13/07/2021

(SMH) Crunch Time Looming For Morrison On Climate As The World Looks To Australia To Act

Sydney Morning Herald - Marian Wilkinson

Author

Marian Wilkinson is an Australian journalist and author. She has won two Walkley Awards, and was the first female executive producer of Four Corners. She has been a deputy editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, a Washington correspondent for The National Times, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, as well as a senior reporter for The Australian. As of April 2017, she is a senior reporter at Four Corners.

Professor Lesley Hughes doesn’t get a lot of invitations from the Morrison government to sit at the top table.

The high-profile climate scientist was unceremoniously sacked, along with the entire Climate Commission, shortly after Tony Abbott became prime minister.

His successors have shunned her advice ever since. So it was surprising to see Hughes on stage in Sydney as a guest speaker at a climate leadership event organised by the British consulate-general to celebrate this year’s International Women’s Day.

As the invitees tucked into breakfast at The Mint museum, Hughes was quizzed on the looming climate crisis by Sam Mostyn, president of Chief Executive Women and networker extraordinaire. Joining them on stage were a feisty grassroots climate activist and the CEO of a start-up that offsets personal carbon footprints.

The historic arrangement reach in Paris Saturday night have wide-ranging impacts for Australia's targets and economy. Courtesy ABC News 24.

It was a small but revealing display of British diplomacy in the lead-up to November’s critical United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow (COP26). And Hughes was happy to be part of it. “It’s soft pressure, obviously,” she said later, “but it’s nonetheless a demonstration of the importance of the issue.”

Hughes was a lead author on the landmark Fifth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The report helped guide the Paris Agreement and its aim to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, and preferably to 1.5, compared to pre-industrial levels.

Hughes now regularly issues warnings about the climate crisis through the Climate Council – an independent body known for its sharp criticism of the Morrison government’s unambitious targets to cut Australia’s greenhouse emissions.

The professor’s appearance at the British event was just one more line item in Britain’s effort to pull off the world’s most ambitious climate summit yet in Glasgow. The measure of the summit’s success will not just be a commitment to reach a global target of net-zero emissions by 2050.

To make that target credible, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his cabinet colleague Alok Sharma, COP26 president-designate, want all countries – especially developed countries such as Australia – to commit to ambitious targets for 2030, just nine years away. That outcome is also a top priority for US President Joe Biden.

Australia’s approach to climate change is coming under increasing pressure globally in the lead up to the Glasgow summit. Credit: Getty

“We’ve asked all countries coming to Glasgow to be ambitious,” British High Commissioner Vicki Treadell said in an interview with Australian Foreign Affairs.

“We’re pleased to see the changing language here in Australia and certainly the commitment from Prime Minister Morrison that they recognise the need to get to net zero, in his words, preferably by 2050,” she said, but added pointedly, “What we do want to understand is how people are going to measure their success and the way they are going to get there with the initial plans for 2030. And then between 2030 and 2050, what that final push will be.”

Since last December, Scott Morrison has crab-walked towards a net zero by 2050 target. But he is coming under serious pressure from Australia’s most important allies to put up a credible 2030 target in Glasgow. Morrison has been unwilling to do that.

Morrison’s determination to stick to Australia’s weak, increasingly implausible 2030 target was thrust into the international spotlight at Biden’s climate summit in April. The prime minister was one of 40 world leaders, including Xi Jinping, who attended the virtual gathering.

It was designed to vault the United States into a leadership role in the global climate negotiations, and in his opening remarks Biden made it absolutely clear he wanted deep global emissions cuts by 2030. “This is the decade we must make decisions that will avoid the worst consequences of a climate crisis,” Biden said. “We must try to keep the Earth’s temperature to an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius.”


Emissions
We can’t wait for this government. Let’s beat emissions together

Biden used his summit to unveil a new US 2030 target of 50–52 per cent reductions in emissions. Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga offered up a 46 per cent reduction target and Canada’s Justin Trudeau put up 40–45 per cent.

All were close to double Australia’s 2030 target. But Morrison again declined to commit even to a net zero by 2050 target, let alone change Australia’s 2030 target.

Before Morrison could put his case to the summit, a senior US administration official was briefing the media, suggesting Australia’s strategy was unsustainable.

“At the moment I think our colleagues in Australia recognise there is going to have to be a shift,” the official said. “It’s insufficient to follow the existing trajectory and hope that they will be on a course to deep decarbonisation and getting to net zero emissions by mid-century.”

But when Morrison spoke, he stuck to the “technology not taxes” mantra and Australia’s slower approach to reducing emissions.

“Australia is on the pathway to net zero,” he said. “Our goal is to get there as soon as we possibly can, through technology that enables and transforms our industries, not taxes that eliminate them and the jobs and livelihoods they support and create, especially in our regions. For Australia, it is not a question of if or even by when for net zero, but importantly, how.”

To back up his argument, Morrison invoked Dr Alan Finkel, noting that the former chief scientist was now the government’s special adviser on low-emissions technology and the roadmap. But as one former insider put it, Morrison cannot use Finkel as a human shield for his policy.

Morrison’s argument of “how” not “when” Australia gets to net zero missed the point. For Biden, it is a question of when as well as how. This is not just about the climate science. The United States sees itself in a race against China for clean energy supremacy in the net-zero emissions world. Secretary of State Antony Blinken made this clear shortly before the Biden summit.

PM avoids putting timeframe on zero emissions target at virtual summit.

“It’s difficult to imagine the United States winning the long-term strategic competition with China if we cannot lead the renewable energy revolution,” Blinken told reporters. “Right now, we’re falling behind.

China is the largest producer and exporter of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, electric vehicles. It holds nearly a third of the world’s renewable energy patents. If we don’t catch up, America will miss the chance to shape the world’s climate future in a way that reflects our interests and values, and we’ll lose out on countless jobs for the American people.”

Biden, like the Europeans, wants to spend big to back the rapid shift to clean energy. US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm underscored the new urgency in Washington when she announced at the summit a US goal to slash the cost of “clean renewable hydrogen” by 80 per cent by 2030, making it competitive with natural gas.

Australia risks being overrun in this clean energy race. If green hydrogen becomes competitive with natural gas by the end of the decade, the oil and gas industry will react by slashing prices, and Australian liquefied natural gas prices will plummet. As Fortescue Metals’ chairman Twiggy Forrest put it colourfully in his Boyer lecture, the result will be “like a knife fight in a telephone box”.

For now, the Morrison government is making a strategic bet that the energy transformation won’t happen this fast. It does not believe that China, let alone India, will be able to radically shift course this decade. This will put the 1.5 Celsius plans out of reach and curb the enthusiasm in developed countries for ambitious targets to cut emissions.

The message from Morrison and his Energy and Emissions Reduction minister, Angus Taylor, is that Australia’s big exports of liquefied natural gas and coal will continue for decades to come.


Paris Agreement
International Energy Agency calls last drinks on fossil fuels

The latest International Energy Agency review gives some comfort for this view. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are on course to surge again in 2021, the second-largest increase in history, reversing most of the pandemic’s decline.

This year’s expected rise in coal use dwarfs that of renewables. Some 80 per cent of the projected growth in coal demand is expected to come from Asia, led by China. As IEA chief Fatih Birol put it: “We remain on a path of dangerous levels of global warming.”

But the IEA also released its own roadmap in May, warning that if the world wanted to keep to the 1.5 Celsius goal, there could be no new oil and gas fields approved for development beyond 2021, and no new coalmines or mine extensions. The IEA roadmap, “Net Zero by 2050”, flew in the face of both Labor and Coalition support for new fossil fuel developments.

Labor’s muted response to the Biden summit and the 1.5-degree goal has reinforced the view in the government that its current policy is the right course politically. But outside Australia, there is a growing belief that China’s clean energy transition will speed up, due to its capacity for innovation and its need to compete with the US.


Mining
Forrest’s Fortescue fast-tracks carbon cuts with 2030 ‘net zero’ goal

Former Australian diplomat Dean Bialek, who is now advising Britain on preparations for COP26, believes there is a chance that China will bring more to Glasgow than Xi’s net zero by 2060 pledge.

“I think the Chinese could do it if they wanted. I think their current policy positions are intended to leave a bit of negotiating room this year. Both on the net zero timeline but also in terms of where they can get to by 2030,” said Bialek.

“And indeed whether they could potentially look at bringing forward the current target on peaking of emissions – which is currently expressed as ‘around 2030’ – to a much earlier date, to 2025, is one that has been bandied around.”

The need for China, India and other big emitters in the developing world to ramp up their ambition in Glasgow explains why the US and Britain are so exercised about Australia’s 2030 target. As a rich developed country with abundant renewable resources, Australia’s weak target will give diplomatic succour to other carbon-intensive economies wanting to slow the pace of change, such as Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Johnson invited Morrison to Cornwall for the G7 meeting in June in part because of this. His other special guests were India, South Africa and South Korea.

In their final communique, the G7 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to reach net zero no later than 2050 and to halve their collective emissions by 2030. They also called for international investment in unabated coal-power generation to stop, committing to end new government support for it by the close of this year.

The message to Morrison from the entire G7 leadership was that big-emitting economies such as Australia needed to bring their highest possible ambition to cut emissions to Glasgow. But Morrison baulked again at the G7, refusing to give either Biden or Johnson a commitment to reach net zero by 2050 or to agree to an ambitious 2030 target. Instead he kicked the decision down the road.


Climate policy
PM stands by climate policy as G7 nations pledge to step up action

In Canberra, where the climate wars still haunt politicians on both sides, the goal of keeping to 1.5 degrees is still seen by many as the naive aspiration of climate scientists, activists and school strikers.

Morrison is certainly trapped in this mentality, quipping to the Business Council dinner this year: “We’re not going to achieve net zero in the cafes, dinner parties and wine bars of our inner cities.”

Morrison has never accepted the urgency of the science on climate change, but he is increasingly becoming an outlier among world leaders.

Between now and November, he has a decision to make: whether he will join those leaders who see the Glasgow summit as the world’s last best hope to get the clean energy transition on track – or side with those whose aim is to derail it.

NOTE: This is an edited extract of Marian Wilkinson’s essay “The Outlier” from the current issue of Australian Foreign Affairs, Feeling the Heat: Australia Under Climate Pressure, published today.

Links

(NPR) Heat Wave Killed An Estimated 1 Billion Sea Creatures, And Scientists Fear Even Worse

NPR - Deepa Shivaram

Marine biologist Christopher Harley from the University of British Columbia says he has found hundreds of thousands of dead mussels on one beach alone. Christopher Harley/University of British Columbia

With the Pacific region hitting record-setting temperatures in the last few weeks, a new study from Canada shows the heat waves' enormous impact on marine life: An estimated 1 billion sea creatures on the coast of Vancouver have died as a result of the heat, a researcher said.

But that number is likely to be much higher, said professor Christopher Harley from the University of British Columbia.

"I've been working in the Pacific Northwest for most of the past 25 years, and I have not seen anything like this here," he said. "This is far more extensive than anything I've ever seen."

Harley has been tracking mussels and other sea creatures in the aftermath of the heat wave that hit the Pacific Northwest. Christopher Harley/University of British Columbia

Harley reaches his estimates by counting the number of sea creatures, mostly mussels, in a section that he said is representative of an entire beach. He varies measuring some beaches that are rocky and some that are not to get a full estimate for the entire ecosystem.

"This is a preliminary estimate based on good data, but I'm honestly worried that it's a substantial underestimate," Harley told NPR from a beach in British Columbia, where he continues to survey the casualties from the most recent heat wave.

"I'm also looking for all these dead barnacles. I've been hearing from people about dead clams and crabs and intertidal anemones and sea stars. And once you really start factoring in all these different species, it's been a huge catastrophe for marine life," he said. 
Environment
Carbon Dioxide, Which Drives Climate Change, Reaches Highest Level In 4 Million Years

Though heat waves have affected marine life in the past, Harley said temperatures reaching more than 100 degrees Fahrenheit like they did last weekend in the Pacific Northwest are "exceptionally rare."

But with climate change, he's seen estimates from other scientists that similar heat waves could start occurring once every five to 10 years.
"If it happens that frequently, the system won't have time to recover in between the die-offs," he said.

The die-off could have ripple effects beyond the shore

Malin Pinsky, an associate professor of marine biology at Rutgers University, said the extreme heat contributes to a "massive reorganization of ocean life."

"Species are shifting towards the poles of the Earth at about 60 kilometers [37 miles] per decade, and it doesn't happen slowly, bit by bit. It often happens in these extreme events, where a large population of something like mussels can die," Pinsky said.

Mussels dying off at such a high rate will have a massive effect on both marine and terrestrial animals, biologists say. Christopher Harley/University of British Columbia

But the overarching problem, marine biologists point out, is that the impact of climate change on the oceans is still treated as out of mind, out of sight. Pinsky also agrees that Harley's estimate of 1 billion creatures dead is likely an undercount.   

"The craziest thing is that it's just the tip of the iceberg," Pinksy said. "We can see the mussels because they're on the shoreline, but to a large extent, oceans are out of sight, out of mind, so we're likely to learn the magnitude of what's happening only much later."
Weather
Canada Battles More Than 180 Wildfires With Hundreds Dead In Heat Wave

That many sea creatures dying at once not only affects ocean life but terrestrial creatures as well — from birds who feed on sea life to humans running fisheries and consuming seafood.   

"[Mussels] are what's known as a foundation species because a lot of the ecosystem depends upon them ... so losing the mussel bed would be losing all the apartment buildings in a city core," Harley said.

In the meantime, he's is still counting dead mussels on the seashore.

On Thursday, from Porteau Cove, just north of Vancouver, he estimated 600,000 dead mussels in 164 feet of beach — a distance Harley said he can walk in a minute.

"Not every shore will be this bad, but this is a fair amount worse than I was expecting," he said.

Harley spent Thursday at British Columbia's Porteau Cove, a 30-minute drive north of Vancouver, and he says he's now worried his initial count of 1 billion dead creatures is too low. Christopher Harley/University of British Columbia 

Links

(AU The Guardian) I Hate To Say It But It Looks Like The Age Of Fossil Fuels Will End In The Next Few Years

The Guardian - First Dog On The Moon

IT IS THE MONTHLY BOARD MEETING OF THE COALBASTARDS CORPORATION

Cartoon by First Dog on the Moon
LARGE IMAGE
Links

12/07/2021

(SMH) Power To Change: Why The US And China Must Work Together On The Climate Crisis

Sydney Morning Herald - Nick O'Malley

Can these two great rivals quarantine climate change from their broader competition for supremacy and work together to confront the threat?

Can the US and China work together to tackle climate change? Credit: Fairfax

A satellite image shows the new forest spreading in a thick band from China’s northern borders with Russia and Mongolia to the south and west, towards the Gobi desert.

By the time the planting is finished in 2050, the Three-North Shelter Forest Program will cover about 35 million hectares, an area about the size of Germany. It will be the largest environmental project ever undertaken on Earth.

Though launched in 1978 to stop the spreading desert from unleashing sandstorms into rapidly expanding cities, the program is a key part of Chinese domestic efforts to address climate change.

Forest workers in a tree farm in Yichun City in north-east China’s Heilongjiang Province in June 2021. Credit: Getty Images

By cartographical ledger, China is greener today than it was a generation ago.

But that isn’t the whole story.

The project is emblematic of the country’s strengths in tackling such a complex problem as climate change, says Li Shuo – who is based in Beijing and directs Greenpeace’s climate and energy policy in east Asia – but it’s also emblematic of its weaknesses.

Its sheer scale and ambition is almost difficult to comprehend for those used to the efforts of Western nations. But because it was first shaped by centralised planning departments rather than by ecologists and scientists, much of the energy expended was wasted, particularly in the early years.

The Green Great Wall
The Three-North Shelter Forest Program



Officials directed the planting of swathes of fast-growing poplar trees and the resultant monoculture did little for biodiversity and left the new forests prone to pest infestation and erosion.

In the years since, science and leadership have improved and so has the forest.


Analysis 
Superpower showdown

The two nations are vying for supremacy in the 21st century technology revolution.
Robots, electric cars and face-scanners: China and the US vie to build the future

China, meanwhile, performed its economic miracle, lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and placing itself at the heart of global manufacturing.

As a result, in 2006 it surpassed the United States as the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide and it remains so today. Industrialisation has been as destructive to Chinese environments as it had been to others before them. And to the Earth’s atmosphere.

By the time the world met to thrash out what became the Paris Climate Accord in 2015, a few things were obvious. Each nation needed to do its bit. But if an agreement was to be reached, developed nations had to make deeper emissions cuts than emerging economies.

It was also clear that if the world had any chance at all of staving off the worst impacts of climate change, the United States and China would have to work together.

The US is the greatest historical source of emissions. Most of the greenhouse gasses it produced during its global rise are still heating the planet. Together, the US and China account for 40 per cent of today’s global emissions.

 
After the failure of world climate talks in 2009, the US and China were determined to ensure the Paris talks would not fail the same way.

Months before the Paris summit began, the two nations shocked the world by announcing their own climate deal. China agreed to peak emissions in 2030; the US to reduce its emissions by between 26 and 28 per cent by 2025. Climate laggards would not be able to use the failure of these giant economies as cover for their own Paris targets.

But with Donald Trump’s victory, the US abandoned its efforts and the relationship between the two nations deteriorated.

A new green deal

Under President Joe Biden, the US is again determined to act. Biden has announced an even bolder target - reducing US emissions by 50-52 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. He is now using the entire machinery of American diplomacy to drive the world towards agreeing to drastic action at the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow in November.

At the same time though, US domestic climate policy is hostage to Republicans in the Senate.

This boom-and-bust cycle of American urgency and inaction has not inspired confidence in China, says Li.

John Kerry, who led the pre-Paris secret diplomatic mission from the US, is again leading negotiations between the two countries. Before Biden’s climate conference in April, China and the US made a joint statement saying that climate change “must be addressed with the seriousness and urgency that it demands”, suggesting there was hope the two powers could quarantine the issue from their broader competition.

Looking back at half a century of China-US relations
Video by Tom Compagnoni

Bernice Lee, research director for futures at the London-based foreign policy think tank Chatham House, notes that although President Xi Jinping does not confront the same pressures as democratic leaders, he is not immune from political gravity.

Xi may have invested political capital in climate action, but he confronts the same imperatives to maintain prosperity and employment as his Western peers. Meanwhile, some Chinese provincial leaders ramp up coal production and coal plant construction reflexively as economic stimulus.

Lee also believes that China now sees action on climate as linked to its broader and growing international power and prestige.


Professor Bill Hare, a lead author on the fourth assessment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and chief executive of Climate Analytics, says China is reducing the carbon intensity of its coal-heavy power sector faster than many nations, including Australia. Even as it opens new coal mines, he notes, it is closing older, less efficient ones.



He agrees that Xi and much of the Chinese Communist Party leadership view climate change as a potentially existential threat, particularly as crop yields shrink and water supplies fall under threat due to climate pressures.

How far China is willing to go will become clearer in the months leading up to the Glasgow talks, he says. 


Superpower showdown 
How to win friends and influence nations: China and the US battle it out 
Climate Analytics data is used to build the Climate Action Tracker, which judges the progress nations are making towards the globally agreed aim of holding warming well below 2 degrees Celsius, and pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5 degrees.

It makes for grim reading. Australian policies are judged as “insufficient”, China’s as “highly insufficient”.

US efforts fall into the worst category, “critically insufficient”.

Hare explains this is a reflection of the Trump administration’s abandonment of the issue, and new rankings taking in analysis of the impacts of Biden-era policies will soon be published.



Li believes that China’s actions may not be made clear at the Glasgow talks, where any concessions could be chalked up as a diplomatic victory for the US. Rather, he says, announcements could be made domestically or in other settings, such as G20 meetings or at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

Asked which nation he believes has done more to address what many see as the defining issue of our time, Li says that both have failed so far.

Looking back over their records, he says, provides data about the past but not answers to inform our future.


Pushed to forecast, Li says despite his concerns about China’s mixed messages on climate, the issue has not become as politically polarising in Beijing as it has in Washington.

While America’s climate plan will be tested at the polls again in 2024, China’s leaders, for good or ill, will dictate the course for the next three decades.

In that light, says Li, there is some reason to believe Chinese climate policy may improve more rapidly and predictably than America’s.


Links

(AU The Guardian) 'One More Mine Does Make A Difference’: Australian Children Argue For The Climate – And The Law Agrees

The Guardian - 

The world was watching as a judge formalised into law a government’s duty of care to protect under-18s from the climate crisis

Anjali Sharma, student climate activist and lead litigant in the ‘Sharma case’: ‘It’s hard to come to terms with the scale of all this.’ Photograph: Christopher Hopkins/The Guardian

At about 9.30am on Thursday morning, 17-year-old Melbourne school student Anjali Sharma was walking her two-year-old kelpie-cross dog Maya down to the creek when the notifications started buzzing on her phone.
“I was getting updates from the lawyers in the court,” says Sharma, who as we speak is about to take another call from a journalist at the Times of India.

At the federal court in Melbourne, Justice Mordecai Bromberg was handing over his final orders in a case taken by Sharma and seven other school children – aided in court by Sister Brigid Arthur, a nun some 70 years their senior.
... what might fairly be described as the greatest inter-generational injustice ever inflicted
Justice Mordecai Bromberg
With a short reading to the court, the judge formalised into law that Australia’s environment minister had a duty of care to “avoid causing personal injury or death” not just to Sharma and her friends – but all Australians under 18 – “arising from emissions of carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere”.

The Australian government took just 24 hours to announce it would appeal.

In May, Bromberg had rejected the children’s bid to block the expansion of the Vickery coalmining project (back then, Sharma was livestreaming the court on her laptop while in an economics class at Huntingtower school).

But he agreed with arguments from their legal team that when it came to making a decision on the mine, Australia’s environment minister had a duty of care to protect them from the ravages of the climate crisis.

School student Anjali Sharma outside the federal court in Melbourne , with lawyer David Barnden and court guardian Sister Brigid Arthur.

“As Australian adults know their country, Australia will be lost and the World as we know it gone as well,” he wrote. “Trauma will be far more common and good health harder to hold and maintain.

“None of this will be the fault of nature itself. It will largely be inflicted by the inaction of this generation of adults, in what might fairly be described as the greatest inter-generational injustice ever inflicted by one generation of humans upon the next.”

The judge’s words were affirmation for the children.

What is now known as the “Sharma case” is being closely followed by climate litigators around the world, who say it has done something that none of the 1,800 or so cases around the world since 1986 have managed.

Kate Higham co-ordinates Climate Laws of the World – a platform that tracks climate cases around the world at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

She says the Sharma case is the “first in which a common law court has recognised the existence of a government duty of care to avoid climate harms that is based in the law of negligence.”

Only 10 cases have tried the approach, and only one so far has been successful in common law.

Failing arguments

“It’s hard to come to terms with the scale of all this,” says Sharma, “knowing people globally have their eyes on this too.”

When governments or companies have been challenged in court about the impacts of fossil fuels on the climate, their defences have fallen broadly into two common categories.

Either a project is too small to make a difference, or stopping it won’t make a difference because the energy market will just fill the gap with fossil fuels from somewhere else.

Anjali Sharma, pictured, and seven other school children will have to wait for a date for the government’s appeal, which could come before the end of the year. Photograph: Christopher Hopkins/The Guardian

Elaine Johnson, director of legal strategy at the Environmental Defenders Office in Sydney, says the Sharma case shows that these two defences are now being dismissed by judges. “We have now reached a point in time with respect to the global carbon budget, where these arguments no longer hold water. One more mine does make a difference and it adds cumulatively to emissions that are already in the atmosphere.”

In the Sharma case, lawyers for Australia’s environment minister put what Prof Jacqueline Peel describes as the “drop in the ocean” defence to the court.

Burning an extra 33 million tonnes of coal from the mine, the government’s lawyers argued, was the difference between 2C of warming and 2.00005C of warming. At such a small scale, there was no evidence before the court on how that would relate to the risk faced by the young people. That argument failed.

Australian court finds government has duty to protect young people from climate crisis.  Read more

“That does not mean the mine has a trivial impact,” says Peel, a climate litigation expert at the University of Melbourne. “Any emissions could get us over a tipping point [in the climate] into more dangerous scenarios.”

Johnson was the lead lawyer in a breakthrough case in 2019, where plans for the Rocky Hill coalmine in New South Wales were stopped by a judge partly because of its potential climate impact.

In that case the company, Gloucester Resources, made what Peel calls the “market substitution” defence – also known as the drug dealers defence.

Gloucester Resources argued if their mine was blocked, the global demand for coal would mean it would simply be mined elsewhere. “The market substitution argument is also flawed,” wrote Justice Brian Preston in his judgement.

“Developed countries such as Australia have a responsibility, including under the climate change convention, the Kyoto protocol and the Paris agreement, to take the lead in taking mitigation measures to reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions,” Preston wrote.

“We said [the Rocky Hill mine] was in the wrong place at the wrong time,” says Johnson. “It’s the wrong time because emissions need to be dramatically reduced.”

‘Australian government is offloading its responsibility’

The LSE’s climate litigation database shows since 1986, there have been more than 1,800 cases in courts around the world. Outside the United States, where there have been 1,398 cases, there have been more cases in Australia (115) than anywhere else.

César Rodríguez-Garavito, professor of clinical law and director of the Climate Litigation Accelerator at New York University School of Law, says one reason for Australia’s outsized representation is down to persistent government failings and its position as a major fossil fuel exporter.

"We are passionate climate warriors. Our legal battle is not over but my heart is a bit lighter." Read more
Analysis has suggested emissions from burning Australian coal overseas is almost double the nation’s domestic footprint.

“Effectively, the Australian government is offloading its responsibility for climate change not only to young people but also to the rest of the world,” says Rodríguez-Garavito.

“In the face of the government’s inaction and breach of its duty of care to young people, litigants have had to resort to courts to enforce that duty and nudge the government into complying with international law and scientific recommendations.”

What has changed?

The rate that climate cases are coming before the courts has surged since the 2015 Paris agreement. Before the agreement, there had been about 800 cases. Since the agreement, there have been 1,000.

“Litigation and international agreements [like the UN Paris deal] are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they are complementary and are mutually reinforcing,” says Rodríguez-Garavito.

In essence, he says climate court cases legally enforce the scientific consensus on climate change and the international forums like the UN’s Paris agreement.

Like in the Sharma case, Higham says cases around the world are increasingly representing children.

“They are interesting because of the ways in which they challenge our understanding of government obligations to citizens over longer time horizons,” she said.

In Germany last year, a youth group argued in a constitutional court their government’s greenhouse gas reduction targets were too low and violated their humans rights.

The group won, forcing the government to adjust their targets to make greater greenhouse gas reductions sooner – meaning there was less burden on younger people to make cuts.

Johnson says the ultimate goal for climate legislation for Australia is to force the government to legislate targets “consistent with the science”.

“We have seen in the courts that the science is cutting through – they’re recognising it’s the science that matters and that’s what tells us about the level of risk that exists for children and communities.”

Johnson’s EDO has three climate cases coming up before courts in August this year and another scheduled for February next year.

Now the eight Australian schoolchildren will have to wait for a date for the government’s appeal, which could come before the end of the year.

Even before the case, Sharma says she was hoping for a career in environmental law after finishing her studies.

“My mum says this is like the most intense work experience I’ll ever have.”

Links

(Reuters) G20 Recognizes Carbon Pricing As Climate Change Tool For First Time

Reuters - 



VENICE, Italy - G20 finance leaders recognized carbon pricing as a potential tool to address climate change for the first time in an official communique on Saturday, taking a tentative step towards promoting the idea and coordinating carbon reduction policies.

The move marked a massive shift from the previous four years when former U.S. President Donald Trump's administration routinely opposed the mention of climate change as a global risk in such international statements.

The communique, issued on Saturday after a meeting of Group of 20 finance ministers and central bank governors in the Italian city of Venice, which is threatened by rising sea levels, inserted a mention of carbon pricing among a "wide set of tools" on which countries should coordinate to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Such tools include investing in sustainable infrastructure and new technologies to promote decarbonization and clean energy, "including the rationalisation and phasing-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption and, if appropriate, the use of carbon pricing mechanisms and incentives, while providing targeted support for the poorest and the most vulnerable," said the communique from the financial leaders of the world's 20 major economies.

The statement was issued just days before the European Union was scheduled to unveil a controversial carbon-adjustment border tax on goods from countries with high carbon emissions.

"It is the first time in a G20 communique you could have these two words 'carbon pricing' being introduced as a solution for the fight against climate change," French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire told reporters. "We have been pushing very hard to have these two words ... introduced into a G20 communique."

Those efforts met strong U.S. resistance for most of Trump's presidency, during which the United States quickly withdrew from the Paris climate agreement.

At a summit in Saudi Arabia in 2020, then-U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin agreed to a G20 reference to climate change, but not as a downside risk to global growth. Instead, it was included in a reference to the Financial Stability Board’s work examining the implications of climate change for financial stability.

The carbon pricing mention on Saturday marks the influence of the Biden administration, which immediately rejoined the Paris agreement in January and has set out ambitious carbon reduction targets and clean energy and transportation investment plans.

But while supporting emissions reductions, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen called on Friday for better international coordination on carbon-cutting policies to avoid trade frictions.

The EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) would impose levies on the carbon content of imported goods in an effort to discourage "carbon leakage," the transfer of production to countries with less onerous emission restrictions. Critics of the measure worry that it could become another trade barrier without reducing emissions.

Links

11/07/2021

(AU The Guardian) Australian Government To Appeal Ruling That It Must Protect Children From Climate Harm

The Guardian - 

Environment minister to challenge federal court judgment in a case against a NSW coalmine expansion brought by schoolchildren and nun

The environment minister Sussan Ley is to appeal a court ruling that she had a duty of care to protect Australia’s children from climate change harm caused by a coalmine expansion. Photograph: David Gray/Reuters

The environment minister, Sussan Ley, will appeal yesterday’s federal court declaration she has a duty of care to protect Australian children from climate harm that would be caused by the expansion of a coalmining project.

Some of the eight schoolchildren that brought the case to the federal court have reacted with dismay to the appeal, with one saying the government was now fighting for the right to cause them harm.

The historic judgment by Justice Mordecai Bromberg placed into law the minister’s responsibility after a case against the Vickery coalmine expansion was brought by the eight schoolchildren and a nun.

The children had tried to force an injunction, stopping Ley from approving the expansion plans for Whitehaven Coal’s project near Boggabri, New South Wales. The minister has still to make a decision on the plans.

In the declaration, Bromberg said when the minister makes her decision over the coalmine, she has a duty “to take reasonable care” to “avoid causing personal injury or death” to Australian residents under 18 “arising from emissions of carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere”.

In a statement on Friday, the minister’s office said: “After carefully considering the judgment, the minister has formed the view there are grounds on which to appeal.

“Following the handing down of orders by the court yesterday, the minister has now instructed the department to lodge a notice of appeal.”

The case came in two parts.

A request to block the mine expansion was denied by the court in May, but the claim the minister had a duty of care to protect Australians under 18 from harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions from the mine was formalised yesterday.

"We are passionate climate warriors. Our legal battle is not over but my heart is a bit lighter." Read more

Melbourne student Anjali Sharma, 17, who was one of the schoolchildren in the case, said she “found it funny and honestly pretty embarrassing” that the government was appealing.

She said: “Her job should be to act for, not against, the young people of Australia.

“But instead of doing her job of safeguarding our future, she is prepared to spend public money fighting for her right to make climate change worse, harm the environment and risk the injury and death of Australian children.

“A challenge favours the profits of coal companies above safeguarding the health of our environment and children and young people like me.”

Another of the eight children in the case, Perth student Bella Burgemeister, 15, said: “The Morrison government believes they have more of a duty to the coal and gas companies than they do towards their young citizens. It is sad they are appealing the judge’s decision, they are fighting to cause harm. We are not done fighting this.” Lawyer David Barnden, who is leading the case for the children, said: “We question the Morrison government’s intent to appeal the duty.

“This is a duty about life and death for Australian children. It seems inconceivable that an environment minister, a member of parliament representing the people of Australia, would seek to rid herself of this sensible responsibility.

“We will vigorously defend the rights of children not to suffer injury or death from climate change at the hands of a government intent on approving new fossil fuel projects.”

Prof David Schlosberg, director of the Sydney Environment Institute, said: “The Australian government is not only ignoring the unjust impacts of climate change on future generations, but is also actively and explicitly arguing against climate and intergenerational justice – to allow the expansion of a coalmine.”

Links

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative