'Remarkable Year': What's Behind The Record Low Sea Ice In Antarctica

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

It was in early August this year when Phil Reid, a climatologist with the Bureau of Meteorology, first noticed something odd happening to the ice around Antarctica.
An area of ice had started to melt in the eastern Weddell Sea even though the region was still in darkness and air temperatures below freezing.

The state of our climate in 2016
Australia is already experiencing an increase in extreme conditions from climate change – and it's projected to get worse.

Confirmed later as a rare sighting of the Weddell polynya – as such melts are known – abnormal sea ice activity began showing up in other regions off the southern continent.
Having set records for area covered by sea ice just over two years ago, the ice has rapidly retreated since late August to set new marks for record-low coverage for this time of year.
"It's been a pretty remarkable year," Dr Reid said, adding sea ice now totalled about 12.8 million square kilometres, or more than 2 million below average for November. (See chart, with the red line showing the departure from the 1979-2015 norm.)

  This year will certainly go down as a stunning one for polar ice. In the Arctic, sea ice growth in the lead-up to winter stalled at record low levels in November amid temperatures 20 degrees above normal that  some commentators described as "insane" and a clarion call of global warming.
With less ice to reflect the sun's radiation to space, more heat is absorbed by the oceans, added to the warming.

Polynya appears
But in Antarctica, the relative lack of instruments and complexity added by the continent mean it could be a while before scientists get a clear view of why sea ice extent bounced from record highs to lows so rapidly.
The Weddell polynya indicates there were unusually warm waters beneath, but researchers won't know for sure until they can retrieve and analyse data from floats, Dr Reid said.
Some extreme weather, which also brought in warmer air from the north, may have helped corral the thinning ice into smaller areas. "That atmospheric pattern exacerbated the regions of lower-than-normal sea ice," he said.

Sea ice off West Antarctica, as viewed from NASA Operation IceBridge. Photo: Mario Tama, Getty Images

Mark Brandon, a polar oceanographer and blogger at the UK's Open University, said the ice was noticeably compacting in three areas – the Ross Sea, the Cosmonauts Sea, and in the Bellingshausen and Weddell seas.
(See tweet map of ice for August 5, 2016 below. Blue shades imply an increased sea ice extent compared with a five-year mean for 1989-93, with reds implying a decreased sea ice extent.)

IMAGE

Dr  Brandon said that the increased mobility of the ice implies there is less of it, so volume has probably dropped too.
"We have no long-term wide geographical ranging measurements of sea ice thickness in the Antarctic that are comparable to what we have in the Arctic," he said. "For various technical reasons we don't have [satellite data] – yet – either.
"But with the evidence in the Weddell Sea I would be surprised if the volume is constant given the pack is not being compressed against the coast," he said.
Dr Brandon also posted this animation on Twitter showing the sea ice changes over time:

Ice loss spread around
For John Turner, variability climatologist at the British Antarctic Survey, the sea ice anomalies as of November 22 were spread around most of the continent, and so are not merely the result of compaction. (See chart below of the region compared with the average over 2005-15.)

A gauge of the relative strength of the westerly winds that circumnavigate Antarctic – known as the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) – had also turned negative in November.
That means higher-than-usual pressure over the continent and lower pressure at mid-latitudes, a set-up conducive to a hot, dry start to summer, the bureau said this week.
"It's well known that a negative SAM is associated with less sea ice, so it seems likely that this has played a part in the decrease of ice during November," Dr Turner said.
The bureau's Dr Reid said the big El Nino in the Pacific – rated third strongest during the satellite era – was also a factor in making sea ice behaviour down south a more complicated tale than at the North Pole.
"The recent decrease of sea ice is well documented as associated with climate change but there's more uncertainty about the role [of global warming] in the Antarctic," he said.

