(NZ Stuff) What Does The Climate Change Commission's Roadmap Mean For Our Lives?

Stuff - Olivia Wannan

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern lists some of the recommendations from the final Climate Commission report.

The Climate Change Commission has released its final advice to the Government, laying out a carbon-cutting roadmap that could change the way we live.

From 2022 onwards, the commission wants us to meet a shrinking “carbon budget”, which is essentially the amount of greenhouse gas the country is allowed to “spend” each year.

Our emissions grew in 2019 (our pollution went up, but we also changed the way we count them). If we’re racing to net zero, this means the starting line moved a bit further back.

To compensate, the commission adjusted the distances (or legs) we’ll need to run each year. So the annual carbon budgets have also risen in the commission’s finalised report:

• 2022 to 2025: 69.5 million tonnes (67.7m tonnes in draft advice)
• 2026 to 2030: 59.7m tonnes (57.3m tonnes in draft)
• 2031 to 2035: 47.9m tonnes (44.6m tonnes in draft)
  
  

But that finishing line of net zero by 2050 hasn’t moved. We’ll have to cover a bit more ground in the first leg, though we’ll have to make up for the majority of the extra distance in future legs.

All up, we must knock 5.4m tonnes of emissions annually for the next four years, compared to 2019.

The cost of our transition – a subject that generated a lot of debate – has been refined. The draft advice found our GDP would grow at a slower rate, knocking off less than 1 per cent by 2050. That’s now 1.2 per cent by 2050. However, there’s also a cost if we do nothing, the commission warned – about 2.3 per cent of GDP.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said the journey would be tough at times, but the numbers supported the country’s plan to decarbonise. “It’s a safer, smarter and cheaper choice to act now.”

The commission has no law-making powers, so the Government will need to decide whether to pass the plan into legislation. Ardern already pledged to uphold the budgets, though her ministers may tweak some of the proposals. We’ll find which ideas were thrown on the scrapheap when the Government releases an Emissions Reduction Plan in December.

But if the Government chooses to back all aspects of the commission’s roadmap, here’s what it means for cars, homes, energy bills and farmers.

On the road

Petrol and diesel car imports will be banned, ideally by 2030 – but no later than 2035. Electric vehicles will be an increasingly common sight on our roads. Half of all cars and motorbikes entering the country will be plug-ins by 2029, courtesy of a “feebate” or subsidy (the design of which is still to be announced).

By 2035, drivers who switch to electric will save more than $1300 each year. Electric charging stations will pop up on national and local roads. The Ministry of Transport has floated a petrol car ban in 2035. It’s not clear whether the ministry will bring the ban forward to better align with the commission’s roadmap.

Petrol will be mixed with an increasing proportion of biofuels. By 2035, 5 per cent of the petrol and diesel powering existing cars, trucks and planes will be sourced from organic matter, mixed in with fossil fuels.

Cars will be replaced with more bikes, scooters, pedestrians, buses, trains and ferries. One in seven journeys will be taken using these low-carbon modes by 2035, under the commission’s roadmap. Green transport campaigners were critical of a lack of ambition in the draft advice. For those who can, remote work will be common. We’ll also be less likely to own a car and more likely to subscribe to a car-share scheme. When urbanites do drive, they may pay a congestion charge. We’ll be more active and breathe cleaner air.

Publicly funded buses would become cheaper. Colin Smith/Stuff

Lower public transport fares for everyone. To boost demand, ferry, train and bus services will also be more frequent and reliable.

Some goods shipped on trucks will move onto ships and rail lines. Ferries and cargo ships will be electrified, in the commission’s roadmap.

Domestic flights will be powered by electricity by 2030. The commission wants electric planes on short-haul routes such as Wellington to Nelson.

What’s new? Electric planes by 2030 and electric ships after 2025 are significant additions. The commission wanted lower public transport fares for young people, now it’s asked for fare cuts across the board. The commission is now recommending the Government set its own targets to boost walking, cycling and public transport trips.

It’s possible an import ban on new fossil fuelled cars could kick in several years before used vehicles.

We’ll blend a little bit more biofuel into our petrol and diesel supply (5 per cent, up from 3). There’s ever-so-slightly more urban trips on bikes and public transport. There’s a slight delay as to when electric car imports overtake petrol and diesel cars – 2029, not 2027. The commission originally wanted to electrify the main rail lines, but it’s more open to other zero-carbon fuels (such as biodiesel) to power our long-distance trains.

At home

Gas appliances will be switched for electric (and wood). The commission believes electricity is an efficient green fuel source to power our homes, so it recommends the Government set a date after which homes or business can no longer hook up to the natural gas network – 2025 is floated. The gas industry strongly opposed the proposal in the draft advice.

The commission also wants the Government to start phasing out natural gas appliances in the 2030s.

Natural gas, petrol and diesel will get more expensive. According to the commission’s modelling, the rising cost of carbon pollution under the Emissions Trading Scheme will make it increasingly costly to buy these fossil fuels. The average natural gas bill could be $300 higher by 2035. Petrol prices are expected to rise by 30 cents per litre.

