'Dismay': NASA Appeals To CSIRO Not To Cut Global Climate Efforts

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

The US space agency NASA has appealed to CSIRO to abandon plans to cut a key monitoring program that it says will undermine Australia and the world's ability to monitor and predict climate change.

The cost to our international reputation is immense
Kim Carr, ALP's shadow science minister

Brent Holben, the project scientist in charge of NASA's Aerosol Robotic Network, urged CSIRO to reconsider any plans it had to cut or withdraw its contribution to the program, according to a letter obtained by Fairfax Media.

In the dark: cutting key climate monitoring program could throw global models out of sync. Photo: NASA

"I understand that CSIRO is undertaking a major restructuring that may lead to the closure of AeroSpan [CSIRO's partner program]," Dr Holben wrote in the letter addressed to Alex Wonhas, a senior CSIRO executive, and dated May 1, 2016.
"The purpose of this letter is to express my dismay about this, on behalf of NASA and the global aerosol community," he said.
Fairfax Media understands the AeroSpan program – which includes eight automated monitoring sites across Australia – is earmarked to be shut along with other micro-meteorology research done by CSIRO's Yarralumla staff in Canberra. (See CSIRO map below of the eight sites.)

The humble automated monitoring stations that CSIRO is looking to shut down. Photo: CSIRO

Understanding aerosols - the distribution and character of airborne particles and clouds  - "represent the single greatest source of uncertainty in climate simulations", Dr Holben said.
CSIRO's contribution has largely been to help calibrate and validate satellite readings that cannot easily distinguish between different types of aerosols. These range from dust and industrial pollutants to sea salt.

Inland Australia as seen from the International Space Station. Photo: NASA

In return, Australia has been promised "unfettered access" to international data, such as from European Space Agency's Sentinel satellites.
NASA's letter notes Geoscience Australia has estimated Earth Observation services are worth $5.5 billion to the Australian economy annually, a windfall that will rise to $8.8 billion by 2030.
The cuts are part of 275 jobs to go from CSIRO, many of them in key climate or water roles. The AeroSpan cost to CSIRO is understood to be less than half a million dollars a year and involve just two researchers.
Chief executive Larry Marshall – whose three-year contract extension has been endorsed by the Turnbull government – has said that Australia's primary research agency must divert resources away from climate monitoring and modelling towards adaptation and mitigation.
The NASA letter said measurements of aerosols were "a fundamental component of climate predictions on both regional and global scales".
Climate monitoring has gained additional prominence this week, with the Cape Grim site in north-west Tasmania expected to report within days that baseline carbon-dioxide levels have exceeded 400 parts per million for the first time, as reported by Fairfax Media. CSIRO is also cutting staff at this site.

International angst
Fairfax Media understands that NASA's complaint has been echoed by the European Space Agency, and individual national research organisations from Japan, Italy and Germany.
Some agencies have been warning their own staff for months to take into account the possible impacts of CSIRO's cuts.
"CSIRO has pledged to continue some of these critical measurements but the question arises as to how will quality be assured and will they be adaptable as scientific priorities evolve when the science teams that nurture them are dispersed," a senior US climate scientist from another US agency told Fairfax Media. "Field programs where there have been joint contributions of resources are particularly threatened."
Cutting the AeroSpan program would also harm the work to be done by the new Climate Science Centre CSIRO has recently set up, NASA said.
Steven Sherwood, one of the world's leading researchers into clouds and climate change at the University of NSW, said the CSIRO program cut was "idiotic".
"We don't even know if aerosols are increasing, decreasing or staying the same during the past 20 years," Professor Sherwood said. "If you stop observing now, you'll never know."
He said the biggest single variable in climate model projections was how they treated aerosols and their impact on the brightness of clouds – and therefore how much of the sun's radiatin are being reflected back to space. More and brighter clouds could mean global warming will be less rapid.

'Blowing a hole'
Abandoning the AeroSpan project would end aerosol assessment over an entire continent – Australia – and remove "effective coverage of a much larger region of the Southern Hemisphere", NASA's Dr Holben said.
Fairfax Media sought comment from CSIRO. A spokesman for Science Minister Christopher Pyne said the government "has not been contacted by any of the organisations mentioned with concerns".
"This process has been as a result of decisions taken by the CSIRO made by the experts who run it in line with the organisations priorities and the Australian Government strongly supports the independence of the CSIRO to make its own decisions."
However, Kim Carr, Labor's shadow science minister, said it was "scandalous that the government is trying to wash their hands of their responsibilities". A Shorten government would immediately intervene to halt the cuts to key climate programs by CSIRO, he said.
"A future government will have to attend to the destruction that [these cuts] have caused," he said. "The cost to our international reputation is immense."
Adam Bandt, Greens Science spokesman, said: "Malcolm Turnbull is blowing a hole in humanity's knowledge of the world around us."
"Any cuts must be postponed until after the election, when a new power-sharing Parliament can restore funding to the CSIRO," Mr Bandt said.
Geoscience Australia, one of CSIRO's partners, said it was "aware that the CSIRO is considering changes to its Aerospan service".
"While the cessation of Aerospan would not immediately impact on the ability of Geoscience Australia to deliver our programs, it is an important part of Australia's Earth observation infrastructure and one the international community values," the spokesman said. "At this time there is no proposal in place for Geoscience Australia to take over the role."
Another partner, the Bureau of Meteorology, said "the full details of changes at the CSIRO and potential impacts on Bureau operations are not yet confirmed".

