17/06/2021

(AU The Guardian) Australian Resources Minister Attacks ‘Green Activists’ For Trying To ‘Cripple’ Fossil Fuel Companies

The Guardian - 

Keith Pitt urges oil and gas producers to fight back against groups such as Greenpeace by quantifying the sector’s contribution to the economy

Minister Keith Pitt will use a speech to the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association conference to rail against environmental groups. Photograph: Aaron Bunch/AAP
Australia’s resources minister, Keith Pitt, is urging oil and gas producers to turn the “spotlight” on environmental groups campaigning against an expansion of the fossil fuel industry on climate change grounds.

Pitt will use a speech to the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association conference in Perth on Wednesday to rail against “activism” that “ignores the fact that resources development in Australia is carried out safely and responsibly and that Australia’s economy was built off the back of the resources sector”.

According to speech notes circulated by his office in advance, the resources minister will declare it is “clear that the courts and bureaucratic processes are being used by green activists to delay major projects and potentially cripple companies”.

He will single out Greenpeace for special mention. Citing figures from the charities commission, Pitt will say Greenpeace “raised more than $18.5m in donations and bequests and $1.1m in government grants in 2019-20 in Australia alone”.

“Nearly 25% of expenses related to fundraising and 39% were in staff costs – so rather than protecting the environment they are mostly focussed on protecting themselves,” Pitt will say.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific chief executive David Ritter hit back. “The very reason that millions of Australians support the work of Greenpeace is to take the action on climate change that minister Pitt’s government has not only resoundingly failed to do, but actively blocked for the past seven years.

“Greenpeace is a movement of people. If these climate-wrecking oil and gas giants at this conference want to rise to minister Pitt’s challenge and attack the people of Australia for caring about nature and the future of our kids, we are ready. Because for as long as big climate polluters threaten the future, we will stand in their way.”

The resources minister will argue demand for LNG is growing in the face of global pushback from environmental and shareholder groups and Australia intends to remain at the “forefront of the LNG sector” for decades.

Australia urged to drop coal and gas plans after global energy agency’s warning. Read more
He will tell the conference the government plans to develop the North Bowen and Galilee basins in central Queensland for gas extraction. “We know that the Bowen Basin is a major coal-producing area but it also has immense potential for gas”.

Pitt will urge oil and gas producers to fight back against “green activists” by putting “facts” before the Australian public, including quantifying the sector’s economic contribution to the country “and indeed facts about the activist’s campaigns – the spotlight should be on those organisations for a change”.

The resources minister will also flag concern about banks and insurers stepping back from financing fossil fuel projects. Pitt triggered a parliamentary inquiry, chaired by fellow Queensland National George Christensen, after a public commitment from ANZ to step back from business customers with material thermal coal exposures – market signalling that sparked consternation within the Nationals.

After the ANZ’s statement last October, the agriculture minister, David Littleproud, called for a boycott of the bank, and the deputy prime minister, Michael McCormack, declared the bank’s plan “virtue signalling”. Christensen has previously denied the link between climate change and the severity of natural disasters.

In the wake of the ANZ fracas, Pitt originally instructed the joint standing committee on trade and investment growth to grill financial regulators, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, as well as the banks, about their plans to pull back on lending or insuring mining projects because of climate change.

But the inquiry stalled after the joint standing committee – in a rare rebuke – deferred making a decision about whether to proceed with Pitt’s original ministerial referral. The stalling reflected a view among some Liberals that the inquiry should not be a witch-hunt against banks managing carbon risk.

Pitt subsequently broadened the terms of reference, asking the committee to investigate finance for all export industries. He said the adjustment was a strengthening of the original terms of reference.

The banks and their lobbying arm, the Australian Banking Association, have used new submissions to Pitt’s parliamentary inquiry to implicitly rebut claims from senior Nationals that their actions amount to moral posturing or virtue signalling.

The major banks and the ABA have pointed out that current carbon risk practices – namely, disclosing information relating to climate exposures and calculating the potential risk of climate change on their balance sheets – are requirements driven by international governance setting bodies, of which Australian regulators and Australian companies are members.

Scott Morrison’s claim Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are falling does ‘not stack up’.  Read more
Pitt will tell the APPEA conference on Wednesday the inquiry led by Christensen will “inquire into and report on the approach and motivations of our financial institutions regarding their investment in Australia’s export industries”.