Gas hobs would become less common, as the commission recommends they are replaced with electric elements. Kwon Junho/Unsplash

Solar panels on homes will be common. Communities will also run small-scale wind and solar farms, to help generate the electricity we need for our homes and cars.

New houses will be snugger, warmer and drier. By keeping our homes naturally comfortable, less energy will be required to heat them in winter and cool them in summer. Occupants will be healthier, and low-income households should enjoy cheaper energy bills.

Neighbourhoods will become increasingly dense. New houses will be constructed on existing transport routes, giving more people access to buses, trains, ferries, cycleways and paths.

Green bins will be commonplace. Our food and garden waste will be collected and composted, or sent to a landfill that captures the methane producing when organic matter rots.

What’s new? The draft advice told the Government to halt hook-ups to the natural gas network by “no later than 2025 and earlier if possible”. After public backlash, the commission has left it up to the Government to pick a date – though the commission’s roadmap still uses 2025. Landfills will capture more methane than under the draft plan. The household bills for those sticking with fossil fuels have been tweaked.

The organic waste we produce will be increasingly composted, or directed to landfills that capture and combust methane. 123RF

At work

Up to 1400 people in the oil and gas industries will retire or change jobs. The government will identify at-risk workers and offer financial support and advice for those transitioning to a cleaner industry.

Up to 2300 vehicle mechanics will also retire or change jobs. This is because electric cars require less maintenance.

Factories will substitute coal and gas for electricity, wood waste and (potentially) hydrogen. Coal boilers (except for businesses requiring very high temperatures) have already been banned, which is one of the first things on the commission’s to-do list. Food processing facilities, such as the factories using coal to dry milk into powder, will ditch coal between now and 2040. Buildings will stop burning coal for heat by 2030, and start phasing out natural gas after that.

Products and packaging will be re-designed. The stuff we make should be increasingly reusable and recyclable, to minimise emissions from manufacturing and waste. We’ll stop buying products containing hydrofluorocarbon gases, as these refrigerants are very powerful greenhouse gases.

What’s new? The impact on vehicle mechanics is new and significant: between 900 and 2300 fewer jobs by 2035 (though the commission warns this could be an overestimate). The jobs lost in the fossil fuel sectors are now modelled to be 1400, the draft advice gave the figure of 1100.

However, the commission also named the industries that should grow: electricity generation, battery refurbishment, waste and forestry. The commission gave the food processing industry a bit of wiggle room to phase out coal, from an end-date of 2037 to “before 2040”, though the major players and the Government have already started working towards the 2037 date. Methanex may stick around a bit longer, from 2029 to 2040.

Under the Climate Change Commission’s plan, farmers will select sheep breeds that breathe out less methane gas. 123RF

On the marae

New policies will be developed with iwi and Māori input. Any new schemes will need to work for Māori land that’s owned by a collective. Iwi will be able to calculate their collective carbon footprint.

Skills and re-training programmes assisting Māori will be designed by Māori. Tangata whenua may be more likely to switch industries, under the commission’s roadmap. However, more jobs will be gained than lost.

Iwi will receive assistance to meet new rules, particularly any restricting land development. For example, a collective developing land with older forests might get financial assistance to replant trees elsewhere as offsets.

What’s new? The final advice puts more emphasis on the Crown-Māori relationship in designing our low-carbon transition.

On the farm

Cow and sheep numbers will fall by 13.6 per cent by 2030. The country will still produce roughly the same amount of milk and meat, but with fewer animals burping out the potent greenhouse gas methane. The commission is predicting herd numbers will drop by 8 per cent anyway, but its advice recommends stepping this shrinkage up by roughly another 6 per cent. Some farms will replace animals with horticulture. The remaining meat and dairy farms will track carbon stored in their trees, soils and wetlands, and adopt best-practice animal and feed management.

Low-methane sheep will be selected. This will help the country to meet its goal of cutting methane by 10 per cent by 2030. A similar programme for cows kicked off this year, but this isn’t factored into the commission’s first budgets.

Fertiliser use will decrease. When there’s too much nitrogen available in the soil, bugs produce the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide, but selective fertiliser application can help break this cycle. The commission has floated the idea of pricing artificial nitrogen fertilisers as part of our Emissions Trading Scheme, rather than waiting to include them in the new pricing system for livestock emissions (known as He Waka Eke Noa).

A methane-cutting technology will need to emerge – or we may have to make greater cuts to herd numbers. Without a vaccine or food additive that reduces methane, we may just scrape into our 2050 targets but are unlikely to be on track to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the commission says. The commission wants to see a boost towards research into promising techniques.

What’s new? Feedback to the commission said it would be harder to cut agricultural emissions by improving how we farm. The herd reduction estimates have been revised from 15 per cent, down to 13.6 per cent. The idea to price agricultural nitrous oxide in one way (under our Emissions Trading Scheme) and agricultural methane in another wasn't in the draft advice.