Links

• Global warming milestone about to be passed and there's no going back
• 'No going back': Major climate milestone looms
• Turnbull government endorses CSIRO chief
• Cutting to the core: key ice research at risk
• Larry Marshall's reappointment agreed by Turnbull government but not made public
• Queensland academic wins climate award: Four climate myths busted

In Novel Tactic on Climate Change, Citizens Sue Their Governments

New York Times - John Schwartz

Victoria Barrett, 17, is a New York high school student and a plaintiff in a climate change lawsuit brought by Our Children's Trust. Credit Michelle V. Agins/The New York Times

Global warming is already disrupting the planet's weather. Now it is having an impact on the courts, as well, as adults and children around the world try to enlist the judiciary in their efforts to blunt climate change.
In the United States, an environmental law nonprofit is suing the federal government on behalf of 21 young plaintiffs. Individuals in Pakistan and New Zealand have sued to force their governments to take stronger action to fight climate change. A farmer in Peru has sued a giant German energy utility over its part in causing global warming.
And while the arguments can be unconventional and surprising, some of the suits are making progress.
Last month, a federal magistrate judge in Oregon startled many legal experts by allowing the lawsuit filed on behalf of 21 teenagers and children to go forward, despite motions from the Obama administration and fossil fuel companies to dismiss it; the suit would force the government to take more aggressive action against climate change. The ruling by the magistrate judge, Thomas M. Coffin, now goes to Federal District Court to be accepted or rejected.
Michael B. Gerrard, the director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, called the ruling a potential landmark.
"It is the first time a federal court has suggested that government may have a constitutional duty to combat climate change, and that individuals can sue to enforce that right," he said.

Saul Luciano Lliuya, a farmer in Peru, sued a German utility for its proportional contribution to global climate change. Credit Germanwatch

But other legal scholars were skeptical that the case would progress much further.
"The constitutional claims are novel, to say the least," said David M. Uhlmann, a former federal prosecutor of environmental crimes who teaches law at the University of Michigan. "I have a hard time seeing the case succeeding in the Supreme Court, if it gets that far, and it may not even survive review in the Ninth Circuit."
The young plaintiffs, led by the environmental law nonprofit Our Children's Trust, argued that the Obama administration and the administrations before it had ample evidence of the risks of climate change and "willfully ignored this impending harm."
Victoria Barrett, one of the plaintiffs, from Westchester County, N.Y., said that older generations had ignored the threat to the planet even as the scientific evidence of warming became undeniable.
The current plans and efforts to battle climate change are not enough, Ms. Barrett, 17, said, adding that her generation, with its passion and social media tools, would make a difference.
"We want our children to look back in the textbooks and say, 'Oh, our parents' generation — they really fought for us,' " she said.
The lawsuit calls for the courts to order the government to stop the "permitting, authorizing and subsidizing of fossil fuels" — by, for example, canceling plans for projects like a liquefied natural gas export terminal in Oregon — and "to develop a national plan to restore Earth's energy balance, and implement that national plan so as to stabilize the climate system."

Sarah Lorraine Thomson, a law student at the University of Waikato, has filed a lawsuit against New Zealand's climate change minister. Credit Mike Scott/Waikato Times, via Fairfax Media NZ

Julia Olson, the executive director and chief legal counsel for Our Children's Trust, helped form the organization in 2010 in collaboration with the iMatter Youth Movement, then known as Kids vs. Global Warming.
In an interview, Ms. Olson said the goal was to pursue action against climate change in the courts as a human rights issue, and in the name of young people. "Most of them can't vote," she said, "and they don't have the money to lobby."
Youth-oriented climate groups put out calls for volunteers, and Ms. Olson found herself with more than enough enthusiastic young activists willing to be plaintiffs. The organization is financed in part by individual contributions and institutional funding from groups like the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, which contributes heavily to environmental causes.
An earlier federal suit from Our Children's Trust failed in 2012; the organization is also pursuing several lawsuits at the state level and collaborating on a number of international suits.
It scored a victory in Washington State recently, when Judge Hollis R. Hill of King County Superior Court ordered the State Department of Ecology to develop an emissions reduction rule in response to a legal challenge from Our Children's Trust.
As for the federal case, Ms. Olson said, "We are optimistic that the decision will affirm the findings and the recommendations and put us on a track to a trial."
The Our Children's Trust suit is part of a wave of citizen actions to take on climate change.
In Pakistan, Ashgar Leghari, a law student, sued the government last year over delays in carrying out a national climate change policy that could help reduce the heavy floods and droughts that threaten the country's food and energy security, as well as the Leghari family's farm.
A court ordered the Pakistani government in September to form a climate change commission to address what Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah said "appears to be the most serious threat facing Pakistan."
In November, the farmer in Peru, Saul Luciano Lliuya, sued the German utility RWE for its proportional contribution to global climate change. The effects of increasingly extreme weather such as drought can make farming a more precarious proposition, but Mr. Luciano's fears are focused on Palcacocha Lake, which sits above his town and farm and is being filled to overflowing, he said, by meltwater from nearby glaciers.
"We could see the glaciers melting," he said. "They were disappearing year by year. Somebody has to be made responsible."
An engineer he knew put him in touch with the environmental group Germanwatch, which found him a German lawyer. While it might seem bizarre for a farmer in Peru to sue a utility in Germany, Noah Walker-Crawford, an adviser to the group, said Germany's laws seemed auspicious for such a suit.
"It would be quite difficult to sue in the U.S. or Saudi Arabia," he said.
The German courts have accepted the case, but a representative of the company, Klaus-Peter Kress, said, "RWE does not see a legal basis for this type of claim."

Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, 15, at home in Boulder, Colo., last month. He is a plaintiff in an Oregon case against the federal government over climate change. Credit Nick Cote for The New York Times

In New Zealand, a law student, Sarah Lorraine Thomson, said she had been inspired to take legal action by the Our Children's Trust suit and a 2015 decision by a court in the Netherlands that ordered the Dutch government to take more forceful action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
"Hearing about those cases was a kick in the butt — they were just ordinary people, too — I felt that I really had no excuse," Ms. Thomson wrote in an email.
Her lawsuit against the New Zealand government has been filed, and she has received affidavits from lawyers from the crown, but no hearing date has been set.
Ms. Olson of Our Children's Trust said that the cases in the United States and abroad "build on one another."
Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, a 16-year-old high school student and hip-hop artist from Boulder, Colo., who became a plaintiff in the Oregon case after getting involved in one of the state lawsuits sponsored by Our Children's Trust, said that because "climate change is really the defining issue of our time, there is no lawsuit of greater importance happening anywhere in the country."
If this suit fails, he said, he expects new ones will be filed. "The evidence will only get stronger," he added.
Some of the arguments in the Oregon lawsuit surprised legal experts, and cases that extend rights in innovative ways tend to be long shots. A lawsuit brought against fossil fuel companies and utilities by the citizens of Kivalina, Alaska, a coastal town battered by climate forces, was dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2009.
But courts do blaze new paths, establishing rights to, for example, same-sex marriage.
"Most novel arguments crash and burn, but some soar," Professor Gerrard said. "It's often hard to predict in advance which is which."

Links

• Global Warming Cited as Wildfires Increase in Fragile Boreal Forest MAY 10, 2016 
• Wildfires, Once Confined to a Season, Burn Earlier and Longer April 13, 2016 
• Environmental Activists Take to Local Protests for Global Results March 20, 2016 
• How Much Warmer Was Your City in 2015? Feb. 19, 2016 
• The Marshall Islands Are Disappearing Dec. 02, 2015
• Short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change NOV. 28, 2015
• Ruling Says Netherlands Must Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions JUNE 24, 2015 
• Naomi Oreskes, a Lightning Rod in a Changing Climate June 16, 2015 
• Flooded Village Files Suit, Citing Corporate Link to Climate Change FEB. 27, 2008

Raging Seas: Going Local To Understand Ocean Extremes Of The Future

The Conversation - Mikis Tsimplis

The world's sea level is expected to rise by up to 82cm by the end of the century. Some areas of the world, such as the north-east coast of North America and the Western Pacific, will be more affected than others. But in many places this will mean floods are more likely, the cost of coastal protection will rise, and coastal ecosystems will be put in danger.
Yet it isn't just the average sea level that will rise. The biggest risks will come from the fact that the highest sea levels (caused by high tides and weather) will also increase by at least as much as the mean. This is what are seeing so far in many parts of the world. A potential increase in the frequency and severity of storms could make higher sea-level extremes and their impact even worse. More violent storms could also produce more energetic and higher waves, testing the resilience of ships and offshore structures like oil rigs and disrupting trade. But how serious will these problems be?
Computer models of climate change caused by greenhouse warming indicate that the most devastating tropical cyclones will be between 2% and 11% more intense by 2100. The same models also indicate there will be fewer tropical cyclones overall but more high-intensity cyclones. This leaves us with a rather unclear picture that is further complicated because scientists disagree on whether and how tropical cyclones have been changing over the past 30 or 40 years.
The role of regional climate patterns like the El Niño cycle of wind and sea temperature changes in the Pacific and the monsoons in the Indian Ocean also add to this complexity. Although we expect climate change to influence these phenomena, they also vary significantly from year to year naturally, making it very challenging to say if any particular extreme event is driven by climate change.



