Scientists Blast Lack Of NHMRC Funding On Climate

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

Australia's premier medical research funder provides almost no research into climate change impacts on health despite the issue providing "a huge challenge for the health sector", a group of leading scientists say in a new paper.
The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) pioneered studies on the urgent need for research into global warming's health impacts with a 1991 report. Despite that Australia had spent less than one dollar in every $1000 on health funding to the issue since, the researchers including Nobel laureate Peter Doherty said.

Heatwaves are becoming more intense, more frequent and lasting longer in Australia, researchers say. Photo: Getty

It took until 2003 for the NHMRC to award its first project grant on the issue. "In 2016, none of the 516 funded project grants, totalling $420 million, included a climate change or heatwave focus", according to the paper published this week in Nature Climate Change.
The near total lack of medical research into climate change and health comes despite heatwaves already killing more Australians than any other natural hazard. For instance, severe heat in the days prior to the 2009 Black Saturday fires killed more than twice the 173 bushfire fatalities, said Andy Pitman, one of the authors.
"Climate change and health is an issue that's fallen through a crack", said Professor Pitman, who also heads the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science based at the University of NSW. "It's a failure of design that wasn't as apparent in the past but it's becoming more apparent as we're seeing more extremes affecting health."
On the one hand, funding under the Australian Research Council explicitly bars research into medical areas. On the other, scientists are deterred from applying to NHMRC grant panels for broad-ranging matters such as climate and health, which takes in physics, human physiology, sociology and economics, he said.

Mosquito study
The NHMRC told Fairfax Media it had provided $16.6 million in climate change research from 2000-2016, or about $1 million year.
It said it supported one project related to climate change in 2016 worth $529,896 – to begin in 2017 – for a study on the risk of chikungunya transmission – a disease spread by mosquitoes.
"The NHMRC does not generally determine the subject of research grant applications," its media unit said. "Applications are investigator-initiated and therefore based on the expertise and research interests of those applying for funding."
Professor Doherty, who won the 1996 Nobel Prize in Medicine, said the NHMRC's funding structure needed an overhaul.
"The perception of excellence depends a bit on who's on the review committee," Professor Doherty said. "With an area that goes across a number of sub disciplines, it's often very hard to get that review in a way that makes it seem exciting."
A national centre "with modest funding" may be the only way forward, he said.
The Nature paper noted Europe and the US had found ways to pursue research into climate and health.
A US government study in 2016 identified research priorities including: temperature-related death and illness; air quality impacts; impacts of extreme events on human health; vector-borne diseases; impacts on water-related illness; food safety, nutrition, and distribution; and mental health and wellbeing.

'Acting like invertebrates'
Fairfax Media sought comment from Greg Hunt, the new federal health minister who had overseen climate policy in one of his previous roles as environment minister.
Greens leader Richard Di Natale said the government's approach had been to save money now rather than address "one of the major health issues of this century".
"Not planning to mitigate the health impacts of a warming planet is recklessly dangerous and a failure to look after people's wellbeing," Dr Di Natale, who is also the party's health spokesman, said.
"This is a complex challenge that crosses a number of scientific fields, we need to be smarter by actively creating ways for researchers and policymakers to work together," he said.
Simon Chapman, a professor emeritus of public health at Sydney University, contrasted the near-absence of climate research with the $3.3 million allocated by the NHMRC into studying the effects of wind farms on health despite its own year-long study finding no "consistent evidence" of a problem.
"In the current climate it is hard to believe that the absence of any Targeted Call for Research on climate change and health does not reflect the NHMRC executive and board reading the political tea-leaves, and acting like invertebrates," Professor Chapman said.
"Their shameful acquiescence in indulging the crossbench-dominated Senate wind farm committee's ludicrous conclusions that harm from wind turbines needed priority research did little to inspire confidence."
Catherine King, Labor's health spokeswoman, told the Climate and Health Alliance roundtable in Canberra last year that climate and health would be a priority of the party.
"The first step is to accept the science of climate change, as well as its impact on health – unequivocally," Ms King told the gathering. "I do think it's worth noting that only one of the major parties can say that it accepts the evidence of climate change without complaint."

Links

• The charts that show just how hot it was in 2016
• Early skirmishes point to a war over renewables lasting well into 2017
• Don't touch renewables, business warns
• Sydney marks hottest month ever with every site setting records

What Will Happen If The U.S. Withdraws From The Paris Climate Agreement

Fast Company - Adele Peters

Trump's EPA transition leader says the administration will soon move to leave the groundbreaking climate agreement. How will that work, and what will it mean for clean energy in America, and the fate of the world?

Photo: Jesse Gardner via Unsplash

After reviving the Keystone XL Pipeline, pushing for the Dakota Access Pipeline, and temporarily banning refugees from entering the U.S., Trump may soon move on to one of his next campaign promises: pulling out of the Paris climate agreement.
Myron Ebell, who led the transition team for the Environmental Protection Agency, predicts that Trump will withdraw from the deal, and might do it within days.

Photo: Jordan Donaldson via Unsplash

To be clear, Ebell is not currently part of the administration, so his prediction is that of an outsider. When Rex Tillerson, Trump's nominee for secretary of state, was asked about the Paris deal in his confirmation hearings, he said that the U.S. would be "better served by being at that table than leaving that table.

"They could potentially do something even faster just by ignoring rules and stopping to participate."

During the campaign, Trump promised to "cancel" the Paris agreement. After the election, he claimed that he would keep an "open mind" about climate change. Given that he's surrounded himself with climate deniers who want nothing more than to gut the deal, his campaign promises seem more likely than his post-election nod at thoughtful restraint.
The landmark agreement saw 190 countries make pledges to stabilize emissions to limit climate change. The U.S. pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025.
It's not simple to withdraw—the U.S. already ratified the agreement, so it would have to wait three years before announcing a withdrawal, and then it would take another year before the process was finished. But the agreement falls under an earlier 1992 treaty—the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—and if the U.S. withdrew from that instead, it would only take a year. And all that assumes that the administration cares about laws.
"They could potentially do something even faster just by ignoring rules and stopping to participate," says Andrew Light, a distinguished senior fellow in the climate program at the World Resources Institute, who was also part of the climate team in the State Department leading up to the agreement.
If the U.S. withdraws from the Paris agreement, or simply doesn't make an effort to meet its pledged (but voluntary) targets, that will have several consequences beyond those on the climate itself—including impacts on the economy and security.
By 2030, renewable energy is estimated to be a $6 trillion market. Without the federal government behind it, U.S. companies may fall behind the rest of the world.
"I think if the U.S. withdrew, then it would probably make it much harder for [U.S. renewable energy companies] to sell their products around the world, because they've got competition," says Light.

"We're effectively taking ourselves out of the clean energy economy."

China is investing $360 billion in renewable energy over the next few years, which will create 13 million new jobs. Other countries may decide to penalize the U.S. if it fails on the Paris agreement. "They could do that by lowering tariffs, for example, from other countries that would be trying to sell clean energy technologies," he says.
Beyond the Paris agreement, the government also plays a big role in helping the renewable energy sector succeed in selling to the rest of the world and creating more U.S. jobs, though instruments like the Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Without that investment, "we're effectively taking ourselves out of the clean energy economy," Light says.
Before the inauguration, 530 companies and 100 investors wrote an open letter to the new administration asking for support of low-carbon policies, investment in the low-carbon economy, and continued participation in the Paris agreement.

"I think if the U.S. completely pulls away from this, we're going to see a diplomatic blowback. It's going to be significant."

"Failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk," they wrote. "But the right action now will create jobs and boost U.S. competitiveness."
Withdrawing from the Paris agreement would also affect the U.S. relationship with other countries. "To create the first climate agreement we were really pushing lots of leaders to really get on board and get this thing done," says Light. "I think if the U.S. completely pulls away from this, we're going to see a diplomatic blowback. It's going to be significant, and it will impact a lot of areas that this administration will care about a lot more than climate change, especially on trade and national security issues."
In the longer term, failing to reduce emissions now will lead to spending trillions of dollars dealing with the damage caused by climate change. It will also lead to greater security threats as climate impacts create new political instability.
All hope is not lost: Even if the federal government rejects the Paris agreement, cities, states, and businesses can potentially make enough progress to come close to the Paris target of 26% to 28% reductions. By 2050, the longer-term goal of the U.S. was to reduce emissions 80%, in line with some recommendations to avoid catastrophic climate change.
"I think there's a good chance that between what states and cities are doing, and what businesses are doing, that we can hit somewhere maybe on the lower end of that range by 2025," says Light. "But unless we have an administration that continues ambitious action starting in 2020, I think it's going to be really difficult for us to get back on track so that we hit any lower by 2030."