Animal numbers in Aotearoa are expected to fall by 8 per cent, but the roadmap ramps this up by an additional 6 per cent. TOM LEE/Stuff

On the grid

The Huntly power station will ditch coal by 2030. The commission proposes that natural gas be used as a back-up fuel after that date, though that’s at odds with the Government’s plan to have a back-up power plant running on renewables by the end of the decade. Watch this space.

New wind and solar farms will appear on hills and sunny flats. Renewable power plants will need to generate 20 per cent more power to meet the new demand for electricity by 2035.

Geothermal plants play a role, alongside wind and solar. Owners of geothermal stations are hoping to come up with a technical solution (such as reinjecting greenhouse gases back into the ground) to reduce the emissions they produce.

What’s new? The commission originally thought geothermal generation plants with high emissions may be forced to close, but it now notes their footprints decreased in recent years, and should continue to.

In our forests

Native deforestation will be banned from 2025. Instead of losing native forest, the country will start to gain it: planting at least 12,000 hectares in 2021, rising to 25,000 hectares annually by 2030. These new forests will suck up carbon for centuries. We’ll start to notice more native birds and lizards and increasing water quality from the new forests.

Exotic forest planting will also ramp up between now and 2030. After that, new pines will taper off, with an increased focus on permanent native planting.

What’s new? No major changes. The commission agreed that pest control is essential to ensuring our newly planted forests survive.

Links

• (NZ) Climate Change Commission releases final report, says nearly all cars imported by 2035 must be electric
• (NZ) Get moving or pay the cost, says Climate Change Commission's advice to Government
• (NZ) Farmers could pay two prices for greenhouse emissions
• (NZ) Stop coal mine extensions now, says influential energy report
• (NZ) The Climate Change Commission's model is under fire
• (NZ) Climate Commissioner warns farmers they have no wiggle room
• (NZ) 'Incredibly timid': Call for clampdown on agriculture as emissions plan finalised
• (NZ) Climate Change Commission sends final report to government
• (NZ) Climate activists hold low expectations for budget's climate focus
• (NZ) Govt's climate change actions falling short - activists
• (NZ) Fiji's response to covid, climate crises gets boost from NZ, Americans

(USA NPR) The Drought In The Western U.S. Is Getting Bad. Climate Change Is Making It Worse

NPR - Lauren Sommer

Warmer temperatures are leading to emptier reservoirs across the West, such as Lake Oroville in Northern California. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

By almost every measure, the drought in the Western U.S. is already one for the record books.

Almost half the country's population is facing dry conditions. Soils are parched. Mountain snowpacks produce less water. Wildfire risk is already extreme. The nation's largest reservoir, Lake Mead, is headed to its lowest level since it was first filled in the 1930s.

The past year has been the driest or second driest in most Southwestern states since record-keeping began in 1895. Farms and cities have begun imposing water restrictions, but Western states are facing a threat that goes deeper than a single bad year. The hotter climate is shrinking water supplies, no matter what the weather brings.

Warming temperatures make it less likely for a raindrop or snowflake to reach a reservoir due to increased evaporation. As a result, the people who manage the West's complex water systems are realizing that with climate change, they can no longer rely on the past to predict the future.

That's creating a fundamental threat to the way Western water systems operate, because they were built around the idea that the climate would remain constant. Historical climate data such as river flows and rainfall totals told engineers how big to build reservoirs and canals. The data also told them how much water was available to divide up among cities and farms.

Climate change is putting that system under increasing stress, shrinking water supplies for tens of millions of people and for the farmland that produces most of the country's fruits and vegetables. Water cutbacks are reverberating through California's $50 billion agricultural industry, which employs tens of thousands of people in many small towns.

Southwestern states recently negotiated a temporary agreement to use less water as reservoirs keep falling. But tough conversations remain about how the West and its complex system of water rights will adapt to a future for which it wasn't designed.

"We can really no longer look at the past and say: The amount of water we've had in the last 100 years is what we can expect in the future," says Eric Kuhn, an author who worked on water policy for decades at the Colorado River Water Conservation District. "That is no longer true because of climate change."

As the West grew, states divided up water held behind the Hoover Dam, outside Las Vegas, but they allocated more water than the Colorado River typically provides on average. Ansel Adams/National Archives

"A painful reduction"

The Colorado River is the main source of water for much of the Southwest. In late April, Arizona water management officials held a public meeting that everyone had hoped to avoid. The Central Arizona Project, which supplies Colorado River water to millions of people in the state, announced it expects to take 30% less water than usual.

Lake Mead, the largest reservoir on the Colorado River, just outside Las Vegas, has been falling rapidly, and was just 38% full by late April. When water supplies get so low, some states are required to cut back on use. Arizona's reductions will primarily hit farmers. Some will be made up through groundwater pumping or with water previously stored in reservoirs and banked for future use.

The cuts are "a painful reduction to Arizona," says Tom Buschatzke, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. "If the reservoir continues to decline, more aggressive actions will be taken by the lower basin users, including California, to slow the decline in the system."

That decline in the Colorado River's flow is exacerbated by both a 20-year drought and climate change. But it has been a century in the making.