Research we conduct with several collaborators involves examining changes in extreme waves and sea-level records to identify factors that contribute to changes in extremes. This information can then be used to improve computer models of sea level in the hope of making this picture clearer.
As mentioned, sea level extremes have generally been found to change in line with the observed mean sea level trends. But changes in extremes are also caused by changes in the tides, in the seasonal cycle, in currents in the ocean, and the number of the typhoons impacting on land.

More than just climate change
We found that each of these factors affected the areas studied (the Mediterranean Sea, the Caribbean Sea, and the North Sea) by a different degree. We also found that these factors were not all related to climate change or natural variability. For example, significant changes in the extremes at the Chinese coasts are linked to changes in regional tides thought to be related to the extensive land reclamation going on to create more space for building. This kind of human influence is distinct from climate change but just as important to the local environment.
Other partners worked on improving the parameters of models of tropical cyclones. This confirmed that previous models underestimated sea level extremes. But what this also means is that climate models that are much less detailed aren't good enough to produce firm conclusions on whether climate change will increase extreme ocean activity.

Cyclones could become less frequent but more intense. Shutterstock

For example, we know that wave heights in the North Atlantic have increased, partly due to changes in regional atmospheric patterns. But for the Norwegian Sea, the increase has been much smaller since 2000 than previously recorded.
If we want to understand how marine extremes will change in the future, we need to look at each location individually and take into account the specific factors that will affect its extreme ocean activity. We also need more detailed global and regional climate models and a clearer understanding of cyclonic systems to be able to predict changes in the severity and the pathways of cyclones and how they affect extreme activity.
Other environmental factors that could become more extreme, such as temperature, salt levels, oxygen content, acidity and current speeds will also be important in determining the impacts of climate change on the marine environment. But the data we have now doesn't allow us to do such comprehensive analyses. Until we have a clearer picture, we won't know just how extreme our oceans will become as the climate changes.

Links

• Australia expecting an active cyclone season, but future cyclones still hard to predict
• What's cranking up the heat across south-eastern Australia?
• FactCheck: is global warming intensifying cyclones in the Pacific?
• Winston strikes Fiji: your guide to cyclone science

Global Warming Milestone About To Be Passed And There's No Going Back

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

Within the next couple of weeks, a remote part of north-western Tasmania is likely to grab headlines around the world as a major climate change marker is passed.
The aptly named Cape Grim monitoring site jointly run by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology will witness the first baseline reading of 400 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, researchers predict.

Watching the world at it changes at Cape Grim. Photo: John Woudstra

"Once it's over [400 ppm], it won't go back," said Paul Fraser, dubbed by CSIRO as the Air Man of Cape Grim, and now a retired CSIRO fellow. "It could be within 10 days."
The most recent reading on May 6 was 399.9 ppm, according to readings compiled by the CSIRO team led by Paul Krummel that strip out influences from land, including cities such as Melbourne to the north. (See chart below, with the red line showing the baseline CO2.)

David Etheridge, from CSIRO's Oceans & Atmosphere division, at work in a research hut near the Antarctic base of Casey. Photo: Colin Cosier

Political heat
The approaching global CO2 threshold comes as climate change looks like becoming one of the key issues in Australia's election campaign.
The Turnbull government has made clear it will oppose Labor's proposals for an emissions trading scheme that will again put a price on carbon pollution.

The Cape Grim greenhouse gas station in Tasmania, run in partnership by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, tracks some of the cleanest air in the world.

New data out on Tuesday show that emissions from the country's main electricity grid covering the eastern states have risen 5.7 per cent - or 8.7 million tonnes - in the year to April compared with the final 12 months of the carbon tax that the Abbott government scrapped in July 2014, according to energy consultants Pitt & Sherry.
The share of coal in the National Electricity Market has risen to 76.2 per cent - its highest level since September 2012 - from 72.3 per cent during the period since June 2014, the consultants' latest Cedex report said.
Mark Butler, Labor's shadow environment minister, said the Cape Grim landmark reading was "deeply concerning".
"While the Coalition fights about whether or not the science of climate change is real, pollution is rising. And it's rising on their watch," Mr Butler said.
Greens deputy leader Larissa Waters said the Cape Grim result "should act as a global wake-up call and must shock both Australian big political parties out of their blind coal-obsession which is literally cooking our planet and our Great Barrier Reef".
"Our atmosphere cannot take any new coal mines – both the old parties must stop approving them and revoke their approval of the Adani coal mine [in Queensland] at both the state and federal level," Senator Waters said.
A spokesman for Environment Minister Greg Hunt defended the government's climate policies."There is now absolutely no doubt that we will beat our 2020 target" of cutting 2000-level emissions by 5 per cent by then, the spokesman said. "We are playing our part to tackle climate change and our 2030 target [of cutting 2000-level emissions about 19 per cent] is ambitious and significant," he said. "Labor has nothing more than a plan to bring back the carbon tax and hike electricity prices."

