(The Guardian) Plans Of Four G20 States Are Threat To Global Climate Pledge, Warn Scientists

The Guardian - Robin McKie | Toby Helm | Fiona Harvey

‘Disastrous’ energy policies of China, Russia, Brazil and Australia could stoke 5C rise in temperatures if adopted by the rest of the world

Massive wildfires have gripped the US. Photograph: Josh Edelson/Getty

2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) Glasgow November Quick Guide 22-23 July G20 ministerial meeting, Naples Energy and climate ministers of G20 countries meet under Italy’s presidency of the G20 to discuss progress on decarbonisation. The International Energy Agency will present its forecast that the world’s annual carbon dioxide output will reach a record high in 2023 because governments have invested only 2% of the global rescue funds for Covid-19 into clean energy. 25-26 July COP26 ministerial meeting Alok Sharma, the UK president of the COP26 talks, has invited ministers from more than 40 countries to discuss pathways to an agreement at COP26, in an effort to resolve some of the outstanding issues. Patricia Espinosa, UN climate chief, will issue a plea to governments to come up with strong national plans for cutting emissions this decade. 9 August Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change The world’s authority on climate science will publish the first part of its next major comprehensive assessment. It is expected to heighten scientific warnings that the world could be headed for a series of “tipping points” that will lead to catastrophic and irreversible heating, with devastating consequences if greenhouse gas emissions are not urgently curbed. 14-30 September UN general assembly UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres will make the climate crisis and the road to COP26 a key priority for the annual UN meeting. This could be the moment when China comes forward with its plans for COP26. President Xi Jinping surprised the world when he used last year’s UNGA to announce a net zero target for 2060. He may decide to set out a new target for China’s 2030 emissions. 30-31 October G20 Italy is co-host of COP26 alongside the UK, and holds the revolving presidency of the G20 group of the world’s leading economies, including industrialised and developing countries. All eyes will be on the leaders of the G20 countries in a last-ditch attempt to forge consensus ahead of Glasgow. 1 November COP26 begins in Glasgow

A key group of leading G20 nations is committed to climate targets that would lead to disastrous global warming, scientists have warned.

They say China, Russia, Brazil and Australia all have energy policies associated with 5C rises in atmospheric temperatures, a heating hike that would bring devastation to much of the planet.

The analysis, by the peer-reviewed group Paris Equity Check, raises serious worries about the prospects of key climate agreements being achieved at the COP26 summit in Glasgow in three months.

The conference – rated as one of the most important climate summits ever staged – will attempt to hammer out policies to hold global heating to 1.5C by agreeing on a global policy for ending net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050.

The EU and UK have outlined emission pledges that could bring the world close to these aspirations.

However, those of China, Russia, Brazil and Australia – which remain reliant on continued fossil-fuel burning – would trigger temperature rises of 5C if followed by the rest of the world.

This dramatic discrepancy reveals a deep division over the energy and environment policies of the world’s richest nations.

“Without more ambition from China, Brazil, Russia and Australia, COP26 will fail to deliver the future our planet needs,” warned Tanya Steele, chief executive at WWF.

The stark difference between the climate plans of different G20 nations – who together are responsible for 85% of all global carbon emissions – was underlined last week in Naples, when a meeting of member states’ energy and environment ministers ended with the group failing to agree on a package of commitments to tackle climate change.

“The G20 is failing to deliver,” said the online activist network Avaaz.

The G20 meeting had been viewed as a critically important staging post leading up to COP26 and its failure to find common ground underlines the crucial differences that divide nations in the group and indicate it is not going to be easy to secure a meaningful accord in Scotland.

This point was backed by Yann Robiou du Pont, the lead researcher for the Paris Equity Tracker analysis.

“The research underlines what many of us fear: major economies are simply not doing enough to tackle the climate crisis and, in many cases, G20 countries are leaving us on track [for] a world of more heatwaves, flooding and extreme weather events.”

A world that would be 5C hotter than it was before the Industrial Revolution, when fossil-fuel burning began in earnest, would be one in which a quarter of the global population would face extreme drought for at least one month a year; rainforests would be destroyed; and melting ice sheets would result in dangerous sea-level rises.

In addition, loss of reflective ice from the poles could cause oceans to absorb more solar radiation, while melting permafrost in Siberia and other regions would release plumes of methane, another pernicious greenhouse gas. Inevitably, temperatures would soar even further.

By contrast, scientists say that if temperature rises can be kept below 1.5C, then the worst impacts of climate change could be prevented – though they also point out that temperatures have already risen 1.2C, leaving the world facing very tight margins to avoid the worst impacts of global warming over the next 30 years.

The extent of the climate crisis has also been highlighted this month with extreme weather events causing devastation across the world: deadly floods have swept through Germany, Belgium and China, while massive wildfires have gripped the US and Siberia. Global warming has been implicated in every case.

100 days to COP26: protesters urge Boris Johnson to take climate talks seriously. Read more

“Ahead of COP26, we now need to see action and we owe it to the most vulnerable countries to rally together. Failure to deliver on our commitments is not an option and we must not be found wanting,” said Alok Sharma, the former UK business secretary who is now president of COP26.