As cities from Denver to Los Angeles began growing in the early 1900s, planners knew they'd need to secure a reliable water supply in such an arid region. Engineers drafted plans to build a massive reservoir in a steep rock canyon that is now Lake Mead.

But with seven states vying for Colorado River water, officials met in 1922 to negotiate how they would share it. The first step was determining how much there was to share.

The officials looked at the previous 20 years of the Colorado River's flow, which was high due to above-average precipitation. They divided up the river water anyway based on those atypical numbers despite warnings from a hydrologist.

"They ended up appropriating more water than the river could actually produce," Kuhn says. "Once the commissioners negotiated the compact, which was very difficult, they just didn't want to hear that they'd overstated the amount of water supply."

The promise of that water spawned a vast network of reservoirs and canals, carrying it hundreds of miles through the desert and eventually reaching millions of homes. Anyone in the U.S. who eats lettuce during winter has likely tasted Colorado River water, which irrigates the fields in Arizona and California that produce most of the season's crop.

Yet since the water was divided up, the Colorado River has been shrinking. Average flows have been drier, compounded by a drought beginning in 2000. The water level in Lake Mead has fallen around 140 feet, leaving a telltale white "bathtub ring" around its perimeter.

Climate amplifying bad luck

Like a run-of-the-mill streak of bad luck, droughts are normal in the West. Now, climate change is exacerbating their effects.

"Over the last 22 years or so, there's been quite a bit of bad luck because precipitation totals have on average been low," says Park Williams, associate professor of hydroclimatology at UCLA. "But the effect of that bad luck has been really amplified because of warmer temperatures."

As farmers in California's Central Valley face drought restrictions, some are removing almond trees to reduce water use, especially in aging orchards. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

A hotter atmosphere is thirstier, drawing water out of plants and soils and into the air. Snowpacks melt earlier, which in turn boosts that evaporation, because without the reflective surface that snow creates, soils heat up faster. And when soils are dry, they act like a sponge. They need to soak up more moisture before they're saturated enough for the water to run off into rivers and streams.

Studies show that since 2000, about half the reduction in the Colorado River's flow has been due to warmer temperatures. For every degree Celsius of warming, the river's flow is expected to shrink by 9%, according to another study.

The same climate impacts are being felt elsewhere in California, where a massive network of reservoirs and canals connects the water-rich Northern California mountains to the Bay Area and Southern California, where most people live. That water also flows to the Central Valley and other agricultural areas, which grow two-thirds of the country's fruits and nuts.

The state's snowpack in the Sierra Nevada up north is a vital source of water. But in a hotter climate, it's shrinking and melting earlier in the season. And as in the Colorado River basin, less of that snowpack is turning into water supply.

"We're getting a lot less streamflow coming off the same amount of snowpack," says Andrew Schwarz, climate action coordinator at California's Department of Water Resources. "We're not seeing as much water showing up in our rivers as we would have expected with the same amount of rain or snow that we had gotten historically."

According to state research, California's water supply, which reaches 25 million residents through two state and federal water projects, will shrink with every degree of warming, even if the state gets more rain than average.

Bumpy road ahead

With long-term decline on the horizon, water managers across the West are grappling with a system that wasn't built with flexibility in mind.

Water rights follow a pecking order of "first in time, first in right," with the oldest water rights taking priority over others. For many, those rights are considered untouchable, and any effort to curtail them spawns numerous lawsuits.

Seeing the writing on the wall, states on the Colorado River negotiated a hard-fought plan in 2019 to deal with water shortages. As Lake Mead drops, Arizona and Nevada face cutbacks first. If water levels continue to fall, other states such as California will also face restrictions.

The solution is temporary, however. States will need to negotiate another plan that would start in 2026, and reservoirs are projected to keep dropping over the next two years. Reexamining the water allotments in the original agreement in 1922 is a far thornier prospect. It was ratified by both states and Congress, making it federal law.

"It's difficult," Kuhn says. "It creates a lot of legal conflicts. It's a bumpy road, but we'll get there because we have to."

Western snowpacks are melting earlier, which in turn boosts evaporation and leads to less runoff reaching reservoirs such as California's Lake Oroville. Kelly M. Grow/California Department of Water Resources

California has its own system of rights where water users have claimed more water than is available on average. During the state's last drought, some water users challenged the state's authority to regulate them. California officials released a report this year identifying a need to have more adaptable water rights in a changing climate as well as better water use data.

"California's water system was designed for a climate we don't have anymore," says Alvar Escriva-Bou, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. "What we are seeing, especially in some parts of California, is that we have been using more water than we have. And that's causing problems. So the reality here is that we have to make a reduction of water use over the long term."

Conservation will be critical in a hotter climate. The vast majority of water used in the West goes to agriculture, and some regions have conserved by investing in more efficient irrigation. Other regions, with older water rights less at risk, have had less incentive to do so.

The good news is that some drought measures seem to stick. Since California's last drought from 2012 to 2016, residential water use has remained lower than it was before the drought hit. It's more than just shorter showers. Residents made investments such as water-efficient fixtures and low-water landscaping that lock in water savings for years to come. 