APPEA has used its submission to the inquiry to argue that environmental groups have “over recent years focused their activism on shareholders and finance sources, like superannuation funds, banks, and other lending facilities” – and have been able to exploit an “information asymmetry”.

The submission says since 2017, shareholder activist groups collectively have submitted 92 resolutions “pertaining to climate change, governance (to facilitate greater shareholder climate change activism) or political lobbying (as it pertains to climate change)” – with nearly 40 resolutions relating to APPEA member activities.

APPEA contends this activity “conveniently ignore[s] the body of evidence that demonstrates the role that natural gas is playing in delivering lower carbon energy security to growing population centres, particularly in our own region” and commitments by the gas industry to the United Nations sustainable development agenda.

APPEA is the peak national body representing upstream oil and gas explorers and producers active in Australia. Member companies account for more than 90% of Australia’s petroleum production.

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

(Bloomberg) ‘Petrolhead’ Who Beat Shell Shows How Law Can Fight Climate Change

Bloomberg Green -  | 

Attorney Roger Cox says oil industry executives should be held responsible for their companies’ carbon emissions
Roger Cox Photographer: Peter Boer/Bloomberg

Royal Dutch Shell Plc hired a team of pricey lawyers for its defense against environmental activists in a Dutch court, and lost.

A decade-old, $22 book might have upped their chances of winning. “Revolution Justified: Why Only the Law Can Save Us Now,” is no bestseller, ranking in the mid-600,000s in Amazon’s Kindle store. But the book, by environmental lawyer Roger Cox, laid out arguments that were integral to his landmark victory over the Anglo-Dutch oil giant on May 26.

The book suggests two building blocks for a case such as the lawsuit against Shell. One is that there’s incontrovertible evidence that warming beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius will have dire consequences for the planet, and any company that ignores that is doing so consciously. The second is that companies have a clear duty to ensure a healthy environment for the world’s citizens.

The urgency is compounded, Cox says, because even if we stop emitting CO2 today, the planet will suffer increasingly grave consequences for decades to come.

“The damage states and multinationals have done is far greater than we can see now,” says Cox, who says he sought to make the book straightforward enough to hold the interest of the general public but persuasive enough to stand up in a courtroom. “Understanding this is judicially of great importance and makes intervention by the courts necessary.”

After four days of arguments, a court in The Hague accepted Cox’s line of reasoning, ruling that Shell must slash its greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels—a sharp increase over the 20% the company had previously pledged.

“Even if states do nothing or only a little,” Judge Larisa Alwin said in announcing the verdict, “companies have the responsibility to respect human rights.”

Shell says it will appeal the verdict as it feels it was unjustly singled out. But Chief Executive Officer Ben van Beurden on June 9 said the company will take “bold but measured” steps to accelerate its energy transition.

Cox, left, and members of Dutch environment group 'Milieudefensie', celebrate after the ruling in the Shell case. Photographer: Remko De Waal/ANP/Getty Images

What Cox has engineered “seems to have been a complete victory for the plaintiffs, and the court’s specificity and ambition in ordering Shell to reduce its downstream emissions are remarkable,” says Michael Burger, executive director of Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, who advises on lawsuits against oil companies.

Burger says he expects attorneys filing similar lawsuits in the U.S. to cite the case as precedent. Cox, 53, based his strategy on a 2015 case he brought against the Dutch government for Urgenda, an environmental non-profit. In its verdict, the court ordered the state to cut CO2 emissions 25% from 1990 levels by 2020, but the Netherlands didn’t meet the goal—and Urgenda has threatened another lawsuit.

“Without the Urgenda case, we would never have been able to win against Shell,” says Cox. “If you cannot hold a state responsible for climate change, it wouldn’t have been possible for a company.”

Laura Burgers, an assistant professor at the University of Amsterdam who studies climate change litigation, says the cases highlight the difficulty politicians have in tackling the issue. The judicial system in various countries will instead need to step in to ensure the problem gets the attention it needs. “These court cases are a sign of governmental failure,” Burgers says.

For Cox, who studied law at Leiden University and later worked at big law firm in nearby Rotterdam, the legal victories mark the culmination of his personal journey from apathy to activism about climate change. “I was a real petrol-head,” says Cox, who two decades ago moved from Rotterdam to a village in the southern Netherlands in search of a calmer place to raise his family. “I was one of those people saying that 1 cm sea level more or less wouldn’t matter.”