Links

• The Paris Climate Deal Is A Good Start—But Probably Not Good Enough
• U.S. will change course on climate policy, says former EPA transition head
• How A Trump Presidency Would Ruin The Long-Term Future
• What Did Confirmation Hearings Tell Us About Trump’s Priorities on Climate Change?
• Federal Investment Is Key to Growth of Clean Energy Industry
• New G7 Report Highlights Climate Change and Fragility as a Foreign Policy Priority

State Renewable Energy Targets 'Will Be Vital To Meet Emissions Goals'

The Guardian - Michael Slezak

RETs are the only policy tool left to shift Australia’s electricity sector away from fossil fuels, RepuTex modelling shows

Under current policies, state RETs will become essential to Australia’s carbon reduction efforts, a report has found. Photograph: Steven David Miller/Getty Images/Nature Picture Library

State-based renewable energy targets are becoming essential drivers of Australia’s carbon reduction framework and, based on current policy settings, will be vital for Australia to meet its 2030 emissions targets, according to a report by the energy consultancy RepuTex.
The finding comes amid attacks on state-based renewable energy targets by the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and his ministers, who have called for them to be scrapped.
According to modelling by RepuTex, since the federal government has excluded the electricity sector from the so-called “safeguard mechanism” and ruled out any sort of carbon trading, state and federal RETs are the only policy tool left to shift the sector away from fossil fuels.
The government has released projections showing that under current policies emissions would continue to rise to 2020 and 2030, leaving no chance for Australia to meet its 2030 targets.

Renewable energy targets in the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria would have an effect equivalent to that of raising the federal RET to 35% by 2030, from its current target of 23% by 2020, the RepuTex report found.
Combined state and federal RETs would amount to fulfilling 20% of Australia’s 2030 abatement task, it said.
“In the absence of a federal policy framework, state actions are likely to drive large-scale emissions reductions,” said RepuTex’s executive director, Hugh Grossman. “We would therefore see the states as the dominant driver of the national energy and climate debate.”
Grossman said the reliance on renewable energy targets to achieve the transformation was far from ideal, since it didn’t provide certainty to the market and wouldn’t put downward pressure on prices. “We consider not implementing an emissions intensity scheme a policy failure,” he said.
Next week Turnbull is expected to outline new vehicle emissions standards which, using a best-case-scenario, Reputex estimated could account for 7% of the government’s abatement task by 2030.
Assuming the government doubles its nearly empty emissions reduction fund, and accounting for expected reductions from synthetic greenhouse gases, RepuTex found the government would have left more than 40% of its abatement task unaddressed.
“With an EIS off the table, and no extension of the RET, the government has a limited number of policy levers to meet its 2030 target,” Grossman said.
As a result, a tightening of the last remaining lever, the “safeguard mechanism”, would be needed, the report said. The safeguard mechanism sets emissions caps – or “baselines” – for polluting industries, with the exception of the power sector.
RepuTex found that to fill the abatement gap, the government would need to reduce the baselines by between 1% and 3% each year.
Grossman described meeting those tightened baselines as a “modest task for industry”. “This reinforces the zero-sum nature of Australian climate policy – the exclusion of one policy lever is fine – but losses will need to be balanced elsewhere in the economy,” he said.

Links

• ERM Power criticised for choosing $123m fine over renewable energy certificates
• 'No plans' to cut renewable energy target, Josh Frydenberg says
• Barnaby Joyce won't rule out dumping Renewable Energy Target
• Emissions trading backflip a recipe for price rises, say business groups
• Australia's energy transmission industry calls for carbon trading
• Australian unions call for 'just transition' from coal-generated electricity
• Renewable energy: get your story straight, ACT tells Coalition
• Letter signed by 154 Australian experts demands climate policy match the science

Coal Could Get Clean-Energy Subsidy Under New Turnbull Focus

Fairfax - Mark Kenny

Malcolm Turnbull has opened the possibility of using clean-energy subsidies to build new-generation, coal-fired power stations as he branded Labor's heavy focus on renewables "mindless", and a recipe for more expensive, less reliable electricity.
Flagging a policy switch sure to provoke anger from anti-coal environmentalists, but set to please fossil-fuel enthusiasts in the Coalition partyroom, Mr Turnbull said technological advances had made new coal-fired generators viable as a potential foundation in the overall energy mix.

'Clean coal' makes a comeback
New technology means coal will play a role in electricity generation long into the future, says Malcolm Turnbull. Courtesy ABC News 24.

"The next incarnation of our national energy policy should be technology agnostic - it's security and cost that matter most, not how you deliver it," he told the National Press Club in Canberra.
This called for a policy approach that was non-ideological, using "all of the above technologies" - coal, wind, solar, pumped hydro, and improved battery storage.

Malcolm Turnbull has flagged a policy switch that is sure to provoke anger from anti-coal environmentalists. Photo: Brendan Esposito

"Storage (battery) has a big role to play, that's true, but we will need more synchronous baseload power and, as the world's largest coal exporter, we have a vested interest in showing that we can provide both lower emissions and reliable baseload power with state-of-the-art, clean-coal-fired technology," he said.
And in a clear sign that the politics of the change will be packaged in retail terms - ie, what it would mean for ordinary consumers and businesses - he declared: "The battlelines have been drawn - it is clear that the Coalition stands for cheaper energy."
The comments came in a scene-setting speech in which the Prime Minister drew his battlelines of 2017 as the push for lower business taxes, cheaper and more reliable energy, and more affordable childcare funded through the abolition of Family Tax Benefit subsidies.
While he did not repeat Tony Abbott's moral declaration that coal is "good for humanity", he arrived at a similar position from a practical standpoint, observing that Australia was not playing to its natural advantages of plentiful gas, and abundant coal.
"Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal, has invested $590 million since 2009 in clean-coal technology research and demonstration, and yet we do not have one modern High Efficiency Low Emissions (HELE), coal-fired power station, let alone one with CCS (carbon capture and storage)"," he said.
"Increasing gas supply in Australia is vital for our energy future and vital for industries and jobs, but state bans on onshore gas development will result in more expensive and less reliable energy."
The option of redirecting federal subsidies from exclusively renewable energy projects to encourage investment in new, coal-fired power generators, is among "several ideas" being considered as part of a wide review of policy.
A number of countries, including Japan, currently use either supercritical (SC) and ultra-supercritical (USC) coal-fired generators, which work with black coal and higher temperatures to produce more energy per tonne but with lower emissions than their predecessors.
Under pressures from both political flanks, Mr Turnbull used the speech, his first set-piece political address for the year, to propose a new approach to climate and energy policy in which the metrics are energy affordability, energy security, and the lowest achievable emissions.
Senior ministers are now actively discussing a plan in conjunction with Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel, who is undertaking a review of energy markets.
"He and others and a group of cabinet ministers are working with the Prime Minister now on a set of proposals, to provide, if you like, a more systemic approach to all of this," revealed Industry Minister Arthur Sinodinos, speaking on Sky News.
The policy shift puts the government on a collision course with the opposition and the environmental lobby over climate policy, reviving the carbon tax wars of recent years.
Mr Turnbull also used the podium to slam the Labor states for pursuing unrealistic renewable energy targets while opposing onshore gas exploration, sayingf: "Nothing will more rapidly de-industrialise Australia and deter investment more than more and more expensive, let alone less reliable, energy."
He offered to lead new Commonwealth/state discussions in a bid to see those moratoriums lifted.
Mr Turnbull's speech followed just one day after that of the Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, who used his Press Club opportunity to defend Labor's ambitious 2030 target for Australian renewable energy consumption of 50 per cent.
He said the 50 per cent target would generate new jobs for scientists, technicians, and blue-collar workers alike.
The government argues the costs to the economy would be prohibitive, leaving consumers out of pocket, while driving up business costs and risking investment and jobs.
An independent assessment by the Australian Energy Market Regulator put the potential cost of the 50 per cent RET at some $48 billion.
In his speech, Mr Turnbull revealed he had asked the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to work together "on a new funding round for large-scale storage and other flexible capacity projects, including pumped hydro".
If it occurs, the role-change of using the CEFC to subsidise new private investment in coal-fired power, would be a startling variation from the policy pursued by Tony Abbott, who tried unsuccessfully to scrap what he had dubbed as "Bob Brown's bank".

Links

• Coalition's renewable energy target won't last forever, says Turnbull
• Malcolm Turnbull says coal, CSG and renewables vital for energy future
• Barnaby Joyce backs Government funding coal-power stations following Malcolm Turnbull's Press Club address
• Turnbull's coal embrace will leave critics cold

Most Australians Oppose Government's $1bn Adani Loan For Coal Railway Line

The Guardian - Michael Slezak

More than half of Liberal voters also oppose plan to loan Indian company $1bn to build a rail line between proposed Carmichael coalmine and Abbot Point

A protest in Melbourne against the proposed Carmichael coalmine, which scientists say should not go ahead if the Great Barrier Reef is to be protected from the impacts of climate change. Photograph: Julian Smith/AAP

Three-quarters of Australians, including most Liberal voters, oppose the government giving a $1bn loan to Adani to build a rail line between its proposed Carmichael coalmine and the Abbot Point shipping terminal.
The government’s Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund (Naif) granted Adani “conditional approval” for a $1bn loan in December last year.
The rail line, if built, would allow Adani to build the country’s biggest coalmine and open up the Galilee Basin to further mines by linking them to an export terminal.
Coral scientists have argued the coal needs to stay in the ground if the Great Barrier Reef is to be protected from the impacts of climate change.
The government has argued there is no definite link between the coal from the Adani mine being burned and climate change, and the resources minister, Matthew Canavan, has said the mine would “be a good thing for the environment”.
But a ReachTel poll of 2,126 people across Australia conducted on 12 January, commissioned by GetUp, found 74.4% of respondents said “no” when asked whether “lending $1bn to an offshore mining company to build a coal rail line is a good use of public money”.
Just 16.2% of respondents thought it was a good use of public money, with 9.5% saying they didn’t know.
The opposition was strong regardless of voting intention, with 53.7% of those who said they would vote Liberal opposing the loan. Just over 80% of “undecided” voters, 85.5% of Labor voters and 89.9% of Greens voters said the loan was a bad use of public money.
A previous survey of people living in the region that would host the mine found two-thirds opposed public money being used to support the mine.
Analysis from Greenpeace has suggested the rail project does not meet the requirements for a loan under the scheme, since it will not be “of public benefit” and it is not clear Adani will be able to repay the loan.
GetUp’s Miriam Lyons said: “A mere 16% of Australians think this is a good way to invest public money. While we see hospitals and schools starved of resources, the government sees fit to hand over a billion bucks to build Adani’s shiny new train.”
Lyons called on Malcolm Turnbull to stop the loan going ahead.
“Prime minister Turnbull’s not even playing for his own team – only 32% of Liberal voters agree with this use of public money,” she said.

Links

• George Christensen backs $1bn federal loan for Adani railway line
• Australia must choose between coal and coral – the Great Barrier Reef depends on it
• Adani's Carmichael coal rail line may not be eligible for government funding
• $1bn for the Adani coalmine? Ordinary Australians understand economics better than Turnbull
• Opposition to public funding for Adani rail link outweighs support, poll finds
• George Christensen backs $1bn federal loan for Adani railway line
• Anti-coal protesters rally in Melbourne against Adani loan proposal – video
• Bob Katter raises funding for Galilee basin railway in talks with Turnbull
• Abbot Point coal terminal expansion given approval by Greg Hunt
• Coal from Carmichael mine 'will create more annual emissions than New York'

Prince Charles May Raise Climate Change During Trump's Visit To Britain

The Guardian - Robert Booth

Some in Whitehall are urging the prince to challenge US president’s pledge to abandon 2015 UN climate change deal

Royal sources say Prince Charles will not lecture the US president but has not ruled out tackling him on the issue of climate change. Photograph: Richard Stonehouse/Getty Images