Links

• (USA Axios) Southwest's New Climate Peril
• Severe Drought, Worsened by Climate Change, Ravages the American West
• A very, very, very dry future for the U.S. West
• Drought stokes fears of severe fire season in West
• Drought Is the U.S. West’s Next Big Climate Disaster
• Large contribution from anthropogenic warming to an emerging North American megadrought
• Western U.S. may be entering its most severe drought in modern history
• Creeping toward Permanent Drought
• Megadrought emerging in western U.S. could be the worst in 1,200 years, study finds
• ‘Megadrought’ persists in western U.S., as another extremely dry year develops
• The megadrought parching 77 percent of the Western US, explained

(AU Canberra Times) Scott Morrison And G7+ Leaders Implored To Act On Climate Change As 'Colossal' Risk To Humanity

Canberra Times - Karen Barlow

An unprecedented grouping of 126 Nobel Prize winners including the Dalai Lama and ANU Vice-chancellor Brian Schmidt are imploring the major G7-plus world leaders meeting this week to act on climate change, warning of 'colossal risks' to humanity.

It comes as Prime Minister Scott Morrison warns, ahead of the summit, that Australia is going to chart its own path to net zero.

So, Mr Morrison is among the leaders targeted by the statement which has been led by Professor Schmidt.

"Without transformational action this decade, humanity is taking colossal risks with our common future," reads the Nobel grouping statement.

ANU Vice-chancellor Brian Schmidt is among an unprecedented grouping of 126 Nobel Prize winners imploring G7-plus leaders to act on climate change. Picture: Sitthixay Ditthavong

The large Nobel Prize grouping includes climate science experts, Nobel Prize winning scientists and Peace Prize laureates, including Northern Ireland peace activist Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, Australian immunologist Professor Peter Doherty, the Dalai Lama and Australian gastroenterologist Professor Barry Marshall.

"As I've said previously, Australia is on the pathway to net zero," he is expected to tell the Perth USAsia Centre.

Mr Morrison insists Australia should chart its own path, a nod to his favoured technology-focused approach.

"Australia does not support setting sectoral targets or timeframes for decarbonising particular parts of our economy or setting false deadlines for phasing out specific energy sources."

"It's not an argument about climate change," he is expected to say. "It's about how Australia best advances our interests as part of a world that is dealing with climate change. It's not about if or when. Protecting and advancing Australia's interests is about the how."

Mr Morrison leaves Perth on Thursday for Singapore before heading to Europe for the G7-plus summit. He'll be under pressure from other leaders, who are more progressive over climate change such as US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, to join the global shift towards a net-zero energy economy by 2050.

"Time is running out to prevent irreversible changes," they said the statement.

"Ultimately, this means valuing the resilience of societies and the resilience of Earth's biosphere."

Links

• Nobel Prize Laureates and Other Experts Issue Urgent Call for Action After ‘Our Planet, Our Future’ Summit
• The G7 and a crucial moment for the climate 
• U.K. Calls For Climate ‘Marshall Plan,’ But Will The G7 Deliver?
• Carbon Borders: How the G7 might come down on Australia’s climate negligence
• Morrison will warn G7 nations not to put carbon tariffs on trade
• Your G7 greenwashing guide: How Australia will feign climate ambition
• Scott Morrison’s claim Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are falling does ‘not stack up’

(Scientific American) Military Operations Will Be Strained By Climate Change

Scientific American - Sara Schonhardt, E&E News

U.S. adviser says “It is our duty to warn the public about this threat”

Credit: Alamy

Militaries around the world could be overstretched as they respond to more intense and frequent climate-driven crises and threats to their own installations.

That means faster action is needed to address climate risks in security practices, according to a report by the International Military Council on Climate and Security, a group of officers and experts.

It envisions a world rippling with new threats as conflicts erupt over waning water supplies and disappearing farmland. Operating bases are at risk of being submerged by rising oceans, and military personnel could be retasked to help civilian populations during intensifying disasters.

“As military and security professionals, it is our duty to warn the public about this threat,” Steve Brock, a senior adviser at the Council on Strategic Risks and lead author on the report, said in a statement.

“We must work together to achieve significant emissions reductions to avoid the worst effects of climate change and also invest heavily in the climate resilience of nations that need it in order to avoid instability, conflict and major humanitarian disasters,” he added.

The report recommends directing assistance toward water and food security, disaster preparedness, and encouraging investments in renewable energy and adaptation.

It calls on militaries to integrate climate risk assessments into their security plans, and it urges international actors to develop laws and mechanisms around new climate science, such as geoengineering.

It also includes tools to evaluate current and future climate risks among countries and seek ways to confront them. And it presents findings from a climate security risk perception survey in which experts anticipate “severe-to-catastrophic risks” as soon as 2031, led by natural disasters, increased inequality, biodiversity loss, infectious diseases and forced displacement.

While the effects of climate change threaten military infrastructure, the impact they have on social systems could impose the most pressing security challenges.

Increasing water and food shortages, for example, can drive internal friction or organized crime. A report last month by the Council on Strategic Risks found that climate change could increase the potential for conflict between India and China, in part by intensifying competition over vital water resources (Climatewire, May 17).