Rising 'pretty much all of the time'
Cape Grim's readings are significant because they capture the most accurate reading of the atmospheric conditions in the southern hemisphere and have records going back 40 years.
With less land in the south, there is also a much smaller fluctuation according to the seasonal cycle than in northern hemisphere sites. That's because the north has more trees and other vegetation, which take up carbon from the atmosphere in the spring and give it back in the autumn.
So while 400 ppm has been temporarily exceeded at the other two main global stations since 2013 - in Hawaii and Alaska - they have dropped back below that level once spring has arrived because of that greater seasonal variation.
David Etheridge, a CSIRO principal research scientist, said atmospheric CO2 levels had fluctuated around 280 ppm until humans' burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests set in process rising levels of greenhouse gases almost without pause since about 1800.
"It's been upwards pretty much all of the time," Dr Etheridge told Fairfax Media. "This is a significant change, and it's the primary greenhouse gas which is leading to the warming of the atmosphere."
The following chart, compiled by CSIRO researchers using atmosphere and ice core readings, show how CO2 levels have risen over the past 2000 years.

While the 400 figure is in itself of no particular note, compared with 399 or 401, it was a marker likely to carry important symbolism. "People react to these things when they see thresholds crossed," Dr Etheridge said.
While the fraction may seem small, it is 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere. By comparison, a similar level of alcohol would be close to the legal driving limit in Australia.
"These things act at low concentrations," he said, noting that ozone-destroying chemicals at levels of parts per trillion were enough to damage that important component of the atmosphere.

CSIRO cuts
The impending 400 ppm reading at Cape Grim comes at an awkward timing for CSIRO, which is the midst of cutting 275 jobs, many of them in climate science.

While CSIRO has not confirmed the number of researchers it will cut from the 30 or so involved in analysing CO2 levels in ice and the atmosphere, Fairfax Media understands about one-third will go.
"CSIRO is again producing world-leading climate science, and it's reprehensible that the Turnbull Government is allowing the slashing of CSIRO's capacity to ring the alarm bells the world needs to hear," Greens Senator Waters said.Fairfax Media sought comment from CSIRO on the size of the job cuts.
In justifying the cuts to climate modelling and monitoring programs, CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall said that as climate change had been proved, resources could be diverted to climate mitigations and adaptation.
But Dr Etheridge said monitoring would continue to be vital.
"It's like going on a diet and not measuring yourself," he said, noting the world's nations had committed to cut back emissions of greenhouse gases that are helping to drive up global temperatures.
Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at the UK's University of Reading, has constructed the following animation showing how the world has warmed in the past 166 years.

Going negative
Dr Etheridge said that while a reduction in emissions could slow the increase of temperatures, it would likely take many years of net-negative emissions - effectively removing the gas from the atmosphere - to push CO2 levels back below 400 ppm.
"It would take a lot of emissions reductions - and probably negative emissions for some period, decades - before we see CO2 reduce in concentration," he said.
Research to be published soon by CSIRO has shown the ocean would act against any drop in atmospheric CO2.
The seas would likely give back some of the extra CO2 it has absorbed - as it did during the "Little Ice Age" during the middle ages - delaying any drop in levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, he said.
Dr Fraser, who helped set up the Tasmanian site in the 1970s, said CO2 levels were rising fast, at about 3 ppm a year. The precise timing of the 400-ppm mark at Cape Grim would probably take some time to confirm.
"On the day it happens, we won't recognise it," he said. "It will take a few weeks to verify."
The Cape Grim data show a steadier rise than at the Alaskan Alert Observatory site and Hawaii's Mauna Loa, as seen in the following chart:

'Cleanest in the world'
Sam Cleland, manager of Cape Grim, said the site was in "the teeth of the Roaring Forties", the band of powerful winds in latitudes of about 40 degrees south of the equator.
"Our job is to find the cleanest air in the world and measure the pollution in it," Mr Cleland said.
The baseline data draws on winds reaching Cape Grim from the south-west. "Three days ago, they were coming from an area not far off the Antarctic coast," he said.
A year ago, Cape Grim's CO2 readings were about 396.7 ppm, implying a jump of more than 3ppm since.
Part of that increase would have been influenced by the El Nino weather event in the Pacific. During such years, ocean take-up of both heat and CO2 from the atmosphere is reduced.
Since Cape Grim was set up in 1976, CO2 readings have increased from 330 ppm to the brink of 400 ppm.
That implies an average increase of less than 2 ppm per year during that period - but quickening in the more recent past towards 3 ppm or more.