Sharma last week was strongly critical of countries such as “big emitters” Russia and China who must do more to tackle climate change, he warned.

Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, nearly 200 countries committed to submit new climate plans every five years with a goal to limit global warming to well below 2C, aiming at 1.5C, compared to pre-industrial levels. However, earlier this year, the United Nations issued a “red alert” over current climate plans, warning they were “nowhere close” to meeting the Paris goals.

The International Energy Agency recently said that if the world was to stay within 1.5C of warming, all further development and exploration of new fossil fuel sources should cease from this year.

President Joe Biden’s climate envoy, John Kerry, told the Observer that the US was carefully considering the implications of the IEA report. “I know that people are very heavily aware of the need to shift our programmes and policy [in a way that] really robustly embraces that,” he said.

“Everybody in the world need to be working on this. We need to think differently. We should be pushing hard in a different direction [from fossil fuels].”

He said Biden was also working to ensure the US and China were aligned on the need to stay within 1.5C.

“The first thing [Biden] hopes about China is that China recognises the reality of where we all are, and where China is, and what we need to do to get this job done. China is a global leader with a special responsibility to make sure we are all meeting [climate goals]. We want to find common ground.”

He said there were no plans for a US-China summit, such as President Barack Obama conducted with China’s President Xi Jinping ahead of the Paris conference, but said such a meeting was “not out of the question”.

He added: “A lot of conversations with China have not yet arrived at agreement.”

Links

• Paris Equity Check
• Australia: 2100-warming as a function of national 2030-emissions
• 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) - Wikipedia
• CO2 emissions: nations' pledges 'far away' from Paris target, says UN
• The world gallops to Glasgow while Australia trundles the other way
• Australia faces carbon tariffs without big ambitions: Mark Carney
• US urges Australia to adopt ‘more ambitious climate goals’ as pressure mounts on Morrison to act
• Crunch time looming for Morrison on climate as the world looks to Australia to act

(AU SMH) Renewables Drive Australian Emissions Lower As Wind Records Blown Away

Sydney Morning Herald - Peter Hannam

Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions extended their declines into the first three months of 2021, driven lower by a roaring renewable energy sector that set fresh records during this past windy weekend.

According to independent consultants Ndevr, modelling shows national emissions totalled 119.77 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent (MT CO2-e) in the March quarter. That was 2.9 million tonnes lower than the previous three months, and 7.5 million tonnes – or almost 6 per cent – down from a year earlier.

Blowing up a storm: record levels of wind energy generation this week in Australia. The rise of renewables is delivering the bulk of emissions reductions in Australia. Credit: Dominic Lorrimer

The figures, which precede official numbers due by August 31, show renewable sources of electricity such as wind, solar and hydro exceeded 30 per cent of the National Electricity Market (NEM) in the March quarter.

The increase alone shaved off 1.4 MT CO-e from the nation’s emissions tally, with the total now below 40 MT CO-e, or about a third of the total.

“Renewables are the big driver,” Matt Drum, Ndevr’s managing director, said. “Transport also dropped off, and remains relatively low because of COVID”, especially the aviation sector.

Increasing renewable generation
and reducing electricity emissions
Source: Ndevr Environmental

EmissionsAustralian emissions fall again
due to renewables and COVID-19

The rising proportion of electricity generated by renewables has more than compensated for the trend towards higher emissions from sectors such as heavy industry, particularly the LNG sector. 

Large polluters, such as Orica, are showing signs of “serious investment” in large-scale emissions reduction activity that should nudge that sector lower too. “It’s not just noise and fluff. We’re starting to see it on the ground,” Mr Drum said.

Australia’s emissions trajectory is likely to come in for closer scrutiny ahead of the global climate summit planned for Glasgow in November.

The Morrison government has so far resisted signing up to a goal of carbon neutrality – where any greenhouse emissions are nullified by offsets elsewhere – by 2050.

Australia will also likely come under pressure to raise its near-term ambition of cutting 2005-level pollution by 26-28 per cent by 2030.

Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor was approached for comment on Ndevr’s projections.

Electricity emissions decrease while transport
and stationary emissions trend upwards

Source: Ndevr Environmental

The struggling coal-fired power sector, beset by problems such as an explosion at a plant in Queensland in May and more recent floods in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, should also extend the slide in emissions from the power sector, Mr Drum said.

In another sign of renewables’ advance, wind energy smashed generation records three times in less than a week, according to Dylan McConnell, an energy expert at the University of Melbourne.

Last Tuesday, wind farms generated 5.899 gigawatts for the NEM, a record that endured until Saturday evening when generation exceeded 6GW for the first time, climbing to 6.12GW.

That peak, though, lasted barely 24 hours, with wind turbines notching a fresh record of 6.428GW at 8.05pm (AEST) on Sunday evening.

Renewable Energy cracked 14GW a couple of hours ago too ... pic.twitter.com/unntxxewtz

— Dylan McConnell (@dylanjmcconnell) July 25, 2021

 All-up renewables were providing about 14GW of power to the NEM during Sunday, meeting more than half the demand. “[It’s] not quite a record, but getting close,” Dr McConnell said.

That power came in handy after Alinta’s Loy Yang B tripped on Saturday night, temporarily knocking 580-megawatts of capacity out.