The convergence of climate change with other crises—such as pandemics, economic shocks, and extreme drought or flooding—could create “compound” risks that many countries are unprepared to manage, according to yesterday’s report.

“Climate security risks will continue to intensify across all regions, with new disasters hitting before societies can recover from or adapt to the impact of previous ones,” it states. “Fragile regions of the world will continue to face the most severe and catastrophic security consequences of climate change, yet no region is immune.”

Tackling the threats posed by climate change is expected to be a key part of the Group of Seven meeting later this week and NATO on June 14.

President Biden’s fiscal 2022 budget proposal sets aside $617 million for the military to confront the impacts of climate change, with increases in construction spending by the Department of Defense directed toward protecting installations from extreme weather threats (Greenwire, June 1).

It would also put money toward decarbonizing the department’s intense demand for energy. That won’t be an easy lift.

According to a 2019 study by Brown University’s Costs of War project, the Defense Department is the U.S. government’s largest fossil fuel consumer. Another study by Lancaster University found that the U.S. military emits more greenhouse gases than most countries.

Links

• (UK) British Ministry Of Defense Announces Plans To Address Climate Change
• (USA) 5 Causes Of Climate Change: From Fossil Fuels To Capitalism
• (AU) Government Wants Military Response To Climate Change Breakdown
• (AU) 'Dystopian Future': Climate Change To Force Review Of Military's Role
• Climate Change Poses A ‘Direct Threat’ To Australia’s National Security. It Must Be A Political Priority
• Climate Change Could Stretch Our Capabilities, Defence Force Chief Speech Warns
• Australia’s Strategic Thinkers Can’t Continue To Ignore Climate Change
• Defence Chief Sounds Warning On Surge Of Climate Change Refugees
• Defence Lacks 'Overarching Strategy' To Deal With Climate Change Conflict, Internal Notes Warn

(AU Environmental Defenders Office) Analysis: The Walls Are Closing In On Fossil Fuels

Environmental Defenders Office - Elaine Johnson

Author Elaine Johnson is Director of Legal Strategy at the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO). EDO represented the Australian Conservation Foundation in its case against Adani’s North Galilee Water Scheme.

It has been a big couple of weeks in the world of climate litigation, as three significant judgments were handed down by courts in Australia and overseas in cases against Adani, Shell and Whitehaven.

There’s no doubt that the legal landscape has shifted, and climate lawyers everywhere are busy analysing what this means for current and future cases.

But it’s not just climate lawyers who should be taking note. The latest developments in the law have real implications for the future of fossil fuel projects in Australia. Boards, investors and governments should also pay attention.

On May 25, the Australian Conservation Foundation won its case against the Federal Environment Minister’s approval of Adani’s North Galilee Water Scheme. Adani wants to take billions of litres of water from the Suttor River to service its coal mine.

Invalidating the Minister’s approval, the Federal Court found that she is legally bound to assess the impact of the Scheme on Australia’s water resources.

This win is important, because it’s no longer possible for coal and gas companies to avoid scrutiny of their impacts on water resources, which can be substantial, by separating water infrastructure from their mines.

It confirms that major coal and gas projects are subject to scrutiny by the Independent Expert Scientific Committee (IESC) for all water impacts. Recently, the Queensland Government relied on IESC advice when it assessed Clive Palmer’s proposal for a greenfield coal mine near the Great Barrier Reef as “not suitable to proceed.”

Next up, on May 26, the Hague District Court delivered a landmark judgment when it found that Royal Dutch Shell has a duty to protect the human rights of Dutch citizens from climate harm.

In an extraordinary development, the court ordered Shell to immediately make plans to reduce its global emissions by 45% by the end of 2030, in line with the Paris Agreement goals.  That order includes emissions caused by the use of its products globally, known as Scope 3 emissions.

Immediately, climate lawyers around the world got very excited. It’s the first time that a court has found a fossil fuel company liable for climate harm. We all instantly recognised that the Shell judgment opened the door for a range of legal cases in development.

If a company like Shell can be held liable for climate harm, this exposes fossil fuel producers everywhere to a heightened risk of litigation. The industry is now one step closer to being on the receiving end of a successful damages claim for climate harm. Boards and financiers around the world will be taking note.

Finally, on May 27, the Federal Court of Australia issued a ground-breaking judgment in a case brought by eight Australian children, led by 16-year-old Anjali Sharma, and represented by Sister Marie Brigid.

In the case, the children were seeking an injunction to stop the Federal Environment Minister approving Whitehaven’s Vickery Coal Mine. 

The court declined to issue the injunction, but significantly, found that the Minister owes a duty to take reasonable care not to cause climate harm to children when deciding whether to approve a new development.

The court also found that climate change poses a real risk of death and personal injury to Australian children, and that 100Mt of greenhouse gas emissions from the Vickery Coal Mine increases that risk of harm.

The Sharma case represents a huge shift in the legal landscape. When deciding whether to approve fossil fuel projects, the Minister must now take reasonable care not to cause harm to children.