His epiphany was triggered by Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth.” Spurred into action by the documentary highlighting the perils of global warming, Cox arranged free viewings across the Netherlands and set up a non-profit focused on the issue. After studying legal precedents on the matter, he realized that as a lawyer he could best effect change via the courts. “If I can change, anybody can,” he says.

Following his win over the Dutch government, a local activist group called Milieudefensie asked Cox to pursue a similar strategy against Shell. He took the case, partly funded by the group, and soon found a 2014 letter by the company’s investor relations chief promising that Shell would not end up with so-called “stranded assets”—facilities and reserves that can’t be exploited as consumption drops or the legal barriers to tapping them become insurmountable.

Reading between the lines, says Cox, Shell was indicating it would decide the pace of its transition to renewables despite international agreements on targets for reducing emissions. That standpoint, he says, put the company in violation of its duty to defend the rights of fellow citizens, an important legal principle in many countries.

Greenpeace hold an environmental protest during the Shell shareholders meeting in The Hague, on May 19, 2020. Photographer: Romy Arroyo Fernandez/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Two years later, shortly after the Paris Climate agreement, van Beurden questioned whether it would be possible to limit to 1.5 or even 2 degrees of global warming.

Speaking on the Dutch news show Nieuwsuur, he stressed that his company would “pump as much as possible to meet demand.” Cox says the next battle front in climate change litigation will likely get personal. At Shell’s annual meeting in May, a proposal from a shareholder group that the company pursue a more aggressive transition away from fossil fuels won the backing of 30% of shareholders, though a plan from management drew 89% support.

The Shell proposal envisions a big expansion in clean energy but also decades more oil and gas production. For Cox, the time to act is now, and if Shell’s bosses and other oil executives don’t do so, he says they should be held personally liable for their failure to address climate change.

“CEOs must take the responsibility to explain to their shareholders why the transition must be accelerated,” Cox says. “The net is closing in.

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

(AU Legal) Minister Found To Owe Duty Of Care To Consider Climate Change In Decision Making

Clyde & Co Global Law Firm - Dean Carrigan | Jacques Jacobs | Jacinta Studdert

Background

On or around 11 February 2016, Whitehaven Coal Pty Ltd applied to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment (Minister) to expand their Vickery Coal Project which would increase the total coal extraction from 135 to 138 million tonnes. When combusted, the additional coal extracted was estimated to produce about 100Mt of C02.

The Minister is required to assess Whitehaven’s application in accordance with s130(1) and s133 of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The Applicants sought an injunction to restrain the Minister from exercising her powers under the EPBC Act. They alleged that the Minister’s powers create a statutory duty of care and that the injunction is necessary to restrain an apprehended breach of that duty. 

The Applicants alleged that towards the end of this century, they will likely suffer mental or physical injury, including ill-health or death as well as economic and property loss as a result of their exposure to climatic hazards induced by increasing global surface temperatures driven by the further emission of C02.  The Applicants alleged that additional emissions from the Vickery Coal Project will be significant and material to the increase. For the most part, the parties agreed that additional emissions will have an impact on the surface temperature, but, disputed the significance of the temperature increase.

Interestingly, the Applicants in the proceedings were eight Australian children who brought the proceedings as a class action on behalf of all children who ordinarily reside in Australia (Children). As a consequence of their youth, the proceedings were brought by their litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur. Importantly the Applicants did not seek damages.

Duty of Care

In considering whether this novel duty of care exists, the Court took a multi-factorial assessment, in which ‘salient features’ relevant to the appropriateness of imputing a legal duty upon the Minister were assessed and weighed. This approach is a uniquely Australian concept for the assessing of a novel duty of care.

The Court noted that where the Respondent is a repository of statutory power, imposing a duty of care can raise problems that require a close examination of the terms, scope and purpose of the relevant statutory regime. Moreover, whilst the ultimate question is whether a requisite relationship exists between the statutory authority and a class of persons, the criteria for assessing whether that relationship exists is to be found in the salient features of that relationship.

Among the seventeen salient features already established under common law, the Court noted that the following were relevant for this particular case:
  • the purpose to be served by the exercise of the power;
  • the control over the relevant risk by the repository of the power;
  • the vulnerability of the persons put at risk; and
  • coherence.
The Applicants emphasised the degree and nature of control able to be exercised by the Minister to avoid harm (control), the vulnerability of the Children (vulnerability), the reasonable foreseeability and nature of the harm (reasonable foreseeability) as well as a recognised category of relationship between the Minister and the Children (recognised relationship). The Minister contended that the posited duty was extraordinary, submitting that there was no precedent for a duty analogous to the duty contended for by the Applicants. Further, the Minister contended that ‘reasonable foreseeability’, ‘control’, the salient features of ‘proximity’, ‘reliance and responsibility’ as well as ‘indeterminacy’ all supported the rejection of the duty for which the Applicants contend.

The Court determined that the potential harm faced in the event of a 3°C rise in global temperatures would be catastrophic, with one million of today’s Australian children expected to suffer at least one heat-stress episode serious enough to require acute care in a hospital, thousands likely to suffer premature death from heat-stress or bushfire smoke and substantial economic loss and property damage will be experienced.

 The various types of harm contended for by the Applicants depended upon there being a nexus between an increase in global average surface temperature and the increased frequency or gravity of extreme climatic events such as heatwaves or bushfires. The Court noted that while the prospective contribution to the risk of exposure to harm made by the approval of the extraction of coal may be characterised as “tiny,”  the Minister’s prospective contribution is not so insignificant as to deny a real risk of harm to the Children.

The Court held that the Minister has direct control over the foreseeable risk because it is her exercise of power upon which the creation of that risk depends. Therefore, there is a direct relation between the exercise of the Minister’s power and the risk of harm to the Children resulting from the exercise of that power.

The Court ultimately held that the risk of harm to the Children was not remote, was reasonably foreseeable, and was therefore a real risk. In doing so, the Court rejected the Minister’s approach to ‘reasonable foreseeability’, which was described as amounting “to a contention that the mere possibility of a break in the causal chain will suffice to deny the reasonable foreseeability of harm,” [194] and established a duty to take reasonable care not to cause personal injury.

Injunction

In considering whether to grant an injunction, the Court accepted that it has the power to issue one against an officer of the Commonwealth. However, the Court did not grant the injunction because it was not satisfied that the restraint would not create incoherence, as it ‘may deny rather than induce the reasonable response which the duty of care requires.’ [502] Moreover, the Court noted that, with reference to the fact that harm was not imminent, it was ‘undesirable to pre-empt the Minister’s decision,’ [508] – namely that it would be far more appropriate to assess whether a breach of the duty should be restricted once the Minister has made a decision on whether she will approve the coal mine extension.

Conclusion

At this stage it’s difficult to determine the “winner” in this case. Given the creation of a novel duty of care, it is very likely that the Minister will appeal the decision. In its press release to the ASX, Whitehaven Coal stated that it welcomed the decision and looks forward to receiving EBPC Approval. On the other hand Ava Princi, one of the Applicants, stated that the judgement was “both thrilling and deeply relieving”. 

Although he refused to grant an injunction, the judge requested that the parties consider the effect of the decision before he would confirm his declaration. One of the issues for the parties to consider is the future affect of the declaration. As the matter was run as a class action on behalf of children who reside in Australia or elsewhere, the declaration may have consequences for the whole class and any future litigation by any Australian child.  

This decision is another example of the Court considering climate change in the context of applications for approval for development.  However, the decision has broader implications than this.