Links

• Cutting to core: Ice lab future up in the air
• Parade of global temperature records
• Major CO2 milestone reached

Why This Could Finally Be The (US) Election Where Climate Change Matters

Washington Post - Chris Mooney

This photo combination shows Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton(L) on April 4, 2016 and Republican challenger Donald Trump on February 16, 2016. (AFP PHOTO / dskDSK/AFP/Getty Images)

Donald Trump, now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has said that "I'm not a big believer in man-made climate change." Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is a strong proponent of climate change action, and a supporter of continuing President Obama's policies on the matter, which include joining and honoring the Paris climate agreement and instituting the Clean Power Plan, which would shift domestic electricity generation onto a less carbon-intensive path.
Now that the race appears to have narrowed to these two, it sets up a situation that many environmentalists have long hoped for — one in which a sharp contrast on climate change between the two candidates means that it might not only come up prominently in an election, but moreover, actually make a difference. (And if Bernie Sanders somehow racks up hard-to-imagine delegate totals in coming races or achieves some kind of convention upset, that contrast would only be heightened further.)
That would be pretty different from other recent elections. In 2012, President Obama and the media alike were widely faulted for rarely talking about climate change. In the 2014 midterms, meanwhile, billionaire Tom Steyer's super PAC NextGen Climate Action spent $ 74 million, but saw candidates it was opposing win nonetheless in key Senate races.
However, the issue appears to have grown in public salience since then, and new polling data, in combination with the very clear difference between Trump and Clinton on the issue, suggests at least a chance that things might actually be different this time around.
"It is an important issue on which to sharpen the contrast in the general election, particularly with young voters," says Gene Karpinski, the president of the League of Conservation Voters. Karpinski points out not only that Clinton already talks about climate change on the stump regularly (and that it has been a constant theme in Democratic debates) but that her campaign manager, Robby Mook, formerly headed the campaign of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who hit his opponent — Ken Cuccinelli — hard on the issue of climate change.
"In my view, rarely does any one issue decide a Presidential election, but being a climate denier hurts Trump," adds Democratic pollster and strategist Mark Mellman. "Trump's position sends a wider signal about being anti-science and anti-environment which will make it very difficult for him to appeal to moderates."
Granted, there remain plenty of grounds for skepticism — and also ways in which the polling data itself continues to raise doubts. As has perennially been the case, climate change still does not rank among the top priorities of most voters, although it does for a minority, particularly in the liberal Democratic camp. And so far, while it has come up mainly in Democratic debates, it has not been a particularly resonant theme in what has been a pretty off-script and tumultuous election.
"It's an economically oriented discourse, and it's very personal, which is why you're seeing a lot of disruption in the political process at this point, and that's the focus," says Republican strategist and pollster David Winston, who said he doesn't think climate change will compete with this narrative.
Nonetheless, other recent polling data reinforces the idea that if there were ever a year in which climate change could matter, it's this one — both because of how different Clinton and Trump are, and because of the rising profile of the issue.
A March Gallup poll, for instance, found more Americans worried either a "great deal" or a "fair amount" about global warming than at any time since 2008 — at 64 percent. It also found that a record 65 percent believe that rising temperatures are being caused by humans, and that all three major political groups in the U.S. show an upswing in concern. 84 percent of Democrats, 64 percent of Independents, and 40 percent of Republicans told Gallup that they "worry a great deal or fair amount" about the issue.
"Americans are now expressing record- or near-record-high belief that global warming is happening, as well as concern about the issue," the group concluded.
Other types of analysis also suggest the issue has some potential. "Climate change is the issue that is the most starkly different between Clinton supporters and Trump supporters," adds Anthony Leiserowitz, who heads the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, which has conducted a number of surveys on the subject. "Among that set of voters that say that global warming will be one of the key issues on which they base their vote, she has a huge lead over him."
Here's a chart showing what Leiserowitz – who collaborates with researchers at George Mason University – means. They found that registered "issue voters" who rate climate change as "very important" to them favor Clinton over Trump more than any other kind of issue voter:

Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., & Rosenthal, S. (2016). Hillary Clinton Has the Support of Seven in Ten Registered Voters Who Say Global Warming Is Very Important to Them When Deciding Whom to Vote For; Only 15% of Trump Supporters Say It Is Very Important. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.

So who are these climate issue voters? They are predominantly Democrats (62 percent), to be sure, but 19 percent are also Independents, and 38 percent identify as moderate, according to Leiserowitz's data. Among Independents who are climate issue voters, 67 percent said the would vote for Clinton, and 12 percent for Trump, Leiserowitz said. "The Clinton campaign sees polling showing profound political vulnerability on climate for the Republicans generally and Trump specifically, so the Clinton camp intends to push climate themes aggressively, " adds Paul Bledsoe, who worked on climate issues in the former Clinton White House and is now an independent energy consultant. "They see GOP climate denial fitting into a larger narrative of Trump and the Republicans being willing to deny factual information injurious to the American public just because it doesn't fit into Tea Party ideology.  That will be a meta-theme of the campaign, and climate fits into it."
Bledsoe says he would expect the Clinton campaign to focus on climate change in "key swing states that are vulnerable to climate impacts, like Florida, Colorado, Arizona and even Virginia."
Leiserowitz's take is that Clinton may have an incentive to make a lot of hay out of the topic (though Trump will not) because it will consolidate her support among liberal Democrats, who now rank climate change, clean energy and broad environmental protections as three of their top eight campaign issues, according to his data. Those who care about it most of all are supporters of Bernie Sanders — whom Clinton certainly needs to rally in the general election.
"She has incentive to talk more about climate change, and because we see that it's such a stark difference between her and Trump, there may be political advantage there as well," says Leiserowitz.
Climate change is now a top issue that is "uniting the progressive Democratic donor base," adds Betsy Taylor of Breakthrough Strategies & Solutions, which focuses on the climate issue.
It's not just Leiserowitz's research: A new survey from the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland, for instance, questioned over 4,000 registered voters about climate change policies. Before asking voters for their opinion, the questioners first showed them a carefully researched presentation of the pros and cons of several aspects of the debate, such as the Clean Power Plan and the Paris climate agreement.
It found that 70 percent of the public overall considers it either a very high or at least a somewhat high priority to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, and even on the contentious Clean Power Plan, similar numbers were supportive after reading through the pro-con briefing on the issue.
"Most people, even people who are supporters of Trump, they do not have a view that this is not an issue, not a problem, and nothing should be done about it," says Steven Kull, who led the research. "Most have the sense, 'Well, maybe there's some problem, maybe we should take some steps, it's probably worth it, the cost is not that high.' And another argument that's very popular is, this is where the world economy is going, in this green direction, we should really be ahead of the curve on this."
Kull says that especially when you merge climate related concerns with air quality concerns, people are supportive of taking action. And he notes that even among Republicans and especially Independents, there are significant numbers of voters who care a lot about the issue.
"For Republicans, those saying that reducing greenhouse gases is a very high priority is 12 percent, while those saying it not a priority at all is 17 percent," says Kull. "But for independents very high priority is 26 percent, while not at all a priority is 10 percent.  Nationally very high is 34 percent and not at all is 9 percent."
Granted, all of this remains hypothetical, because we don't yet know how Clinton might pursue her attack — although it may have already begun. On CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday, Clinton said of Trump, "When he says climate change is a Chinese hoax, what does that mean? Has he ever talked to a scientist, or is he just again assuming a slogan?"
The biggest uncertainty of all, though, is how Trump will respond. Unlike other candidates who might consult the polling numbers above and play defense on the issue, he may be more inclined to keep on saying what he actually thinks.
Based on these numbers, that could play to Clinton's advantage.

The Turnbull Of Old

The Conversation - Mike Sandiford

For the Turnbull of old, could a picture be worth a thousand words?

"Climate change is the ultimate long-term problem. We have to make decisions today, bear costs today so that adverse consequences are avoided, dangerous consequences, many decades into the future." Malcolm Turnbull, February 9th, 2010

Plainly stated, Mr Turnbull … and in reality not that many decades.

But not that many decades. NASA's GISTEMP global temperature anomaly for the last 40 years, with projection for the next 40 years. The anomaly is measured by month as a departure from the 1951-1980 average. The current trajectory means that within the next 40 years we are set to experience El Nino events with anomalies in excess of +2°C considered in the dangerous realm. Colours map Australian federal election outcomes. Data sourced from NASA.

"Plainly stated: in the absence of a clear carbon price signal either no investments will be made or investments will be made of new carbon-intensive infrastructure because they are more profitable in a world where there is no price on carbon." Malcolm Turnbull

Plainly stated, Mr Turnbull … and indeed nothing much has happened.

Nothing much has happened. Two images, each showing how electricity dispatch maps between fuel types and regions on Australia's National Energy Market for the month of April in 2011, on the left, and April 2016, on the right. Despite a modest increase in wind, and a very modest amount of new solar, the two images illustrate just how little change there has been in the proportion of Carbon intensive dispatch on our grid over the last 5 years. Units are in megawatts, colours are by fuel type. Data sourced from AEMO.

… "But it is not enough to say you support these cuts, you must also deliver a strong, credible policy framework that will deliver them." Malcolm Turnbull

Plainly stated, Mr Turnbull … and yes price signals do work.

Yes, price signals work. Emissions in million tonnes of CO2e by financial year, for electrical power dispatch onto the Victorian grid. Of the many stories this image tells, the most important one is how adept markets are at responding to price signals and the policy settings that surround them. In Victoria, the carbon tax price signal was accompanied by a ~10% decline in electricity sector emissions. Data sourced from AEMO.

Links

• Sea-level rise has claimed five whole islands in the Pacific: first scientific evidence
• Queensland moves to control land clearing: other states need to follow
• Labor unveils phased emissions trading scheme
• New climate science centre doesn’t make up for CSIRO cuts: experts
• Delaying shutting power stations will bring big disruption later: Climate Institute research

The Clean Energy Economy Is Coming – And There's A Lot To Lose For Those Who Can't Keep Up

The Guardian - Paul Ebert*

The energy internet, the ‘smart’ grid, solar energy and battery storage are converging and the economic benefits are clear

The Royalla solar farm near Canberra was built to generate an average 37,000 MWh of renewable energy each year for the next 20 years and to meet the needs of 4,500 Canberra households. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP

Change is coming to the energy landscape. A transition to a new energy economy is happening. In a country like Australia – awash with energy both under and above the ground – this transition could be rapid and profound. There is a lot to lose for those who can’t keep pace.
Last month the government committed $1bn to the Clean Energy Innovation Fund. The fund will have “the primary purpose of earning income or a profitable return” on debt and equity extended to renewable energy, energy efficiency and low-emissions technologies. While many will argue the right way for that money to be used, investment like this is well timed.
There are a number of converging technologies driving the transition. Their interaction will affect how we travel, how we live, the way our cities and houses are designed, our fuel supply and attitude to energy efficiency, and even how we interact.
One of the maturing technologies is solar. Over the past five years, solar has become a big part of our energy world. The Australian energy market operator estimated last year that by 2023/24 the state of South Australia may, at times, have its entire electricity needs met by solar systems on mostly urban rooftops, without the aid of coal, gas or oil.
Together with other renewables, photovoltaics are becoming increasingly competitive. Factoring in the cost of delivering energy through the grid, photovoltaic technology is probably the cheapest electricity supply option at the point of use right now. And it will continue to get cheaper.
Another is energy storage. Improvements in battery technology and cost will help overcome the intermittency of renewable energy. Tesla’s push into the consumer mass market is just the beginning of a decade in which electric cars will become significantly more common and at the heart of each electric vehicle is a battery that can store enough electricity to serve the average Australian home for days. Our cars will act as mobile batteries that “plug in” to the home, allowing their energy to be used for household purposes. Batteries will also be installed in our homes, complementing our rooftop solar. Utilities will use them to optimise their grids.
This new energy landscape will be more complex, requiring interaction between energy providers and users like never before. Controlling this will be the energy “internet”, a vast array of interconnected devices that will produce, store or use energy. These devices will communicate their energy deficits and surpluses and transport energy to where it is needed most, as well as allowing consumers to remotely control their devices to optimise energy usage. This capability will allow a range of new energy technologies and business models to emerge. Consumers will have more say in what energy they use and how, and by digitally understanding those needs suppliers will be able to optimise their services to align.
Another technology reaching maturity is the “smart” energy grid. Despite the self-sufficiency potential of renewable energy, the grid will not become obsolete. Pole and wire infrastructure will allow users to upload and download energy to maximise cost effectiveness and reliability – like off-peak hot water is used now but much more complex. As energy utilisation is automised, unintentional consumption will fall.
As with any fundamental disruption, there will be winners and losers. Foreseeing and harnessing the potential of the convergence won’t be easy for incumbents or new entrants. Significant investment will be required to develop and commercialise businesses and technology capable of harnessing the possibilities of convergence. But the potential pay-off for businesses that get it right will be huge.
There will be other benefits as well. Until now, I have barely mentioned emissions. The energy transition is happening without reference to its environmental value.
And yet, there are environment-related drivers. The final, published agreement from COP21, the climate change-related Conference of Parties 21 held in Paris last December, aims for essentially zero net emissions by 2050, the world over. Why are governments the world over suddenly willing to agree to such ambitious targets? The scientific consensus to act on climate has strengthened, for one. But pragmatic governments may also be seeing signs of tangible, real solutions emerging in energy markets. The timetable outlined in Paris for emissions reductions appears to align well with the published convergence of technologies – very roughly in the next 10 or so years. This, of course, could just be a coincidence but, if so, it is well timed.
Decarbonisation of the global economy now has a route that is starting to make commercial sense. Coal, oil and gas will continue as primary energy supplies for some time and simply being more efficient with our energy use is the first way to reduce emissions. As technology converges, we won’t need to be convinced that we should consider the environment: we will be too busy focusing on the economic benefits.

*Paul Ebert is the global director, new energy at Advisian and co-author of The New Energy Future: the global transition

Links

• Beyond Tesla: solar-powered battery could challenge Australia's soaring electricity prices
• Solar technology: the US and China look to Australian innovators for solutions
• Could carbon farming be the answer for a 'clapped-out' Australia?
• LED innovation aims to make traffic lights, mobiles and TVs more sustainable
• Australian biofuels could transform airline industry and create jobs