The renewables sector, meanwhile, will launch on Monday its first national campaign to draw attention to its expansion with an eye to the next federal election.

Photovoltaic modules ready to be installed at a solar farm on the outskirts of Gunnedah in northern NSW. Credit: Bloomberg

Future Power
What's a 'just transition' and can you switch
to green energy without sacking coal workers?

The Renewable Energy Is Here Now campaign aims to highlight the contribution already made by the sector but also the potential for much larger emissions reductions including supplying 100 per cent of power.

“We know most Australians support renewable energy, but the climate debate has meant that a minority of loud voices have misled the public, resulting in some Australians feeling uncertain about a future powered by clean energy,” Kane Thornton, chief executive of the Clean Energy Council, said.

“This campaign is about ensuring all Australians are certain about the facts and feel part of the exciting transition already taking place.”

Links

• “No more yeah, buts”: Renewable ad campaign to combat myths and misinformation
• Japan revises 2030 targets, plans to double renewables and cut fossil fuels
• Australia’s largest gas and coal export partner slashes demand
• 2 in 3 coal jobs are destined for the scrap heap, a new report suggests, as the energy transition becomes inevitable
• Unions call for more offshore wind support
• Fossil fuel subsidies labelled ‘reckless’ as renewables hit new highs
• Government credit agency gave 80 times more money to fossil fuels than renewables over last 11 years

(AU ABC) How The Carbon Tax Has Come Back To Haunt The Australian Government

ABC - Ian Verrender

The ill-fated Australian carbon tax lasted just two years but data suggests it had an immediate impact. (AAP: Mick Tsikas)

It was an off-the-cuff comment after a few drinks, delivered with a belly laugh from a then-senior minister a few years back.

"The difference between Labor's policy and ours is that Julia Gillard introduced a scheme where big polluters paid Australian taxpayers. Tony changed it so that Australian taxpayers pay big polluters," the minister said.

That policy, of course, was the carbon tax.

10 years of climate policy inertia

Ten years ago one man's plan blew apart Australia's two great parties irrevocably just as they teetered toward consensus on climate change, the most divisive issue of the Australian political century. Read more

Introduced in 2012 by the Gillard government, it was dumped by the Abbott government as soon as it came to power and replaced with a more than $3 billion taxpayer subsidy, doled out to applicants that promised to cut carbon emissions.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

But the joke now is on us and the tragedy is that it will cost us dearly.

Australian businesses are about to be whacked with a carbon tax.

Not by Canberra, but by Brussels and Washington with the increasing possibility that Ottawa, Tokyo and even London may follow suit, free trade agreements aside.

In the third turn of the wheel, Australian polluters will end up paying foreign taxpayers just for the privilege of exporting their goods.

It's a development that will hurt profits, cost jobs, and hit our export volumes and ultimately the tax take of our own government.

En masse, much of the developed world has begun mulling the idea of putting a price on carbon emissions.

They've also woken to the idea that there's no point introducing a carbon price at home if renegades like Australia don't follow suit.

So, to level the field, goods from any country without a carbon price, such as Australia, will be hit with a carbon tax.

Where did this come from?

It's all happened within the space of a few weeks.

One minute, the European Union was announcing its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and the next, the United States began making similar noises.

Trade Minister Dan Tehan was aghast.

It's 'time to rethink our sea-change
and tree-change dreams'

Scattered housing in "at risk" areas must be replaced with sustainable resilient community models, according to researchers. Read more

"Australia is very concerned that the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism is just a new form of protectionism that will undermine global free trade and impact Australian exporters and jobs," he said.

The only problem with that argument is that Australia explored the very same option back in 2012 during the carbon tax's brief life.

It was recognised then that corporations may simply shift production offshore to avoid the impost.

Oddly, despite the rapid deterioration in relations between Canberra and Beijing, our largest trading partner may end up as one of our biggest allies in this brewing storm.

For while Beijing just last Friday launched the world's largest carbon market, many believe that at best it will be ineffective and, at worst, a sham.

Its national carbon market has far too many credits, so its carbon price is way too low — around one 10th the EU carbon price.

Not only that, big energy users like steel are excluded.

Unless prices rise dramatically, there is little likelihood of any shift in behaviour or impact on emissions and the fear is that the entire strategy is little more than an artifice.

Why price carbon anyway?

Many decisions in our life come down to price.

Even when money isn't involved, we often calculate whether the benefits of embarking on a certain course of action outweigh the potential costs.

What’s a carbon tariff and why
is Australia getting savaged over it?

Pressure is mounting on Australia to come up with a serious climate change policy, or pay millions for our emissions. Read more

When it comes to public policy, we learned long ago that if you want to change behaviour, say to limit the health impact of smoking, one of the easiest ways to do that is to tax goods and services — in the case of smoking, tobacco.

The higher the tax, the fewer individuals will smoke, and the less likely people will take up smoking at all.

That has a double impact on government finances.

The government brings in more revenue, at least until people give up.

More importantly, the health system costs less to run, as a harmful health factor is eliminated.

In the early 1980s, when scientists first twigged that carbon emissions were harming the environment, a group of American economists from Harvard argued that climate change was a cost that was not being recognised.