Yet, the science is clear – in order to achieve a safe climate, remaining fossil fuel reserves must be kept in the ground. 

The latest report from the International Energy Agency found that there’s no more room for new oil or gas fields, or new or expanded coal projects, in a net zero emissions scenario by 2050.

It’s difficult to see how a reasonable person in the minister’s position could now continue approving new fossil fuel projects, business as usual.

The events of the last couple of weeks have caused a flurry of interest in the legal world, but it’s not just lawyers who should be taking note. It’s fair to say that fossil fuel projects, their proponents, and approvers, are now highly vulnerable to legal challenge.

The walls are closing in, and it’s well past time for a country like Australia to be looking beyond fossil fuels towards a cleaner, smarter, safer future.

That’s something that boards, investors, and governments alike should all be noting.

Links

• (AU ABC) Australian Conservation Foundation Wins Federal Court Challenge Against Adani And Environment Minister
• (AU The Conversation) Four seismic climate wins show Big Oil, Gas and Coal are running out of places to hide 
• (AU The Guardian) Australian Court Finds Government Has Duty To Protect Young People From Climate Crisis
• (USA NYT) Big Setbacks Propel Oil Giants Toward A ‘Tipping Point’
• (AU AFR) A Warming Climate For Disclosure-Related Litigation
• Lethal Heating Climate Change 337 Legal Posts

(AU SBS) Climate Change A Security Threat: Report

SBS - AAP

A new report by former defence and security leaders suggests climate change presents a clear and present danger to the world's collective security.

A new report by former defence and security leaders suggests climate change presents a clear and present danger to the world's collective security. Source: Getty

Australia's 2020 bushfires have been showcased in a new global report as an example of the security risk from climate change.

The World Climate and Security Report, released on Monday by the International Military Council on Climate and Security, looks at the threats posed by the convergence of climate change with other global risks, like COVID-19.

It also examines the intensification of climate risks, with new disasters hitting before communities can recover from or adapt to previous ones.

"Fragile regions of the world will continue to face the most severe and catastrophic security consequences of climate change, yet no region is immune, as demonstrated - for example - by the unprecedented wildfires in the United States and Australia in 2020," the report says.

Evacuees from Mallacoota, Victoria, being transported on a landing craft to Royal Australian Navy (RAN) MV Sycamore during bushfire relief efforts. Source: AAP / Royal Australian Navy

The COVID-19 pandemic showed many countries were unprepared to manage multiple crises simultaneously.

As well, the report points out militaries will be increasingly overstretched as climate change intensifies.

"As the pace and intensity of extreme weather events increases, countries are increasing their reliance on military forces as first responders.

"While direct climate change effects regularly threaten military infrastructure and threaten to reduce readiness, the most pressing security threats will come from climate change-induced disruptions to social systems."

Former Australian defence chief Chris Barrie, who is part of the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group, said addressing the link between climate and security risk should be a priority.

"This new report reiterates that climate change presents a clear and present danger to our collective security," he said.

"Climate change is already harmfully impacting security environments, infrastructure, institutions, lives and livelihoods.

"A growing number of world leaders, including US President (Joe) Biden, are recognising climate change is an existential security threat and prioritising action on climate and security.

"However, in our region we have yet to come to terms with climate security risks. Australia is being left behind our closest ally and European nations."

Audio: Admiral (ret) Chris Barrie, former Chief of the Defence Force; executive member of the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group. Source Radio National Breakfast

The group says the federal government should commit to an urgent and comprehensive whole-of-nation climate and security risk assessment.

A survey of security experts, which formed part of the report, found that while "water security" was the issue deemed to be most risky this year, the top issue would switch to "ecosystem security" in 2031 and "national security" in 2041.

The report cites a wide range of examples of climate action taken by governments which could at the same time improve security.

"For instance, a land restoration project may be initiated as a climate adaptation effort, but concurrently create a new carbon sink (mitigation), new opportunities for food production and new livelihoods, and thereby an alternative to joining a local militia."

Climate and security will both be on the agenda of the G7 summit in the UK, which Prime Minister Scott Morrison will attend this weekend as a guest.

Links

• (AU Video) ABC 7.30 Special: Climate Emergency
• (AU SMH) Military Leaders, Security Chiefs Demand Action On Climate Threat
• (AU SMH) Climate Change A Security Threat In Australia, Says Intelligence Expert
• (AU) Climate Change Is A Security Threat The Government Keeps Ignoring. We’ll Show Up Empty Handed To Yet Another Global Summit
• (USA) Intelligence Forecast Sees A Post-Coronavirus World Upended By Climate Change And Splintering Societies
• (AU) Climate Change ‘A National Security Threat’: Report
• Climate Change 'The Biggest Security Threat Ever Faced By Modern Humans', David Attenborough Warns

(The Conversation) Climate Change: World’s Lakes Are In Hot Water – Threatening Rare Wildlife

The Conversation - Antonia Law

Jdross75/Shutterstock

Author Antonia Law is Lecturer in Physical Geography, Keele University

The Earth’s surface is splotched with 117 million lakes. Some are scarcely more than ponds, while others are so big they can be seen from space.

At 395 miles long, 49 miles wide and just over 1 mile deep, Lake Baikal in Siberia is one of the world’s largest and it’s home to 2,500 species, including the Baikal seal – Earth’s only species of freshwater seal.

Lakes and rivers occupy just 1% of the Earth’s surface but are incredible hotspots for biodiversity, sheltering 10% of all species globally. Particularly in older and deeper lakes, life has had millions of years to evolve and adapt to the peculiarities of that habitat, giving rise to unique forms.

But since 1970, numbers of freshwater vertebrates, including birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, have declined by a staggering 83% through the extraction of lake water, pollution, invasive species and disease. Now, climate change threatens to drive even deeper losses.

Lake heatwaves – when surface water temperatures rise above their average for longer than five days – are a relatively new phenomenon. But by the end of this century, heatwaves could last between three and 12 times longer and become 0.3°C to 1.7°C hotter.

In some places, particularly near the equator, lakes may enter a permanent heatwave state. Smaller lakes may shrink or disappear entirely, along with the wildlife they contain, while deeper lakes will face less intense but longer heatwaves.

Lake Baikal’s age and depth has thrown up several evolutionary quirks. Nature Picture Library/Alamy Stock Photo

In a new study, researchers examined 393 lakes worldwide between 1981 and 2017 and found their temperatures rose by 0.39°C every decade, while dissolved oxygen fell by 5% at the surface and 19% in the depths.

It’s in these cooler, deeper parts of lakes where trout, burbot and salmon usually thrive thanks to sufficient oxygen, especially in the summer. Largely due to warming air temperatures, 68% of the lakes in the study had lost this important niche to rising temperatures and falling oxygen levels.

So what do these changes mean for the other forms of life that call lakes home?

How lake life will change

Most organisms that live in lakes can only thrive in water with just the right temperature and concentration of nutrients and oxygen. Warmer lakes hold less oxygen and lose more water through evaporation, forcing species to live in saltier and less oxygenated habitats.

Things won’t be easy for species which live above the water for most of their lives either. Dragonflies are a common sight flitting among the reeds on the lake side. They lay their eggs in the shallows, but as lakes are lowered or dry out during more frequent and severe heatwaves, this protection is lost. Those larvae which survive are likely to emerge early, when food and habitat may be lacking.

Climate change will shift the types of organisms we find in lakes. Cold water fish, such as trout and salmon, need cooler temperatures and higher oxygen concentrations than warm water species such as largemouth bass and white perch. One cold-loving species, Arctic char, could vanish from 73% of its Swedish range by 2100 just as a result of warming.

Meanwhile, rising temperatures could mean parasites that infect fish grow faster and larger. In one study, parasitic worms infecting stickleback fish grew four times faster in water at 20°C compared to 15°C.

Heatwaves could accelerate the spread and size of pathogens in fish, with huge consequences for the aquaculture industry and wild populations. Human diseases, transmitted by freshwater organisms, may also increase.

Naegleria fowleri is a lake parasite that flourishes in warmer temperatures. Known as the brain-eating amoeba, this microbe can cause fatal meningoencephalitis if it enters the body through the nose. Prolonged periods when lake waters remain warmer than average could see this parasite expand into more temperate waters.

Since warmer surface waters hold more nutrients, climate change could cause an explosion in the number of microscopic algae that live in lakes. These microorganisms are the base of the food web and the foundation of life in these habitats. But this isn’t the good news it seems.

When nutrients are abundant, huge quantities of these algae can form a thick green (or sometimes red) blanket on the lake surface. These algal blooms not only look unsightly, they often produce harmful toxins.

Heatwaves are increasing the frequency of harmful algal blooms and causing mass mortality events where thousands of animals die in a few days. Algal blooms block out the light and suffocate fish, either by crashing oxygen levels or clogging up their gills. A 100 metre-wide, 15cm-deep algal bloom in Loch Leven in Scotland in 1992 killed 1,000 brown trout over 24 hours.

Lake algal blooms are likely to be more frequent and severe as Earth warms. O Partime Photo/Shutterstock

Unlike those living elsewhere, most lake animals cannot simply move to another habitat once their lake becomes uninhabitable. But even migratory species will suffer. In August 2004, 15,000 flamingos died on a lake in Tanzania after consuming toxins produced by algal blooms.

As heatwaves proliferate and oxygen levels decline, mass fish die-offs are predicted to double from the 2040s in lakes in the northern hemisphere and increase fourfold in the southern hemisphere from the 2080s onwards.

Without immediate action to curb emissions and slow climate change, many of the world’s lakes are on course for a sweltering, breathless and lifeless future.

Links

• Widespread deoxygenation of temperate lakes
• (The Guardian) Climate Crisis Is Suffocating The World’s Lakes, Study Finds 
• Lake Baikal: how climate change is threatening the world’s oldest, deepest lake
• Floating solar farms could cool down lakes threatened by climate change
• Lake Poopó: why Bolivia’s second largest lake disappeared – and how to bring it back
• Africa’s most toxic lakes are a paradise for fearless flamingos