Links

• The North Pole is an insane 20C warmer than normal as winter descends
• 'Nowhere on earth safe' from climate change as survival challenge grows
• NASA chief slaps down climate sceptic Malcolm Roberts
• 'Time to act': Damage to Great Barrier Reef worse than thought, surveys find

'Time To Act': Damage To Great Barrier Reef Worse Than Thought, Surveys Find

Fairfax - Adam Morton

The government agency responsible for the Great Barrier Reef says urgent action is needed to save the world heritage site after yet-to-be-published surveys found the record coral bleaching damage earlier this year was even worse than initially thought.
A Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority director also says it appears unlikely that national targets to improve water quality on the reef - currently assessed as poor in areas close to the coast - would be met.

The reef diving industry
John Edmondson from Wavelength Reef Cruises talks about what coral bleaching means for the diving industry.

Authority director for reef recovery David Wachenfeld​ said pressures on the reef were increasing, particularly due to global warming, but that the reef could be returned to health through concerted effort by industry, the community and governments.
"People need to be determined. This is the time to act to save the Great Barrier Reef," he said.
While reef surveys are yet to be completed, Dr Wachenfeld said the rate of coral death following bleaching due to high ocean temperatures last summer would be greater than the initial estimate of 22 per cent.
"Essentially, this is confirming that this is the worst bleaching event that the reef has seen by a very, very long way," he said.
The bleaching was not uniform. Inner and middle shelf reefs north of Port Douglas were badly affected, but southern reefs were barely touched after the tail-end of cyclone Winston reduced temperatures in February.
Dr Wachenfeld, a trained coral reef ecologist, said the damage was unquestionably linked to climate change.

A diver at Opal Reef, off Port Douglas. Photo: Jason South

"It just re-emphasises ... the absolutely critical need for us to implement the climate agreement that was reached in Paris a year ago," he said.
Federal Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg​ met with his Queensland counterpart Steven Miles on Friday to finalise an update to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre on progress in improving the reef's health.

Coral bleaching at Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef. Photo: Climate Council

The United Nations body last year decided against listing the reef as "world heritage in danger", and gave the government five years to halt its deteriorating health. The Australian government is due to update the centre by December 1.
The ministers announced $45 million funding to reduce gully erosion, which dumps sediment into rivers that empty on to the reef.

Plate coral on the Great Barrier Reef. Photo: Jason South

Mr  Frydenberg said the governments were "only getting started" on improving the plight of the reef, and that climate change was a factor. But he said Australia was doing its part under the Paris deal by setting a target to cut emissions by 26-28 per cent emissions by 2030.
"I'm very confident with the mechanisms we have in place that, despite that bleaching event, the Barrier Reef will continue to remain strong, healthy, resilient for future generations of Australians," he said.

Divers looking at fish and coral life on the Great Barrier Reef. Photo: Jason South

Mr  Frydenberg said the coral death due to bleaching followed a 19 per cent increase in cover in recent years.
But Terry Hughes, head of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, said the minister appeared to have misinterpreted a report by the Australian Institute of Marine Science that found there had been a 3.2 per cent increase in coral before the bleaching event.
In the north, the area worst hit, the coral cover had actually declined by 4.8 per cent before being affected by bleaching.
Professor Hughes said the most likely scenario was that the next serious bleaching event would be in about five years, when climate change combined with the next El Nino event to inflate Pacific Ocean temperatures.
"We could be lucky and it could be later, or it could be sooner," he said. "By 2030, under business as usual emissions, we could see annual bleaching events."
Dr Wachenfeld said the reef remained one of the best protected marine ecosystems in the world and was "very, very far from dead". But it would be dramatically changed under projections based on existing climate pledges of 2.8 degrees global warming this century.
"At that temperature it doesn't look anything like it does today," he said. "There will be very little coral left, it will have lost a lot of its biodiversity and, in particular, it will have lost its value to people."
Poor water quality, largely due to agricultural run-off, is considered the second biggest threat facing the reef. Estimates of the cost of addressing it range from $8.2 billion to $10 billion.
Dr Wachenfeld said governments and farmers started working on improving water quality 13 years ago and should be proud of their early progress, but results had tailed off.
"We still haven't met the targets that we set ourselves and on our current trajectory it doesn't look like we will," he said. "And some of the progress on reducing pollutants has kind of flatlined."
Targets include a 50 per cent cut in nitrogen run-off from fertiliser use by 2018, increasing to 80 per cent by 2025. Nitrogen is linked to outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish, which feed on coral.
A government report card released last month based on 2015 data found the inner reef area was in poor condition.
An analysis by environment groups under the banner Fight for the Reef found Australia had made progress on some of its commitments to UNESCO - banning sea-dumping of industrial dredge spoil and limiting port development - but had fallen behind on others.
They said the country risked being called back before the World Heritage Committee next year unless it did more to stop tree clearing, improve water pollution and lifted its response to climate change.
Legislation to reduce tree clearing recently failed to pass the Queensland Parliament after being blocked by the Liberal National Party and crossbenchers.

Links

• Enough PR spin: we need a real plan for the Reef
• And yes, the sky really is falling because of climate change
• Northern Great Barrier Reef coral bleaching damage worse: scientists
• Queensland's Great Barrier Beer pours funds into helping the reef

Peruvian Farmer Sues German Energy Firm RWE

Deutsche Welle

A court case brought by a Peruvian farmer against energy firm RWE started today in Germany. Melting glaciers are threatening his home and city. The causes are climate change and RWE's huge carbon emissions, he alleges.

A Peruvian farmer and mountain guide is suing German energy firm RWE, alleging its contribution to climate change is threatening his home, in a trial which began today in the District Court of Essen, Germany.
Saúl Lliuya hails from Huaraz, a city located in the Andean Mountains in western Peru, and says his family and a large part of the city are facing catastrophic flooding as global warming melts a nearby glacier.
As a result, water levels in the mountain lake above the city are increasing, meaning that his family home could be swept away by a 30-meter high flood wave. "It's a time bomb," said lawyer Roda Verheyen.
RWE's coal power emissions contribute to around 0.5 percent of global climate change, so the company should have to pay around half a percent of the measures required for protecting Lliyua's home and the area, alleges the plaintiff, who is being supported by environmental organization, GermanWatch.

The glacial lake above the city of Huaraz. Melting and collapsing glaciers are threatening a flooding catastrophe

RWE rejects claims 
The 36-year-old father of three is calling on RWE to take on financial responsibility for the damage. In concrete terms, the farmer is asking the court to rule that RWE must bear the cost of future safeguards in accordance with its share of CO2 emissions.
Safeguards include decreasing water levels in the glacial lake to lessen the risk of flooding. Lliyua is calling for a contribution of 17,000 euros ($18,000) for the municipality to undertake such work, as well as 6,300 euros ($6,700) for protective works already undertaken on his own house.
RWE says the case is groundless and has no legal basis. The alleged danger of flooding has not been sufficiently demonstrated and there is no direct link connecting CO2 emissions to the danger of flooding, says the company.
Furthermore, emitting CO2 in this case is not illegal as RWE has authorization under carbon emissions trading laws, adds the energy giant. RWE states the case is also unwarranted because climate change is a global problem that has to be solved on a state and international level. That means individual companies should not be held responsible.

Success on the horizon? 

Small farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya at his home. Today a court in the German city of Essen will begin hearing his case against RWE

From a legal standpoint, a victory for the plaintiff seems unlikely. Similar cases have failed in the past on account of a lack of evidence showing the defendant is specifically responsible for possible damages.
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a case brought by the city of Kivalina in Alaska against ExxonMobil. The plaintiffs believed the oil company should pay damages, alleging it was partly responsible for rising sea levels and the threat of flooding.
Still, Lliyua's David and Goliath fight is happening at a time when many states are increasingly taking a critical view of the use of fossil fuels. During the climate conference in Paris a year ago and the latest summit in Marrakech in November, the vast majority of delegates agreed that the world should move away from coal, oil and gas.
The court will make an announcement in December. The case is attracting considerable public interest, as it could set a precedent in Europe. It is the first time a German civil court has been asked to rule on whether a company contributing to climate change can be held responsible for costs relating to it.

Links

• Washington State Youth Sue Government Over Climate Change
• Climate Lawsuit Awaits President Trump
• Company Directors To Face Penalties For Ignoring Climate Change
• US Court Says Animals Can Be Listed As Threatened If Climate Change Poses A Risk

Trump Or NASA – Who’s Really Politicising Climate Science?

The Conversation - John Cook

NASA has a long history of conducting climate science. Here, a NASA camera captures a storm over South Australia. NASA

Climate research conducted at NASA had been “heavily politicised”, said Robert Walker, a senior adviser to US President-elect Donald Trump.
This has led him to recommend stripping funding for climate research at NASA.
Walker’s claim comes with a great deal of irony. Over the past few decades, climate science has indeed become heavily politicised. But it is ideological partisans cut from the same cloth as Walker who engineered such a polarised situation.
Believe it or not, climate change used to be a bipartisan issue. In 1988, Republican George H.W. Bush pledged to “fight the greenhouse effect with the White House effect”.
Since those idealistic days when conservatives and liberals marched hand-in-hand towards a safer climate future, the level of public discourse has deteriorated.
Surveys of the US public over the past few decades show Democrats and Republicans growing further apart in their attitudes and beliefs about climate change.
For example, when asked whether most scientists agree on global warming, perceived consensus among Democrats has steadily increased over the last two decades. In contrast, perceived consensus among Republicans has been in stasis at around 50%.

Polarisation of perceived consensus among Republicans and Democrats. Dunlap et al. (2016)

How is it that party affiliation has become such a strong driver of people’s views about scientific topics?
In the early 1990s, conservative think-tanks sprang to life on this issue. These are organisations promoting conservative ideals such as unregulated free markets and limited government.
Their goal was to delay government regulation of polluting industries such as fossil fuel companies. Their main tactic was to cast doubt on climate science.
Using a constant stream of books, newspaper editorials and media appearances, they generated a glut of misinformation about climate science and scientists.
The conservative think-tanks were assisted by corporate funding from the fossil fuel industry – a partnership that Naomi Oreskes poetically describes as an “unholy alliance”.
Over the past few decades, conservative organisations that receive corporate funding have grown much more prolific in publishing polarising misinformation compared to groups that didn’t receive corporate funding.

Politicising the scientific consensus
Robert Walker also brought up the topic of agreement among climatologists. The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming is a topic I’ve been rather heavily involved in over the past few years.
In 2013, I was part of a team that analysed 21 years worth of peer-reviewed climate papers. We found that among papers stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97% endorsed the consensus.
Our 97% consensus paper has been incessantly critiqued by Republican senators, right-wing think-tanks, Republican congressmen and contrarian blogs promoting a conservative agenda (eagle-eyed readers might detect a pattern here).
This led us to publish a follow-up paper summarising the many different studies into consensus. A number of surveys and analyses independently found around 90% to 100% scientific agreement on human-caused global warming, with multiple studies converging on 97% consensus.

Summary of consensus studies. Skeptical Science

Raising doubt about the scientific consensus has been an integral part of the conservative strategy to polarise climate change. A clear articulation of this strategy came from an infamous memo drafted by Republican strategist Frank Luntz. He recommended that Republicans win the public debate about climate change by casting doubt on the scientific consensus:

Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming in the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.

Conservatives dutifully heeded the market-research-driven recommendations from Luntz. One of the most common arguments against climate change in conservative opinion pieces has been “there is no consensus”.
Their persistence has paid off. There continues to be a huge gap between public perception of consensus and the actual 97% consensus among climate scientists (although new data indicates the consensus gap is closing).
In the following graph, taken from my own research into public perceptions of consensus, the horizontal axis is a measure of political ideology, with liberals to the left and conservatives to the right.
The slope in the curve visualises the polarisation of climate perceptions. While perceived consensus is lower for more conservative groups, there is a significant gap between perceived consensus and the 97% reality even among liberals.
This “liberal consensus gap” has two contributing factors: a lack of awareness of the 97% consensus, or the impact of misinformation.

The consensus gap: the divide between public perception of consensus and the 97% consensus. Skeptical Science

This data, consistent with Riley Dunlap’s polarisation data mentioned at the start of this article, indicates that many conservatives think the consensus is around 50%. This matches what Walker claimed to The Guardian:

Walker, however, claimed that doubt over the role of human activity in climate change “is a view shared by half the climatologists in the world”.

Given the multitude of studies finding consensus between 90% and 100%, where does this 50% figure come from? Further clues come from an interview on Canadian radio where Walker again claims that only half of climatologists agree that humans are causing global warming.
The source for Walker’s consensus figure seems to be the National Association of Scholars, a conservative group that lists “multiculturalism”, “diversity” and “sustainability” in academia as sources of concerns. A press release on the group’s website includes the following excerpt:

S. Fred Singer said in an interview with the National Association of Scholars (NAS) that “the number of sceptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now”.

Multiple studies have measured the consensus among climatologists by diverse methods including examining their papers, looking at their public statements, and simply asking them.
But Walker doesn’t appear to be interested in evidence. Instead, he seems to be relying on an unsupported guess by retired physicist S. Fred Singer.
It’s telling that Walker cites conservative sources in his efforts to manufacture doubt about the scientific consensus. If there is any politicising of science going on, it appears to be by Walker, not by the scientists.

Links

• Broad consensus on climate change across American states
• It’s true: 97% of research papers say climate change is happening
• Please, Donald Trump, don’t send climate science back to the pre-satellite era
• Consensus confirmed: over 90% of climate scientists believe we’re causing global warming

How Energy Efficiency Will Reshape Power Markets

Renew Economy - Giles Parkinson

The fossil fuel industry has been obsessed by its battles with renewable energy – wind and solar in particular – as it struggles to prop up its disintegrating business model.
But in Europe, another more dangerous nemesis is emerging – energy efficiency, an unfashionable yet economically alluring investment that analysts at Citigroup say could reshape power markets for ever, and remove fossil fuels as the primary driver of market prices.
Energy efficiency has long been held by its enthusiasts as the most obvious lever to reduce emissions, and save costs. A megawatt hour of electricity not used is the cheapest form of abatement, they say, and have even coined a term – the “negawatt” – to market the idea.
But try as they might – and despite the almost immediate returns on investment from energy efficiency – the idea never really captured the attention of the public or politicians. And the powerful fossil fuel generators in Australia used their regulatory influence to ensure that any major initiatives were quietly jettisoned.
In Europe, however, the opposite has occurred, and Citigroup says the combination of EU-wide energy efficiency targets, its renewable energy policies and the emergence of ultra efficient appliances and zero carbon homes will have a big impact on power markets.
In effect, the combined impact will be to significantly reduce demand to the point that fossil fuel generators will largely lose their pricing power.
“Say goodbye to power prices fully driven by fuel prices,” the Citigroup analysts write in a new report (and no, we are not allowed to provide a link).
“Renewable output is set to continue growing as demand falls,” the report says. “This will squeeze the market share of conventional power companies, making thermal power, which is today the price setter, a marginal contributor to power price formation.
“Power prices will increasingly be driven by weather patterns (temperatures, rainfall, wind and sunshine), which are in practice not yet forecastable or hedgeable for more than a year. Thermal will be a contributor to price formation when supply/demand is tight. Overall power prices will remain under pressure.”
The Citigroup analysts also suggest the market will also have to “say goodbye to peak demand too,” as the combination of reduced residential demand, lower lighting demand, and an increase focus on demand side response and storage development will likely result in peak demand becoming gradually less pronounced.
This is a radical reshaping of energy markets, but one that Citigroup says is poorly understood.
The analysts say that government agencies, institutions, nationals market operators and corporates are still forming policies and business plans based on assumption that demand will grow (an echo of the bogus demand assumptions that drove the over-investment in Australia networks and fossil fuel generators).
They point out energy efficiency has already reduced demand by 109TWh (terawatt hours) or 3.8 per cent from 2010-15.
“In our view this is only the beginning,” the analysts say, suggesting that LED lighting, A+++ appliances (22% more efficient than currently installed one), housing efficiency, and other technologies could reap an additional 257TWh of energy savings by 2020, cutting total European power demand by another 9.2 per cent.

Just for context, that is more than the total annual demand in Australia. Offset against rising population and economic growth, this will still deliver a 1.1 per cent per annum reduction in power demand between 2015 and 2020.

It  says the gradual substitution of large appliances (fridges, washing machines, dishwashers, dryers) with appliances that today offer some 20-40 per cent higher energy efficiency than existing models should lead to some 87TWh of electricity savings over the next five years. That is equivalent to entire energy consumption of Belgium.
An increase in LED technology penetration levels to 55 per cent could lead to an extra 47TWh of savings. That is equivalent to the entire energy consumption of Portugal.
“Thermal power plants (coal and gas) will be squeezed between growing renewables and a shrinking market and will become marginal on a merchant basis (some of them may find a second life as ancillary service providers to the grid),” the analysts write.
They expect thermal power output to fall from 42 per cent of power production today to 34 per cent by 2020, with non-renewable power capacity to fall by a net 51GW by 2020 and by a net 123GW by 2025.
Thermal load factors will fall as well, from 36 per cent in 2015 to 30 per cent in 2020, meaning that there will be fewer plants and they will be used less.
The correlation between power prices and coal and gas commodity prices will diminish, and instead power prices will be influenced by the weather and availability of renewable resources (hydro, wind and solar).
The analysts also warn that despite the closure of coal and nuclear, gas-fired generation will likely fall 24 per cent over 2015-2020. “This suggests that Europe is not an unlimited sink for excess global LNG,” they write.
And they also caution against the need for capacity payments and other measures to “incentivize security of supply” (new forms of subsidies for fossil fuel plants). “Our analysis suggests (these) might be over-emphasised in light of likely consumption patterns,” they write.

Links

• AGL offering free solar system, or battery storage, to wind farm neighbours
• Blockchain network disruption coming, and Australia among pioneers
• Nearly 50 poor nations commit to 100% renewables by 2050
• Victoria town calls for partners for 100% renewable energy plan
• Why the future belongs to decentralised renewables

2050 Climate Targets: Nations Are Playing The Long Game In Fighting Global Warming

The Conversation - John Thwaites | Scott Ferraro

Electric cars are one of the keys to long-term decarbonisation. EPA/MOHAMED MESSARA

While much of the media focus at this month’s climate meeting in Marrakech (COP22) was on US President-elect Donald Trump, there were signs that several countries have begun the long-term planning needed to avoid dangerous climate change.
During the conference, four countries – Germany, Canada, Mexico and the United States – presented their 2050 climate plans. Under Article 4 of the Paris Climate Change Agreement, all countries are asked to prepare mid-century, long-term strategies to bring greenhouse gas emissions down to low levels.
A common theme from COP22 was the emphasis on long-term strategies to help guide short-term actions. When launching the 2050 Pathways Platform, Laurence Tubiana, the outgoing French high-level climate champion, stated that if you don’t have a plan for the long term, you can’t know what a good decision is today.

Climate change in 2050
The German Climate Action Plan 2050, approved by the German cabinet this month, foreshadows a reduction in greenhouse gases of up to 95% below 1990 levels by 2050. It covers energy, buildings, transport, industry, agriculture and land use, and sets specific milestones and targets for each sector.
As part of its plan, the German government will set up a commission to work with industry and trade unions on the energy transition to 2050. The commission will consider economic development, structural change and social compatibility to accompany climate action. Australia could also consider such an approach to achieve a just transition to a net zero carbon economy.
The United States Mid-Century Strategy sets out several different pathways by which the United States can cut emissions by at least 80% below 2005 levels by 2050 while maintaining a thriving economy. The pathways portray a transformation to a low-carbon energy system using solar, wind, nuclear, hydro and carbon capture.
Under the plan, nearly all fossil fuel plants without carbon capture are to be phased out by 2050. The plan also shows that the land sector in the United States could sequester 23-45% of economy-wide emissions in 2050 by expanding forests and increasing the carbon stored in croplands and grasslands.
Canada’s long-term plan aims to reduce emissions by 80% or more below 2005 levels by 2050. Mexico will reduce its emissions by 50% from 2000 levels. Both plans outline detailed pathways for achieving these emissions reductions.
To support countries, states, cities and businesses to prepare long-term low-emission plans, the 2050 pathways platform initiative was launched at Marrakech. Already 22 countries have started to formulate 2050 plans, including China and India, as have many states, cities and businesses.

New policies and technology
Developing a long-term plan helps identify the policy measures and technological advancements that are needed now. To this end, Marrakech also hosted the first Low-Emission Solutions Conference associated with a climate congress. The conference brought together technical experts, scientists, academics, business and politicians to brainstorm and exchange information about the technological and policy pathways needed to reach net zero carbon emissions.
The Sustainable Development Solutions Network director, Professor Jeff Sachs, told the conference that we need more than political will to make this transition.
We need to mobilise scientists, engineers and experts to identify what the new energy and economic system will look like and to devise pathways to a net zero carbon economy. This will help businesses to identify risks and opportunities and help governments not to waste money on technologies that are not compatible with the long-term goal.

The four pillars of decarbonisation
The conference highlighted the four basic elements of deep decarbonisation. These also underpin the Australian Deep Decarbonisation Pathway Plan developed by ClimateWorks and ANU.
First, there needs to be ambitious energy efficiency across the economy. This includes “smart grid” technologies, green buildings and greater fuel economy in vehicles.
Second, we need zero-carbon electricity supplied by renewables or a mix of renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage. The contributions of each of these to the energy mix will depend on country circumstances and on whether carbon capture can be made commercial.
Third, we need a shift to electrification using zero-carbon electricity. This means using electricity to power vehicles and switching from gas to electricity in homes.
Finally, non-energy emissions are reduced by storing more carbon in forests and land as well as reducing methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases from agriculture, waste and industry.
The Australian government has committed to review its climate policies next year and to consider a long-term emissions reduction target. This is an opportunity for Australia to use these four elements of deep decarbonisation and join other countries in preparing a 2050 deep decarbonisation plan.
Already, South Australia, Victoria, NSW and the ACT have pledged a target of zero net emissions by 2050, with South Australia and the ACT signing the UN’s Under 2MOU (a memorandum between states and regions to keep global warming below 2℃). A number of states, including Queensland, have also set ambitious renewable energy targets.
2050 may seem a long way off in the short time frame that dominates so much of modern politics. By 2050 Donald Trump will be 104 and presumably will exert limited influence over global politics.
However, it is worth noting that the children entering our schools next February will still be in their thirties in 2050. They will have a real interest in ensuring that we start planning for their future and taking action now.

Links

• Australia can get to zero carbon emissions, and grow the economy
• Direct Action’s here, but how will Australia cut carbon after 2020?
• Keeping our eyes on the ball is the only way to hit our climate target
• Australia can stop greenhouse gas emissions by 2050: here’s how

Enough PR Spin: We Need A Real Plan For The Reef That Includes Ditching Coal

Fairfax - Prof. Will Steffen*

On Friday, federal Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg and Queensland Environment Minister Stephen Miles will come together for a meeting of the Reef Ministerial Council.
The most important agenda item will be reports to the UNESCO world heritage committee, within the next two weeks, on the state of the reef and how it is acting to protect it. This will include the Northern Reef Response Plan – the official management response to the disastrous coral bleaching event earlier this year.


Video shows mass coral bleaching of Great Barrier Reef
New footage shows the bleak aftermath of the extreme underwater heatwave last summer on the northern region of the Great Barrier Reef, from Researchers at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies.

The ducking and weaving of responsibility from all levels of government when it comes to the Great Barrier Reef has been nothing short of acrobatic, so let's be clear that any plan in response to coral bleaching that isn't centred around the rapid phase-out of coal is not a plan – it's PR spin.
The government approach so far has been to highlight the global effort to tackle climate change, without even a smidgen of irony about the fact that Australia has lagged far behind the efforts of other wealthy nations, while at the same time diverting attention from the main game by focusing on its funding of water quality and other Reef initiatives.

Coral bleaching at Lizard Island in the Great Barrier Reef. Photo: Climate Council

The Australian government can no longer get away with attempting to distract the Australian public through the funding of these initiatives while failing to do anything to tackle what's fundamentally driving the bleaching: the burning of coal, oil and gas. It's like having an argument about fixing a broken window while the house is on fire. Fixing the broken window is only worthwhile if you put the fire out.
Climate change has driven extreme ocean temperatures, making the bleaching on the Reef this year at least 175 times more likely.
At present rates of climate change, this level of bleaching could occur every two years by the 2030s.
For the Great Barrier Reef to have a reasonable chance of survival, global temperature rises must be capped at 1.5 degrees, and to have any chance at all, the temperature rise must be limited to no more than 2 degrees.

Before (March 2016, left) and after (May 2016) images of coral bleaching and death at Lizard Island on Australia's Great Barrier Reef.  Photo: XL Catlin Seaview Survey via AP

For just a 50:50 chance of meeting the 2 degree target, the world can burn just 10 per cent of existing coal reserves – and that means existing coal mines or those that are now financially viable and are on the financial markets to be exploited.
To increase the chances of meeting the 2 degree target or to have any chance of meeting the 1.5 degree target, all existing coal reserves must be phased out as soon possible and no new coal mines can be opened. This phase-out must occur very rapidly in order to stay below 1.5 degrees – within the next decade, most likely.
This has obvious implications for Queensland, and Australia more generally. There can be no Carmichael mine, or any other new mine, and no new infrastructure of any kind to exploit coal. And there must be a plan for the rapid phase-out of coal. It's far too late to leave it to the market. Without a rapid phase-out of coal, the Reef doesn't have a future.
As a climate scientist, it makes me frustrated and angry to think that the only thing standing in the way of the survival of this precious natural wonder is political will. It is utterly appalling that the country that has custodianship of the Great Barrier Reef cannot even find the political will to do its fair share to save it.
The vast majority of Australians support reduced reliance on coal and the technological means are there to make a rapid transition away from coal.
Hopefully, Friday marks a turning point in the government's approach to climate change and the havoc it is wreaking on the Reef.
Otherwise, history will judge our leaders harshly indeed for the decisions they fail to make now.

*Professor Will Steffen is a climate scientist and councillor with the Climate Council.

Links

• The Great Barrier Reef: a catastrophe laid bare
• Australia failing to protect Great Barrier Reef from shipping disasters, say lawyers
• Great Barrier Reef authority a 'shell of its former self', says Queensland minister
• UN tries to hide involvement in deleting Australia from its climate report