Donald Trump’s state visit to Britain this year was never likely to fit the mould of previous trips undertaken by his predecessors, from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama. The US president’s rumoured wish to play nine holes on the Queen’s private golf course at Balmoral and the question of how he might explain his 2012 tweet defending the sale of topless pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge made sure of that.
But the tour is now looking even more likely to generate controversy as Prince Charles emerged as a possible challenger to the president’s views on climate change and faith issues.
The Guardian understands from royal sources that the prince will not lecture Trump in relation to their starkly divergent views of what needs to be done to tackle global warming but has not ruled out addressing the topic. This poses a challenge not just for the president, who has threatened to “cancel” the United Nations climate change deal signed in Paris in 2015 and who has described climate change as “created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive”. It is also a conundrum for the British government scrambling to work out how to address Trump’s radical programme and how to make use of a sometimes controversial advocate for climate action.
Charles is being urged by some in Whitehall to use his decades-long experience in environmentalism to challenge Trump’s pledge to abandon the deal, as part of “harmonised” efforts with the UK government to keep the carbon-cutting treaty on track.
But other UK officials are reported to be concerned that the likely meeting between the men has become a “risk factor” for the visit. Another potentially controversial issue that could arise is religion Prince Charles’s history of trying to promote better interfaith relations contrast with Trump’s actions to block travellers from Muslim-majority countries from entering the US.
An anonymous source, described as being close to Trump, said this weekend that the president would not put up with being lectured by the prince, according to the Sunday Times. The source warned against the two men meeting at all.
That appears unlikely. Under the normal choreography of a state visit, Charles is likely to have several opportunities to spend time with Trump. Although details of the visit have yet to be finalised, the Prince of Wales would typically welcome Trump where he is staying, possibly the US ambassador’s residence in Regent’s Park, central London. They would then travel together to Horse Guards Parade from where there is normally a formal procession down the Mall to Buckingham Palace for the leader to be greeted by the Queen. That would be followed by a lunch, attended again by Charles.
A state dinner provides another opportunity for interaction and Charles also invites most leaders to afternoon tea at Clarence House. Whether this will happen with Trump is yet to be decided, and is said to depend on how much time is available. Barack Obama did not take tea on his last state visit, but China’s president, Xi Jinping, did.
In parts of Whitehall Charles is now considered to be “an extremely good asset” in helping to maintain the integrity of the UN climate change treaty. He has been “gently primed” to assist diplomatic efforts on the issue, a senior Whitehall source said and there is “a sympathetic hearing” between Clarence House and the government on climate change, with Charles’s views considered “absolutely in line with government policy”.
“It has taken a lot of work by some of us to get him into that place, but what he is doing now is extremely helpful to us,” the source said.
Last week, while Trump issued executive orders to revive oil pipeline projects and told carmakers that environmental regulation was “out of control”, Charles stepped up his own warnings on the environment. In a foreword to a Ladybird book on climate change published on Thursday and co-written by the prince, he described climate change as “the wolf at the door” and said action “must be urgently scaled up and scaled up now”.
One royal aide said Charles “would find a meeting [with Trump] on this subject [climate change] extremely useful” but also made clear that while the agenda might or might not include climate change, the mode of delivery would not be confrontational or hectoring.
“If anything, he is a helpful and honest broker on so many issues,” said one source. The source explained that Charles is usually in listening mode for the first 30 minutes of meetings with heads of state and only towards the end would consider offering thoughts about how problems that had been raised might be addressed.
Another source close to the prince said it would be difficult for him to be very direct with Trump. “He has to retain political neutrality, which is why he is always walking something of a tightrope on this subject,” the source said.
However, the same source added: “It is fair to say he considers the world to be in great peril because of climate change, system degradation and resource depletion and he feels it is necessary for him to use his position to say something about that.”
Some in Whitehall hope that far from causing Trump to “erupt”, as one anonymous US source suggested at the weekend, the US president may in fact be more engaged by Charles expressing views about the need for urgent action on climate change than a politician, in part because of Trump’s admiration of wealth and British royalty.
Trump reportedly told Theresa May in November that his Scottish mother, Mary MacLeod, was “a big fan of the Queen”.
“Trump is the sort of person who loves the panoply surrounding wealth and royalty,” said a senior government source. “He loves reflecting the glory of the royal family. He is pressing for a state visit so he can go and have a meal in Buckingham Palace and he wants to play golf on the Queen’s golf course.”
Environmental campaigners have also backed Charles’s ability to influence the new US president, in part by rallying other countries including Brazil, China and India to stand by the deal, thereby putting indirect pressure on Trump.
“He has an international outreach and he is respected in the US,” said Nick Molho, executive director of the Aldersgate Group, an alliance of businesses, politicians and campaign groups pushing for a sustainable economy. “He has the benefit of being a step removed from everyday politics and I think that is important. It allows him to have more authority and to be a more engaging figure.”
Charles told the 2015 UN climate change conference in Paris: “The moment has arrived to take those long-awaited steps towards rescuing our planet and our fellow man from impending catastrophe.” He has also previously acknowledged the importance of US policy on climate change. In a 2015 speech he told an audience in Washington DC: “America’s impact is profound and it is my, and many others’, fervent hope that you will continue to inspire others both at home and on the global stage.”
In recent years, Charles has focused his campaigning and convening efforts on the fight against climate change. He runs his own international sustainability unit from Clarence House, which describes itself as a trusted forum for “key actors from governments, the private sector and civil society”.

Links

• Donald Trump and Prince Charles 'in diplomacy row over climate change' ahead of President's first UK visit
• Trump's team fears climate change differences with Prince Charles could flare up in state visit
• Donald Trump to avoid Prince Charles during State Visit due to views on climate change
• Prince Charles pens Ladybird book on climate change

Donald Trump To Withdraw From Paris Agreement, 'Change Course' On Climate Change, Says Adviser

Fairfax - Nick Miller

London: The man who wrote the Trump administration's environment action plan says the environmental movement is "the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity in the modern world" and said the United States was about to change course on climate policy, including withdrawal from the Paris agreement.
Myron Ebell, who led the Environmental Protection Agency transition for the new administration, said he gave the president three pathways for withdrawing from the 2015 Paris agreement on greenhouse gas emissions, at least one of which could be done "right now".

President Donald Trump has pledged to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. Photo: Bloomberg

He also said the president had been clear he wanted to abolish the EPA - though it might survive as a channel for pollution clean-up grants to states.
And he hinted at an end to emission standards for US vehicles, through abolishing the EPA's 'endangerment finding', which had given it powers to protect the public from the health threat posed by greenhouse gases.
Mr Ebell worked for Mr Trump's transition team delivering a detailed plan on how the president could deliver on his campaign promises.
Mr Ebell was in London as a guest of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a British think tank that promotes climate change scepticism. His role on Trump's transition team ended with the inauguration and he said he never met Mr Trump, but had taken his lead from his campaign promises.
"What the Trump transition did was to try to write departmental or agency plans to fulfil and implement every single one of the promises and commitments that Mr Trump made as a candidate," Mr Ebell said.
"There were a number of very clear, black and white promises. He said he will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, he will defund UN climate programs, at the EPA he will potentially withdraw or repeal all of the Obama administration rules regarding greenhouse gas emissions including the so-called Clean Power Plan.

Mr Ebell said the US would change course on climate policy. Photo: Reuters

"He will undo president Obama's climate action plan… the United States will clearly change course on climate policy and that's the first piece of good news."
Mr Trump's pick for secretary of state Rex Tillerson told senators at his confirmation hearing in January that the risk of climate change did exist, and the US needed a "seat at the table" in international discussions.

Myron Ebell advised Mr Trump during the transition. Photo: AP

But Mr Ebell said the president had given a clear promise to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and "the president would be odds-on favourite to win any disagreement (with Mr Tillerson) over climate policy".
"I don't think there's any doubt that (Mr Trump) thinks global warming is not a crisis. It does not require drastic and immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions."
He said there were three ways for the US to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The first was to announce that president Obama's signature was withdrawn from Paris.
Another would be to announce that it was a treaty, not an agreement, and send it to the Senate for ratification "so it will be dead".
The third would be to withdraw from the framework convention itself – the 1992 international agreement to seek a global consensus on climate change mitigation.
"My personal viewpoint is by far the cleanest is to withdraw from the framework convention," Mr Ebell said. "I would say do it right now."
Mr Ebell said Mr Trump's election was a "rejection by the American people of what they are told by the bi-coastal urban elite (and) the chattering classes".
"The people of America have rejected the 'expert-ariat' and I think for good reason."
Though he conceded there was evidence for man-made climate change he did not believe climate science's consensus that it would have dangerous consequences for the planet.
He was dismissive of renewable energy and said Mr Trump would make the US the planet's biggest producer of oil and gas.
He said Mr Trump would end the capture of government by 'special interests'.
"Our special interest is freedom. The enemies of freedom come in many guises and one of the most insidious and dangerous in the modern world is the regulatory regime that we now suffer under.
"A large part of that is due to the environmental movement which in my view is the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity in the modern world."
Mr Ebell said more than half the EPA's budget already went to state grants for infrastructure and clean-up projects.
"(Mr Trump's) interest is really that the EPA goes back to its core missions … I would expect that in terms of his desire to radically shrink the EPA's bureaucracy you may actually see more money going into state grants."
He said he hoped that the EPA's 'endangerment finding' under the Clean Air Act would be undone, which would lead to the scrapping of greenhouse gas emission rules.

Links

• Trump 'will definitely pull out of Paris climate change deal'
• President Trump Prepares to Withdraw from Groundbreaking Climate Change Agreement
• Trump adviser predicts US will quit Paris climate accord
• Green movement 'greatest threat to freedom', says Trump adviser