Not only was it barely visible, the real damage was only likely to be seen in generations to come, way beyond the normal investment horizon.

The fossil fuel industry railed against the proposal of a carbon tax in the US. (AP: Ben Margot/File)

Back then, they argued that a tax on carbon emissions from all sources was the most efficient way to deal with the problem and, for a while, Washington was in agreement.

It didn't take long, however, for the fossil fuel industry to take up arms against the proposal.

That's when Republicans shifted stance.

Instead of a tax, they preferred a complex market-based trading system that put a price on carbon.

The end result is that the US has never introduced a national system although various US states have carbon prices.

That's all about to change.

Here at home, there was agreement on both sides of the House that a carbon price was needed.

In 1997, then-prime minister John Howard grappled with ways to deal with carbon emissions but took almost a decade before he finally announced an emissions trading scheme in 2006.

Kevin Rudd was elected in 2007 on a platform of addressing climate change but his emissions trading scheme initiative disintegrated under the weight of political bickering between his government, the Coalition and the Greens.

From then on, climate change became toxic as then-opposition leader Tony Abbott flicked the switch from science to ideology.

Does a carbon tax work?

There's an easy answer to that.

The ill-fated Australian carbon tax lasted just two years.

But as the graph below indicates, it had an immediate impact.

Annual CO2 emissions in Australia between 1900 and 2019.

(Supplied: Global Carbon Project; Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre)

Emissions dropped almost immediately after it was introduced as businesses moved to technologies that emitted less.

That price signal had an impact.

When it was dumped in 2014, carbon emissions began to rise again almost immediately.

Emissions have since levelled, possibly because of the shutdowns of some large coal-fired power stations during the past two years.

While economists believe carbon taxes are the preferred way to price emissions, politically they've been a hard sell.

No-one likes paying more tax.

According to the World Bank, about 45 countries are covered by a carbon price but few use a carbon tax.

Even the Gillard government's carbon tax was due to revert to a market-priced trading system similar to Europe's.

There's no such reluctance, however, when it comes to whacking a tax on foreigners, as we are about to discover.

What industries will be affected by the border taxes?

Mark Carney, the former head of the Bank of Canada and more recently the Bank of England, delivered a blunt assessment of our prospects last week at a conference organised by the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors.

Now the United Nations special envoy on climate change and finance, Mr Carney said the world was trending towards enforcing climate policy through trade action and Australia needed to ramp up its response.

The EU legislation is still in a rough form but will include aluminium, iron, steel, cement, natural gas, oil and coal.

The immediate impact of the carbon border taxes is unlikely to inflict major damage on Australia.

Japan plans to reduce its coal imports and the EU will tax coal higher. (Flickr: eyeweed)

Europe takes just 3 per cent of our total exports and, while our sales to the US are substantially higher, they're not carbon intensive.

The biggest problem will arise if the US imposes carbon border taxes on Chinese made goods.

As our biggest export destination, particularly for iron ore, any action against the Middle Kingdom will have an immediate impact on us.

Given the rapidly escalating tensions between the superpowers, that is highly likely.

Then there is our second biggest trading partner.

Japan late last week announced it was radically revising its emissions target ambitions and announced an accelerated plan to decrease imports of coal and LNG, two of our biggest exports.

The federal government has long been opposed to any form of carbon pricing and has yet to even commit to net zero emissions by 2050.

But the events of the past few weeks may force its hand.

Otherwise, it risks being caught on the wrong side of history at great cost to the economy.

Links

• 'Many things will happen, mostly bad': The blast from the past that shows how long we’ve ignored climate change
• Climate Council throws down gauntlet to Australia: Decarbonise by 2035 or pay the price
• EU's 'bold move' could spell trouble for Australian commodities
• Carbon pricing in Australia - Wikipedia
• EU carbon border tax is a warning to Australia: cut emissions or lose exports
• What does the EU’s carbon tariff proposal mean for Australia?
• Australia slams EU carbon tax, describing it as 'protectionist'
• Corporate Australia sets its own carbon price amid global dash to net zero
• Coming soon: The carbon taxes that cannot be repealed
• Australia lifted fossil fuel subsidies more than any G20 nation, says BNEF

(AU The Conversation) Not Declaring The Great Barrier Reef As ‘In Danger’ Only Postpones The Inevitable

The Conversation - Jon C. Day | Scott F. Heron | Terry Hughes

Shutterstock

Authors Jon C. Day, PSM, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University Scott F. Heron, Associate Professor, James Cook University Terry Hughes, Distinguished Professor, James Cook University

After much anticipation, the World Heritage Committee on Friday decided against listing the Great Barrier Reef as “in danger”.

The decision ignored the recommendation of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre — a recommendation based on analyses by Australian scientific experts of the reef’s declining condition.

In many ways, the outcome from the committee was expected. The Australian government fought very hard against this decision, including lobbying all the committee members, as it has done in previous years.

There was consensus among most of the 21 committee members to not apply the in-danger listing at this time. Instead, Australia has been requested to host a joint UNESCO/IUCN monitoring mission to the reef and provide an updated report by February, 2022.

This decision has only postponed the inevitable. It does not change the irrefutable evidence that dangerous impacts are already occurring on the Great Barrier Reef. Some, such as coral bleaching and death from marine heatwaves, will continue to accelerate.

The reef currently meets the criteria for in-danger listing. That’s unlikely to improve within the next 12 months.

Political distractions

Last month, the World Heritage Committee released its draft decision to list the reef as in-danger, noting the values for which the reef was internationally recognised had declined due to a wide range of factors. This includes water pollution and coral bleaching.

The draft decision had expressed concerns that Australia’s progress:

has been largely insufficient in meeting key targets of the Reef 2050 Plan [and the] deterioration of the ecological processes underpinning the [Reef has] been more rapid and widespread than was previously evident.

A photo depicting two threats to the Great Barrier Reef: coal ships anchored near Abbot Point and a flood plume from the Burdekin River (February 2019); such plumes can carry pollutants and debris to the Great Barrier Reef. Matt Curnock

In response, the government claimed it was “blindsided”, and said the UNESCO Secretariat hadn’t followed due process in recommending the decision. It also suggested there had been undue interference from China in making the draft recommendation.

These were political distractions from the real issues. During last night’s debate, one committee member strongly refuted the claims about interference from China and expressed concerns the dialogue had become unnecessarily politicised.

Following the draft decision, the intense campaign to reverse the decision began, with environment minister Sussan Ley undertaking a whirlwind visit to numerous countries to meet with ambassadors.

The government even hosted international ambassadors from 13 countries and the EU, taking them on a snorkelling trip. And it reported an increase in coral cover over the past two years as good news, ignoring the fact the assessment had cautioned the recovery was driven by weedy coral species most vulnerable to future climate impacts.

This wasn’t the first time Australia has undertaken significant levels of diplomatic lobbying of World Heritage Committee members to gain support for its position.

In 1999, Australia also strongly opposed the recommended in-danger listing of Kakadu National Park, following the Jabiluka mine proposal. This led to an extraordinary meeting of the committee being convened in Paris, specifically to discuss this matter.

Australia is expected to hand in an updated report on the reef in February 2022. Shutterstock

More focus on climate change

During its current meeting, the World Heritage Committee approved the draft UNESCO Climate Action Policy, which will guide the protection and conservation of World Heritage sites.

This policy will be ratified at the UN General Assembly later this year, but the fact it’s still a draft was one of several excuses the Australian government made as to why the reef should not be “singled out”.

The reef is one of the most iconic marine protected areas on the planet. Given Australia continues to have one of the highest per capita emission rates in the world, and has more capacity to address climate change than most other countries, it makes sense for the spotlight to be on Australia’s actions.

Marine heatwaves and water pollution are major threats to the Great Barrier Reef. Shutterstock

Not surprisingly, climate change was the central issue during the committee’s debate last night. UNESCO is now more focused on climate change than ever before, recognising the “window of opportunity to act” is now.The delegates broadly agreed climate change remains the most serious threat, not just to the Great Barrier Reef but also to many other iconic World Heritage properties. Venice, for example, also dodged a potential in-danger listing at this meeting.

Rather than making challenging decisions now, it’s clear the committee is simply kicking the can down the road.

With the stroke of a pen, the endangered #GreatBarrierReef, is NOT listed as endangered.

Kicking the can down the road. Denying the scientific evidence. pic.twitter.com/37pxCAIbtJ

— Terry Hughes (@ProfTerryHughes) July 23, 2021

Some committee members remarked during the meeting about the need to “maintain the credibility of the Convention” and acknowledged that the world is watching. The spotlight on the reef, and on Australia, will only intensify in coming years.

The government’s own report from 2019 shows many of the values for which the reef was inscribed on the World Heritage list in 1981 have declined in recent decades. Yet every delay weakens Australia’s claim it is doing all it can to protect the reef.

Later this year, the next major international climate summit will be held in Glasgow, Scotland, where even more attention will be placed on Australia’s inadequate actions.

An in-danger listing is not a punishment

It’s important to remember that throughout the meeting, UNESCO and the committee made it clear an in-danger listing is not a sanction or punishment. Rather, it’s a call to the international community that a World Heritage property is under threat, thereby triggering actions to protect it for future generations.

Now, more than ever, it is important to expand efforts to reduce the locally manageable impacts, such as poor water quality, while rapidly accelerating action on climate change.

These efforts must occur locally, nationally and globally. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is critical to stop the worst of the impacts now unfolding, not just on the reef, but on all the world’s natural and cultural heritage.

Links

• The Great Barrier Reef is in trouble. There are a whopping 45 reasons why
• Is Australia really doing enough for the Great Barrier Reef? Why criticisms of UNESCO’s 'in danger' recommendation don’t stack up
• The Barrier Reef is not listed as in danger, but the threats remain
• Great Barrier Reef in 'recovery window' after year without major heatwaves, cyclone disturbances
• Government 'blindsided' by move to list Great Barrier Reef as 'in danger'
• (AU ABC) Great Barrier Reef In 'Recovery' But Experts Say Progress Will Be Threatened By Climate-Related Disturbances
• (AU The Guardian) ‘Fossil Fuel Friends’: Saudi Arabia And Bahrain Back Australia’s Lobbying On Great Barrier Reef
• (AU SMH) Coalition Fighting To Stop Great Barrier Reef Being Declared ‘In Danger’
• (AU The Age) ‘UNESCO Was Right’: Global Experts Back Barrier Reef Danger Warning

(AU SBS) Australia Accused Of ‘Censoring Science’ After Great Barrier Reef Avoids World Heritage ‘In Danger’ Listing

SBS - Rashida Yosufzai | Biwa Kwan

Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley says lobbying almost 20 nations led to the outcome as parties were convinced by the "merits of our argument". But scientists say they are concerned politics has eclipsed the science.

An undated photo of the Great Barrier Reef near the Whitsunday, Australia. Source: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

The Australian government has praised the United Nations World Heritage Committee for its decision to avoid adding the Great Barrier Reef to the World Heritage list of 'in danger' sites. 

But scientists have voiced concerns over the decision, saying assessments conducted on the ground painted a clear picture of the threats it faced.

After hold a series of face-to-face meetings in Europe with committee members, Environment Minister Sussan Ley presented Australia's case on Friday evening, winning support from 19 of the 21 members on the committee.

Read More Great Barrier Reef avoids UNESCO 'in danger' listing after Australian lobbying effort

The committee, meeting online in China's Fuzhou city, voted to delay any decision on the reef's status until 2023. 

Australia has been asked to provide an updated report on the state of reef by February 2022 and the committee said it is interested in a monitoring mission to visit Australia to study the reef's current condition.

Ms Ley said the decision "was a good one" and a recognition of the strength of the federal government's argument. 

"In meeting almost 20 countries virtually or in-person, the merits of our argument won the day," she told SBS News.

"I can honestly say that. Because we said that this 'in danger' listing makes no sense without a site visit, without consultation and without the latest science. Those points were well understood."

'Stop censoring science'

Scientists who have been monitoring the Great Barrier Reef said they are concerned that politics has eclipsed the scientific analysis. 

ANU Emeritus Professor Will Steffen said the scientific assessments conducted on the ground paint a clear picture of the threat facing the Great Barrier Reef.

“Australia must stop censoring science, and start taking the steps to help protect the Reef. This is history repeating itself," said Prof Steffen, who is also a Climate Council spokesman.

 An undated photo of Hardy Reef, part of the Great Barrier Reef. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

"In 2015, I reviewed a UNESCO report on climate change and World Heritage sites, which included the Great Barrier Reef. In the final report, all mention of the Reef was cut completely, after the Australian government successfully pressured UNESCO to remove any reference to it.

"This censorship of science is wrong, but sadly a common tactic used by this government. It’s wasting time and effort that we can’t afford to waste."

Dr Dean Miller, Director of the Great Barrier Reef Legacy, spent the last month surveying and documenting the climate change impacts on the reef.

"It seems politics has won the day, not the Great Barrier Reef," he said.

"You can improve the water quality, kill many crown-of-thorns starfish, and replant as many corals as you like, but when the heat stress events driven by a changing climate hit the corals have nowhere to hide. You can't address one without the other. It's coral or coal. It could not be any simpler."

Government defends management of Great Barrier Reef

The Great Barrier Reef has come very close to being added to the 'in danger' list over the years, including in 2015.

Last month, the federal government said it was dissatisfied with the recommendation from the World Heritage Centre and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature to add the Great Barrier Reef to the 'in danger' list.

The groups said the reef's recovery plan needed to include "clear commitments to address threats from climate change" to match the obligations of the Paris climate agreement.

Environment Minister Sussan Ley says the World Heritage Committee decision "was a good one". AAP 

A series of mass coral bleaching events in 2016, 2017 and 2020 destroyed half of the shallow-water corals, depleting the rate of coral reproduction. 

Ms Ley said Australia's management of the reef is at a high level and that the main reason the Reef was even being considered for an 'in danger' listing was the impact of climate change. 

"There was really good recognition around the World Heritage Committable table that Australia is doing an incredible amount to manage our Reef with $3 billion of investment - that Australia should not be singled out for a climate change reason when the whole world is dealing with the climate change effect on World Heritage properties," she said.

She said committee members were receptive to the argument that Australia did not belong in the same category of countries on the World Heritage 'in danger' list for being "recalcitrant" in its obligations to protect a World Heritage site. 

"An 'in danger' listing would have made no sense. And that is why overwhelmingly the consensus of the meeting was that 'in danger' should not appear anyway on the decision that came out of that meeting. 

"Because the issue that confronts the World Heritage Committee - the reason why we had that recommendation in the first place - is global climate change. 

"Now, we are a Paris signatory. We are meeting and beating our targets. We are 1.3 per cent of global emissions. But we are also working with technology internationally to hasten the take-up of low emissions technology, of carbon capture. We are well and truly playing our part."

Read More Government 'blindsided' after UNESCO recommends listing Great Barrier Reef as 'in danger'

Ms Ley said the federal government had invested $3 billion in recovery projects and the Reef 2050 plan.

"An in-danger listing is about how the country manages its site. And the way we manage our site is outstanding - as was recognised. 

"So the issue is we are continuing to spend record amounts managing, looking after and caring for our Barrier Reef."

Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said she would like to see increased funding to match the state government's spending of $2 billion on renewable energy, $270 million on water quality, and $500 million on land restoration.

"Today sets a clear timeline now the for the federal government to show that it’s acting to protect the Great Barrier Reef.

"The eyes of the world are watching – especially with the 2032 Olympic Games. More has to be done."

It’s welcome news that the Great Barrier Reef will not be added to UNESCO’s World Heritage “in danger” list this year.
No one wants to see the reef listed as ‘in-danger.’ pic.twitter.com/2bEB46Zzhh

— Annastacia Palaszczuk (@AnnastaciaMP) July 24, 2021

Australia has committed to a target to reduce emissions by between 26 and 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

Climate change scientists have calculated that to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, Australia would need to almost triple its 2030 pledge to a 74 per cent emissions reduction on 2005 levels.

Under a scenario of 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming, up to 90 per cent of the world's corals will perish, according to a 2019 UN report.

Links

• (AU The Conversation) Not Declaring The Great Barrier Reef As ‘In Danger’ Only Postpones The Inevitable
• Great Barrier Reef avoids 'in danger' tag after Australian government lobbying convinces UNESCO
• (AU ABC) Australia Avoids Great Barrier Reef Global Embarrassment, But The Dangers Of Climate Change Remain For The Reef
• Great Barrier Reef in 'recovery' but experts say progress will be threatened by climate-related disturbances
• The Great Barrier Reef is in trouble. There are a whopping 45 reasons why
• Is Australia really doing enough for the Great Barrier Reef? Why criticisms of UNESCO’s 'in danger' recommendation don’t stack up
• The Barrier Reef is not listed as in danger, but the threats remain
• Great Barrier Reef in 'recovery window' after year without major heatwaves, cyclone disturbances
• Government 'blindsided' by move to list Great Barrier Reef as 'in danger'
• (AU ABC) Great Barrier Reef In 'Recovery' But Experts Say Progress Will Be Threatened By Climate-Related Disturbances
• (AU The Guardian) ‘Fossil Fuel Friends’: Saudi Arabia And Bahrain Back Australia’s Lobbying On Great Barrier Reef
• (AU SMH) Coalition Fighting To Stop Great Barrier Reef Being Declared ‘In Danger’
• (AU The Age) ‘UNESCO Was Right’: Global Experts Back Barrier Reef Danger Warning

(Surviving C21) Our Existential Crisis: What Is To Be Done?

Surviving C21 - Julian Cribb

 

Author Julian Cribb is an Australian author and science communicator. He is a fellow of the Royal Society for the Arts, the Australian Academy of Technological Science (ATSE) and the Australian National University Emeritus Faculty. He is a Member (AM) of the Order of Australia (General Division). The accompanying article is the text of a speech given by him to Australia21, July 2021.

Quarter of a century ago, as a science writer, I began encountering a lot of rather depressed scientists.

Every day they went to work and grappled with data showing that the Earth was falling apart.

Species were vanishing at accelerating rates, poisons were spreading unchecked, the climate becoming more violent, oceans fouled and lifeless and vital resources like soil, water, fish, large animals and forests were disappearing.

The scientists were soon joined by concerned grandparents. Then the grandparents were joined by a multitude of millennials and young people and finally by many educated people of all ages and backgrounds,

Many of these fear that we are in the endgame of human history.

As a journalist, I didn’t know for a fact whether this was true or not. But I knew I could find out, by studying the world’s best science, from the finest institutions and leading minds.

The result was a book, ‘Surviving the 21^st Century’ which concluded humanity faces an existential crisis consisting of ten, interconnected, mega-threats all bearing down on us at the same time.

These threats cannot be solved one by one, as solving one threat generally makes others worse. They must all be solved together, at the same time, using cross-cutting solutions that make none of them worse.

These findings have informed the establishment of the Council for the Human Future.

Here is a brief review of what the latest science is saying about each of the megathreats:

EXTINCTION: the current mass extinction rate is 1,000-10,000 times higher than natural background rates. It is currently proceeding three times faster than the event that took out the dinosaurs. It is entirely due to humans. It may be the second worst such event in Earth history. The loss of species at such a rate is predicted to cause the collapse of ecosystems that sustain human life.

CLIMATE: Despite moves to limit carbon emissions in Europe and the US, the rest of the world is increasing them. They rose even during the covid lockdown. Currently they total 37 billion tonnes and will soar as economic activity picks up.  CO2 concentrations are the highest in human history at 419ppm, and NASA has just warned that the Earth is now trapping twice as much heat as it did in 2005. The icecaps are melting and sea levels rising much faster than predicted. 1.5 degrees is now seen by many scientists as a politically unattainable target. We are on track for +4 degrees by 2100. At this level the world will lose about a third of its agriculture, creating famines, mass migration and wars. Heatwaves will kill millions. There are 3-5 trillion tonnes of frozen methane in the Earth’s crust, vastly more powerful as a climate driver than CO2: if this gets loose we are, quite literally, cooked.

POLLUTION: The world produces <220 billion tonnes of chemical emissions yearly – five times more than our climate emissions. They will double by 2030. There are 350,000 manufactured chemicals, most never tested for human safety. These toxins are in our air, our food, our water, our homes and workplaces. Deaths from chemical poisoning and disease are between 9 and 12 million a year, making this the worst case of mass homicide in human history. It is damaging human IQ and causing pandemics of brain disease and cancers. Very little is presently being done to prevent it.

RESOURCES: The world is entering a freshwater crisis, with over half the human population facing acute scarcity by 2050. Losses of topsoil now amount to 48-75 billion tonnes a year and will halve the food growing area by mid-century. The world has lost over a third of its forests and they continue to shrink at 10 million hectares per year. 90 per cent of the world’s fish stocks are now overfished. The number of ocean dead zones has tripled since the 1950s. Humanity now uses a full year’s resources in just 8 months.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has set the Doomsday Clock at 100 seconds to midnight – the highest threat level since the H-bomb fell on Japan. “Modernisation of nuclear programs in multiple countries have moved the world into less stable and manageable territory. Development of hypersonic glide vehicles, ballistic missile defences, and flexible weapons-delivery systems may raise the probability of miscalculation. Governments in the United States, Russia, and other countries appear to consider nuclear weapons more-and-more usable, increasing the risks of their actual use.” The Bulletin rates the nuclear threat as far worse than Covid-19.

PANDEMIC DISEASE: There have been six pandemics since 2000 (Flu H1N1, MERS, SARS, Ebola, and Covid. HIV continues to rage). On average a new pandemic arises every 2-3 years. Primary drivers are environmental destruction, overpopulation, air travel and scientific error. The resumption of travel will increase their spread. New plagues are unavoidable so long as populations remains high and densely packed. Some will be more deadly than Covid.

POPULATION: World population is just shy of 8 billion and growing at a net rate of 85m or 1% a year. Urban population is 4.4 billion and megacities are at increasing risk of collapse due to water scarcity, fragile food chains and failing infrastructure. Global fertility rates are still 2.4, about 0.2 above ‘replacement’. The UNPD’s median forecast has the population peaking in the 2060s and starting to decline naturally towards 2100 from around 10 billion – five times what the Earth can support sustainably. However, most governments, afraid of an ageing population, continue to bribe their people to have more children. 

FOOD INSECURITY: The world food supply is on a knife-edge. Loss of access to fresh water, loss of topsoil and a more hostile climate mean that agriculture will be unable to supply humanity’s needs from the mid-century on. There will be an increase in droughts, famines, pests, refugee crises and wars. Despite this, the world clings to an outdated model for food production when other, far safer, healthier and more effective means to produce food exist. The modern industrial diet is now implicated in 2 out of every 3 deaths.

UNCONTROLLED TECHNOLOGIES: Dangerous new technologies such as artificial intelligence, robotic killing machines, synthetic biology and quantum computers are proliferating without public oversight or government control.  

MASS DELUSION: The most deadly aspect of these combined threats is mass ignorance, disinformation and the rise in false beliefs. The four greatest belief systems – money, politics, religion and the human narrative – are all founded on delusion.

Together, these ten megathreats add up to the greatest existential challenge humans have ever faced.

However, it is a challenge than can be solved. We have the brains and the technology to solve it. But we do not yet have the institutions, the awareness or the collective will.

Here, for example, are some of the most urgent solutions:

1. Outlaw all nuclear weapons, eliminate their stockpiles and safely recycle or bury their materials.
2. End all extraction and use of fossil fuels and their byproducts, pesticides, plastics and petrochemicals by 2030. Replace with renewable energy. Rewild half the Earth’s land area.
3. Create a circular global economy in which every resource is recycled and nothing is lost, wasted or allowed to pollute.
4. Develop a renewable world food system consisting of:
5. Regenerative agriculture
6. Urban food systems that recycle water and nutrients
7. Deep ocean farming of plants, fish and marine animals. (See Food or War)
8. Return half of the world’s current farmlands to forest or wilderness to end the 6th Extinction. Create a Stewards of the Earth program to implement it.
9. Create a new Human Right Not to Be Poisoned and a Clean Up the Earth Alliance (see Earth Detox), to eliminate all forms of toxic pollution. Introduce a global inventory and universal safety testing of all manufactured chemicals.
10. Introduce a world plan to progressively and voluntarily reduce the human population by 75 per cent by 2120.
11. Prevent future pandemics by ending environmental destruction (5), banning dangerous scientific experiments, discouraging global travel, creating early warning systems and reducing world population (7).
12. Put Women in Charge. Unlike men, women do not start wars, wreck oceans, fell forests, ruin landscapes, pollute and poison. They do care about the needs of future generations.
13. Introduce a global megarisk awareness and education platform, as proposed by the Council.

The challenge facing humanity is vast – but solutions are both feasible and available.

The question is whether humans have the intelligence to adopt them.

At present no government on Earth has a policy for human survival.

The mission of the Council for the Human Future is to spread these facts and solutions as fast and far as we possibly can.

Our purpose is to help save literally billions of lives that will otherwise be needlessly sacrificed.

Links

• Council for the Human Future
• Solving the mega-risks
• Why 2050 is too darned late…
• Food or War: is that the question?
• Diagnosing the American disease
• Is a Food Crisis the next big hit for humanity?
• Preparing for Catastrophic Risk
• The War on Global Carbon
• Time to speak the unspeakable
• The methane gun