The decision confirms that Australia is becoming an important venue for novel climate change litigation. Other recent examples include:
  • In 2019, a beneficiary of the industry super fund, REST, filed a lawsuit against the fund, arguing that its failure to provide adequate information relating to its exposure to climate-related risks prevented him from making an informed judgment about the management and financial condition of the fund. On 2 November 2020 the proceedings settled, just before trial. The terms of settlement are confidential, but REST released a press statement agreeing to comply with Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations on disclosure and risk assessment, including conducting "stress tests" on its investment portfolio. (settlement statement from REST)
  • Equity Generation Lawyers, the same lawyers acting in this case have launched another class action against the Australian Commonwealth Government concerning its issue of sovereign bonds[1].  The case is still going through the early interlocutory stages and a decision is not likely until 2022. 
  • The claim does not seek damages but instead seeks declarations that the Commonwealth has failed to disclose the material risk that climate change presents to the bonds' value over time. An injunction preventing the promoting or issuing of bonds without providing material information related to climate change has been sought. If successful, the case may also expose financial institutions and corporates to securities class actions risk from failures to make adequate climate change disclosures in issuing documents and prospectus.
  • In Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning [2019] NSWLEC 7 the Land and Environment Court refused a development consent under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) for a new mine, in part because of its negative effect on climate change resulting from the project’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Chief Justice Preston, at [525], recognised that “[t]here is a causal link between the Project’s cumulative GHG emissions and climate change and its consequences. The Project’s cumulative GHG emissions will contribute to the global total of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere. The global total of GHG concentrations will affect the climate system and cause climate change impacts. The Project’s cumulative GHG emissions are therefore likely to contribute to the future changes to the climate system and the impacts of climate change. In this way, the Project is likely to have indirect impacts on the environment, including the climate system, the oceanic and terrestrial environment, and people.” The decision marks the first time that a coal mine has been rejected in Australia because of its future contribution to climate change.

At this stage, climate change litigation is mainly focused on the actions of the government, however it is expected that it will affect a wider proportion of Australian corporates, their directors and their insurers in the not too distant future.  This is also in the context of ever-increasing requirements of and supervision by APRA and ASIC in relation to climate risk disclosure requirements.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , ,

16/06/2021

(AU SMH) United Nations Set To Decide Climate Claims By Torres Strait Islanders Against Australia

Sydney Morning Herald - Anthony Galloway

As world leaders met in south-west England to discuss future climate change commitments, priest Stanley Marama didn’t need any reminding about the reality of rising tides.

Less than 100 metres from the Anglican church on Boigu Island in the Torres Strait sits a sacred place where the local population conducted ceremonies for thousands of years. But not any more - it is now completely under water.

Thursday Island resident Stanley Cook remembers the time when him and his elders would be able to predict the weather and tides by the size of the moon. Now he believes this is no longer possible due to climate change.

Boigu is one of Australia’s most northerly islands, just a five-minute boat ride from the Papua New Guinea mainland.

Marama says rising sea levels have already taken much from the low-lying islands in the northern part of the Torres Strait, including the sacred site on Boigu.

“That’s the place our forefathers and warriors camped at and spied from. They spied at the warriors from New Guinea,” Marama says. “There’s no chance to get it back.”

Australians are probably more aware of the rising tide issues facing Pacific Island nations than they are about the situation confronting their own country - but the existential threat facing some Torres Strait islands is just as stark.

Marama, 53, now fears the island’s cemetery will be completely submerged in the coming years unless the current trend can be stopped.

Reverend Stanley Marama (centre) during the Mabo Day event on Boigu Island in the Torres Strait on June 3. Credit: Kate Geraghty

He says a recently constructed sea wall will help stem the tide, but only for so long.

“The sea wall is only a Band-Aid, the water is still coming in. And I want to see from our perspective the water stop completely from coming into our community.”

Marama is one of eight claimants in a landmark action submitted to the United Nations, which claims the Australian government has violated their fundamental human rights by failing to adequately address climate change.

As the UN’s Human Rights Committee prepares to hand down its findings as early as next month, members of the Torres Strait Eight want the federal government to act now.

Dereece Cook swings on a rope tied to a tree at his home on the foreshore of Thursday Island watched by his brother Traquiin Cook. Credit: Kate Geraghty

Marama says he fears the 270 residents of Boigu Island will be forced to relocate within his lifetime.

“We need the government to help us - we don’t want to lose our lifestyle, culture and tradition. And we don’t want to lose our ancestral remains in the cemetery,” he says. “It worries me because the government has to do something about it and help us. We are a part of Australia.”

Donniella Warria aged 9 years old plays on the Bach Beach as the sun sets on Thursday Island. Credit: Kate Geraghty
The Australian government is rejecting the complaint on the grounds that it cannot be held individually responsible for climate change because it is a global problem.

Southeast of Boigu lies Warrior Island - or “Tudu” Island in the traditional language.

No one lives on Warrior Island anymore, but there are graves situated throughout which are now being flooded.

Ned David, 55, lives on the main administrative hub of Thursday Island, but his family is from Warrior. He may have been one of the last people to properly live on the island - when he camped there for four months in the late 1990s.

“A lot of our ancestors are buried in part of the island and they get washed away,” he says.

David, chair of the Gur A Baradharaw Kod (GBK) Sea and Land Council, which is the coordinating body for the traditional owners of the Torres Strait region, was integral in organising the UN claim.

Weeks after the 29th anniversary of the landmark Mabo decision in the High Court, David says the history of Torres Strait Islanders shows they are regularly forced to turn to the justice system to get their message across.

“I just think we need to shine a light on the First Nations people who are more vulnerable than any other group in Australia. I sincerely believe that,” he says.

David would like Prime Minister Scott Morrison to visit the Torres Strait to discuss climate change and rising sea levels saying he would prefer a “collaborative” approach, rather than an “adversarial” one.

He says Australia needs to commit to a target to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, but his islands face a more immediate problem.

Fishermen in the Torres Strait such as Stanley Cook Jnr say they have noticed a significant change in the weather patterns in their lifetime. Credit: Kate Geraghty

As a child, David remembers body surfing every afternoon on Bach Beach, on Thursday Island. His children don’t believe him.

“As I got older we started noticing stuff - the northwesterly, the monsoon, it didn’t seem to gel with how we grew up as kids,” he says.

Thursday resident Stanley Cook snr, a keen fisherman and gardener, says when he was a child the rainy season was October, November and December and it came without fail.

Stanley Cook prepares to dig a hole to plant taro in the backyard of his home on the coastline on Thursday Island. Credit: Kate Geraghty

“Now we get the rain late, January or February. But it’s all over the place,” he says. “Before that, we could tell the wind, the tides and the weather - now we can’t. We’re just guessing.“

At the moment, the rising tide is the only constant.

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

(AU The Guardian) Wealthy Countries’ Climate Shift Leaves Australia Isolated From Closest Allies

The Guardian - 

While the G7 calls for a ‘green revolution’ to deal with an ‘existential crisis’, it is no clearer if Scott Morrison will formally embrace a net zero target

The Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, with his British counterpart, Boris Johnson, at the G7 summit in Cornwall on the weekend. Photograph: Hollie Adams/EPA

In an Australian context, the climate message from the weekend G7 summit is clear: the world’s biggest and richest democracies are acknowledging what the science demands and pledging to act in a way they haven’t before. The contrast with the debate in Canberra is growing.

The commitments from the G7 have come later than they should have. Activists are understandably sceptical about whether their actions will rise to meet the leaders’ words, and critical of the failure to announce long-promised climate funding to help developing countries. Caution ahead of the major UN summit in Glasgow in November, known as Cop26, is justified and necessary.

But the focus has shifted remarkably in recent months to the need for urgent action. While many questions are still to be answered, major countries including the US and Japan have joined the EU and Britain in supporting green proposals that would have been difficult to imagine a few months ago.

Michael McCormack says coal here to stay as G7 countries commit to decarbonised power by the 2030s. Read more

This doesn’t apply to Australia, one of four guest nations at the talks.

When Scott Morrison was asked in a post-summit media conference about a G7 declaration that public financing of unabated coal-fired power must stop this year, his first instinct was to stress that his government was not a signatory (he later added it had no plans to put money into coal generation at home).

Before the summit, some in the British government had hope that the guests – which also included India, South Korea and South Africa – might sign up to a “G7+” communique that strengthened the global climate push.

Any thought of that was dropped in the lead-up after the gap on climate between the members and their guests widened as the major economies became more ambitious.

The G7 communique is worth a read. The leaders of the UK, US, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and Canada describe climate change as an “existential threat”. They have committed to collectively cut emissions roughly in half between 2010 and 2030 – in the ballpark of what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested developed countries would need to do to keep a post-industrial age temperature rise of 1.5C within reach.

They say dealing with the problem requires a “green revolution” that involves not only cutting emissions but funding global adaptation, halting and reversing biodiversity loss and creating jobs through both “policy and technological transformation”. The pledge on net zero emissions is now to reach it “as soon as possible and by 2050 at the latest”.

It means significant action before 2030 is vital. All G7 governments have increased their targets in recent months, reflecting a pledge in the Paris agreement to ratchet up commitments. The emissions reductions promised by the US, UK and EU are now double that proposed by the Morrison government. More policies are promised before Cop26.

While the rhetoric at the summit avoided the implicit criticism of recent months – when Morrison was refused a speaking slot at a British and French-run global ambition climate summit and described as being not on “the same page” on the issue by the Biden administration – it has left Australia more isolated from its closest allies.

Morrison did not increase the country’s emissions reduction commitments or promise action that would cut CO2 anytime soon. He continues to lean hard on debunked claims that Australia is doing more than other countries and suggests international allies have a history of not living up to climate commitments.

The latter point is repeated despite expert analysis finding that, in most cases, it isn’t true. Until recently, the real issue has been a spectacular lack of ambition in countries making commitments, not them failing to live up to what was promised. Australia is still stuck in the lack of ambition phase.

It bears repeating: the emissions reductions since 2005 that the Morrison government likes to boast of overwhelmingly happened when Labor was in power – mostly due to a drop in forest destruction in Queensland and a decline in native forestry.

Cheap solar and wind are having some impact in electricity generation despite a lack of federal policy to support them, but coal still provides about two-thirds of power, and there has been no structural shift away from fossil fuels in transport, industry and mining.

The government is increasing subsidies to gas, including hundreds of millions of dollars allocated in last month’s budget, despite the International Energy Agency warning the world should no longer be investing in new gas fields if it hopes to keep open a “narrow window” to limit global heating to 1.5C.

Morrison is due to give an opening address (by video) for an oil and gas industry conference hosted by the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association in Perth on Tuesday.

The area the government is in step with the G7 on climate is in its support for technology. The communique promised a “technology-driven transition to net zero” – language that appears to line up with the coalition’s “technology not taxes” approach.

Scott Morrison inks G7 deals with Japan and Germany to develop lower-emissions technology. Read more
Australia is working on agreements to develop clean technology with several countries, including deals with Germany and Japan announced over the weekend.

The former appears more developed, including a $50m taxpayer-funded commitment to work together on green hydrogen, an area that the Germans have already backed with billions of dollars.

The Japanese deal appears focused on reducing emissions from fossil fuel production rather than backing zero-emissions technology.

Neither should be dismissed – new commercial solutions will be vital – but, with no timeframes or emissions reduction goals attached, they are hard to assess.

Meanwhile, green solutions already exist in many areas, notably electricity generation, transport, industrial efficiency, and commercial and residential heating and cooling. The G7 communique acknowledges this in emphasising the need for policies that cut emissions now in these and other areas.

Among the questions left after Morrison’s G7 appearance is whether the government will join the 100-plus countries that have already set a net zero emissions target for 2050.

For months, he has strongly resisted growing international pressure for Australia to do more, saying Australia will set its own path. There is no evidence that has changed.

But the prime minister’s language continues to evolve in a way that suggests he understands the world has moved beyond a point where a 2050 net zero goal without anything to back it up is enough.

Speaking after the summit, Morrison told reporters it was already “very clear that we are moving towards net zero” and the “new energy economy is coming”.

Perhaps most interestingly, he volunteered he had a “very, very, very informative discussion” with the Italian prime minister, Mario Draghi, who he had previously met when Morrison was treasurer and Draghi the head of the European Central Bank.

He said they discussed “the direction of financial markets, bond markets and how they are working and pricing in and positioning for the new energy economy” and concluded “they’re economic realities that Australia has to address”.

One interpretation of this is the prime minister increasingly understands the world is moving pretty fast and recognises that can’t be ignored forever. But what he plans to do about it in the short term, if anything, remains a mystery.

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

(AU The Conversation) Even Without New Fossil Fuel Projects, Global Warming Will Still Exceed 1.5℃. But Renewables Might Make It Possible

The Conversation -  | 

Shutterstock
Authors
  •  is Research Director, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney
  •  is Research Consultant, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney     
The International Energy Agency (IEA) last month made global headlines when it declared there is no room for new fossil fuel investment if we’re to avoid catastrophic climate change.

However, our new research suggests the horse may have already bolted. We found even if no new fossil fuel projects were approved anywhere in the world, carbon emissions set to be released from existing projects will still push global warming over the dangerous 1.5℃ threshold.

Specifically, even with no new fossil fuel expansion, global emissions would be 22% too high to stay within 1.5℃ by 2025, and 66% too high by 2030.

However, keeping global warming under 1.5℃ is still achievable with rapid deployment of renewables. Our research found solar and wind can supply the world’s energy demand more than 50 times over.

The stunning potential of wind and solar

While our findings were alarming, they also give us a new reason to be hopeful.

We analysed publicly available oil, gas and coal extraction data, and calculated the future production volume. We worked under the assumption no new fossil fuel extraction projects would be developed, and all existing projects would see production declining at standard industry rates.

We found fossil fuel projects already in the pipeline will, by 2030, produce 35% more oil and 69% more coal than what’s consistent with a pathway towards a 1.5℃ temperature rise.

Fossil fuels account for over 75% of carbon dioxide emissions. Shutterstock

Fossil fuels are the main driver of climate change, accounting for more than 75% of carbon dioxide emissions.

Continuing to expand this sector will not only be catastrophic for the climate, but also for the world’s economy as it locks in infrastructure that will become stranded assets.

Ultimately, it’s not enough to simply keep fossil fuels in the ground. To meet our climate goals under the Paris Agreement, we must phase down existing production.

Solar and wind power technologies are already market ready and cost competitive. And as our analysis confirms, they’re ready to be scaled up to meet the energy demands of every person on the planet.

We mapped all the potential areas where wind and solar infrastructure can be built, and the energy potential across six continents.

Even after applying a set of robust, conservative estimates that take environmental safeguards, land constraints and technical feasibility into account, we found that solar and wind energy could meet the world’s energy demand from 2019 — 50 times over.

It’s clear we don’t need new fossil fuel development to ensure 100% energy access in the future.

Australia’s laggard status

In Australia, the Morrison government refuses to set new emissions reduction targets, and continues to fund new fossil fuel projects, such as a A$600 million gas plant in the New South Wales Hunter Valley.

Despite Australia’s laggard status on climate change, there are positive moves elsewhere around the world.

The Morrison government recently announced $600 million for a major new gas plant. AAP Image/Stefan Gosatti
The progress was evident ahead of the G7 summit this past weekend, where climate change was firmly on the agenda.

Ahead of the summit, environment ministers worldwide agreed to phase out overseas fossil fuel finance and end support for coal power.

And in recent weeks, three global fossil fuel giants – Shell, Chevron and ExxonMobil – faced legal and shareholder rebukes over their inadequate action on climate change.

Coming on top of all that, the IEA last month set out a comprehensive roadmap to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. It included a stark warning: no new fossil fuel projects should be approved.

Natural carbon storage is key

However, the IEA’s findings contradict our own on several fronts. We believe the IEA underestimated the very real potential of renewable energy and relied on problematic solutions to fill what it sees as a gap in meeting the carbon budget.

For example, the IEA suggests a sharp increase in bioenergy is required over the next 30 years.

This would require biofuels from energy plantations — planting crops (such as rapeseed) specifically for energy use.

But conservationists estimate the sustainable potential for biofuels is lower. They also say high volumes of bioenergy might interfere with land use for food production and protected nature conservation areas.

Our research found the exact opposite is needed: rapid phase out of deforestation and significant reforestation alongside the decarbonisation of the energy sector.

Bioenergy should be produced predominantly from agricultural and organic waste to remain carbon neutral.

Likewise, the IEA calls for an extreme expansion of carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects — where carbon dioxide emissions are captured at the source, and then pumped and stored deep in the ground.

In its roadmap, the IEA expects CCS projects to grow from capturing 40 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (as is currently the case), to 1,665 million tonnes by 2030.

This is quite unrealistic, because it means betting on expensive, unproven technology that’s being deployed very slowly and is often plagued by technical issues.

Establishing natural carbon sinks should be prioritised instead, such as keeping forest, mangrove and seagrass ecosystems better intact to draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Phasing out early

As a wealthy country, Australia is better placed than most to weather any economic disruption from the energy transition.

Our research shows Australia should phase out fossil fuels early and urgently. The Australian government should also ensure communities and people reliant on fossil fuel industries are helped through the transition.

We must also support poorer countries highly dependent on fossil fuels, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.

There is new international momentum for climate action, and the future of the fossil fuel industry looks increasingly dire. The technologies to make the transition are ready and waiting – now all that’s needed is political will.

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

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative