they should be. Studies have found that some species lost from Earth would have continued to survive for 800 to 10,000 years without the interference of human activities, according to a study published in the journal Science Advances. 


Pandemic perspective 


 Never before has the world been able — if not forced — to take a step back from normal life and give nature the breathing room it needs. 2020's lockdowns have led to a 17% global decrease in carbon emissions and a 20% fall in nitrogen oxide levels, according to NASA. Waterways cleared up, and animals were seen venturing into cities and towns around the world. While it seems like a wonderful revival for the planet, it's a temporary one as human civilization returns to normal and extinctions return to their previous rate. 

Ecotourism is an industry that fuels conservation efforts worldwide, but it's been on the verge of collapse since global travel restrictions were imposed. Without the income from tourists, conservationists are having trouble protecting vulnerable species from poaching, which during the pandemic has been on the rise, The New York Times reported. Rhinos in Botswana, wild cats in South America and tigers in India have all been targeted over the last year.

 

The 5 mass extinctions
Ordovician-Silurian extinction: ~ 440 million years ago
SPECIES MADE EXTINCT: 85%
By the end of the Ordovician Period the seafloor was teeming with shelled creatures such as trilobites. (Image credit: Alamy)
The first mass extinction on Earth occurred in a period when organisms such as corals and shelled brachiopods filled the world's shallow waters but hadn't yet ventured onto land. Life itself was beginning to spread and diversify, having first emerged around 3.7 billion years ago. But about 440 million years ago, a climatic shift caused sea temperatures to change, and the majority of life in the ocean died. 

At the end of the Ordovician period, a rapid onset of mass glaciation covered the southern supercontinent, Gondwana. Glaciation on this scale locked away high percentages of the world's water and dramatically lowered global sea levels, which stripped away vital habitats from many species, destroying food chains and decreasing reproductive success, according to a study published in the journal Oceanology. 

It is not known exactly what triggered these events. One theory is  that the cooling process may have been caused by the formation of the North American Appalachian Mountains, according to Ohio State news. Large-scale erosion of these mountainous silicate rocks is associated with the removal of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. 

Not all scientists agree with this, however. Alternative theories suggest that toxic metal may have dissolved into ocean waters during a period of oxygen depletion, wiping out marine life, according to National Geographic. Other scientists suggest that a gamma-ray burst from a supernova ripped an enormous hole in the ozone layer, allowing deadly ultraviolet radiation to kill life below, according to APS News, and another theory suggests that volcanism was the cause, according to a study published in the journal Geology.

Late Devonian extinction: ~ 365 million years ago
SPECIES MADE EXTINCT: 75%
Dunkleosteus were one of the giants of the sea before a mass extinction killed them off. (Image credit: Alamy)



Often referred to as the "age of fish," the Devonian period saw the rise and fall of many prehistoric marine species. Although by this time animals had begun to evolve on land, the majority of life swam through the oceans. That was until vascular plants, such as trees and flowers, likely caused a second mass extinction, according to a 1995 study published in the journal GSA Today. 

As plants evolved roots, they inadvertently transformed the land they lived on, turning rock and rubble into soil, according to the BBC. This nutrient-rich soil then ran into the world's oceans, causing algae to bloom on an enormous scale. These blooms essentially created giant "dead zones," which are areas where algae strips oxygen from the water, suffocating marine life and wreaking havoc on marine food chains. Species that were unable to adapt to the decreased oxygen levels and lack of food died. 

This theory, however, is debated, and some scientists believe that volcanic eruptions were responsible for the decrease in oxygen levels in the ocean, according to a study in the journal Geology.

One sea monster that was wiped from the world's oceans was a 33-foot-long (10 meters) armored fish called Dunkleosteus. A fearsome predator, this giant fish had a helmet of bone plates that covered its entire head and created a fang-like cusp on its jaw.

Permian-Triassic extinction: ~ 253 million years ago
SPECIES MADE EXTINCT: 96% MARINE LIFE; 70% TERRESTRIAL LIFE
Some of the earliest land dinosaurs, such as dimetrodons, were among the first to become extinct. (Image credit: Alamy)


This extinction event, often referred to as the "Great Dying," is the largest to ever hit Earth. It wiped out some 90% of all the planet's species and decimated the reptiles, insects and amphibians that roamed on land. What caused this catastrophic event was a period of rampant volcanism, Live Science previously reported. At the end of the Permian period, the part of the world we now call Siberia erupted in explosive volcanoes. This released a large amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, causing a greenhouse effect that heated up the planet. As a result, weather patterns shifted, sea levels rose and acid rain beat down on the land. 

In the ocean, the increased levels of carbon dioxide dissolved into the water, poisoning marine life and depriving them of oxygen-rich water, according to the Sam Noble Museum in Oklahoma. At the time, the world consisted of one supercontinent called Pangaea, which some scientists believe contributed to a lack of movement in the world's oceans, creating a global pool of stagnant water that only perpetuated carbon dioxide accumulation. Rising sea temperatures also reduced oxygen levels in the water, Live Science previously reported. 

Corals were a group of marine life forms that were among the worst affected — it took 14 million years for the ocean reefs to rebuild to their former glory.

Triassic-Jurassic extinction: ~ 201 million years ago
SPECIES MADE EXTINCT: 80%

Tricinosuchus was one of the many species to go extinct at the start of the Jurassic Period. (Image credit: Alamy )
The Triassic period erupted in new and diverse life, and dinosaurs began to populate the world. Unfortunately, numerous volcanoes also erupted at that time. Although it remains unclear exactly why this fourth mass extinction occurred, scientists think that massive volcanic activity occurred in an area of the world now covered by the Atlantic Ocean, according to MIT News. Similar to the Permian extinction, volcanoes released enormous amounts of carbon dioxide, driving climate change and devastating life on Earth. Global temperatures increased, ice melted, and sea levels rose and acidified. As a result, many marine and land species became extinct; these included large prehistoric crocodiles and some flying pterosaurs. 

There are alternative theories explaining this mass extinction, which suggest that rising carbon dioxide levels released trapped methane from permafrost, which would have resulted in a similar series of events, according to Discover magazine. 

K-Pg extinction: ~ 66 million years ago
SPECIES MADE EXTINCT: 75%

All non-avian dinosaurs were killed in the fifth mass extinction. (Image credit: Getty Images)
The most famous of all the mass extinction events is the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction — better known as the day the dinosaurs died. The event is sometimes also known as the K-T extinction, and geologists call it the“K-Pg extinction because the letter "C" is shorthand for a previous geological period called the Cambrian.  The "K" is from the German word "Kreide," which means "Cretaceous."

Crash-landing into what is today Yucatán, Mexico, an asteroid over 8 miles (13 kilometers) wide plunged into Earth at around 45,000 mph (72,000 km/h). This punched a hole 110 miles (180 km) wide and 12 miles (19 km) deep, called the Chicxulub crater. The impact would have scorched all the land around it within 900 miles (1,450 km) and ended the 180 million-year reign of the dinosaurs on Earth.  

What followed the impact were months of blackened skies caused by debris and dust being hurled into the atmosphere, Live Science previously reported. This prevented plants from absorbing sunlight, and they died out en masse and broke down the dinosaurs' food chains. It also caused global temperatures to plummet, plunging the world into an extended cold winter. Scientists estimate that most extinctions on Earth at the time would have occurred in just months after the impact. However, many species that could fly, burrow or dive to the depths of the oceans survived. For example, the only true descendants of the dinosaurs living today are modern-day birds — more than 10,000 species are thought to have descended from impact survivors.

Deep impact
HOW AN ASTEROID BROUGHT ABOUT THE END OF THE WORLD FOR THE DINOSAURS




Death by volcano
HOW MASSIVE ERUPTIONS CAUSED THE BIGGEST MASS EXTINCTION ON EARTH



Turning back the clock

Pandas became the poster species for extinction back in 1980s, when there were fewer than 1,114 individuals recorded in China. (Image credit: Getty)

Humans might be the driving force behind this accelerated extinction event, but we are also the answer to stopping it. The world is awash with scientists, conservationists and environmentalists working in the laboratory, in conservation areas and in political battlegrounds to protect endangered species.

From tackling global pollution emissions in the 2016 Paris Agreement to the U.K.'s Global Resource Initiative that combats deforestation, legislation will always be at the forefront of the fight against mass extinction. In particular, one of the biggest direct threats to endangered life is the illegal animal trade.

In the wake of the current pandemic, wildlife markets have been thrust into the spotlight as not only being environmentally irresponsible, but potentially dangerous to human health through zoonotic diseases — those that jump from animals to humans — such as COVID-19. These markets, trading live exotic animals or products derived from them, are found throughout the world. For example, bear farms in Asia cage 20,000 Asiatic black bears for their bile, resulting in the decline of the wild population, according to Animals Asia.

Lawmakers are tackling these kinds of markets with growing success. In Vietnam, for example, Prime Minister Nguyen Xuân Phúc signed a new directive that bans wildlife imports and closes illegal wildlife markets, according to a report in The Guardian.

New eyes in the sky

One of the best ways to help prevent species from becoming extinct is to monitor their populations and identify any
problems before it's too late to help. Currently camera traps and surveys conducted on foot or from aircraft are the main method of data collection. However, recent research has used a combination of satellite imagery and artificial intelligence to observe animals from space. Using high-resolution aerial photographs of Africa’s grasslands, researchers created an algorithm to sweep over thousands of miles and count every elephant pictured in the blink of an eye.

The technology, however, is still in its infancy and is limited to areas where large animals, such as elephants, aren’t obscured by forest habitats. "The main question here would be the size of the animals and their habitats. We can’t see through clouds, obviously, but also we can’t see through forested areas. Therefore we can’t look for animals that are in dense forest," Olga Isupova, a computer scientist at the University of Bath and creator of the elephant-tracking AI, told How It Works magazine, a sister publication to Live Science. "If they’re in open areas, then it’s just a question of their size."

Nevertheless, it has huge potential to advance our ability to monitor species. “We are currently looking at how we can improve the algorithm itself to look specifically for smaller objects. We could also look for those animals who appear in herds,” Isupova said. “For example, with penguin colonies, the model can detect the whole colony and then have an additional algorithm that approximates the count based on the size of the colony. Also, you can look for the footprints of the animals. The animal itself can be quite small, but if there are many of them and they leave lots of footprints after them, we can also try to track that.”

An aerial image of Addo Elephant National Park, showing the algorithm counting elephants. (Image credit: Maxar Technology)

Saved by cloning

 Another potential solution to combat extinction could be to clone species. In February 2021, scientists revealed they had successfully cloned a black-footed ferret from an animal that had died more than 30 years ago. Native to North America, these small mammals were thought to be extinct until a small colony was found in the early 1980s, which were entered into a breeding program and reintroduced around the United States.

Due to inbreeding, the population of around 650 ferrets is at risk of extinction once again. This inspired researchers to create a genetic copy from the preserved cell of a wild female, named Willa, who died in the 1980s. The process of cloning was similar to that used to clone Dolly the sheep back in the early 1990s. Scientists hope that after time spent in captivity, cloned members of the species can successfully re-enter the wild, offering a new conservation tool to protect endangered species.

It is legal, scientific and technological advances such as these that will help to conserve Earth's wildlife and hopefully slow down the sixth mass extinction.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative