205 Records In 90 Days: 'Angry Summer Is The New Normal', Says Climate Council

Fairfax - Stephanie Peatling

Scientists have confirmed what anyone who lived through the past summer knows to be true - climate change is driving hotter and longer summers that are becoming "the new normal", according to scientists, with worse to come unless tough decisions are made.
The summer of 2016/17 produced not only Sydney's hottest summer on record, Canberra's hottest summer for daytime temperatures and Brisbane's hottest summer in terms of mean temperature, but Queensland's second hottest summer on record and the hottest summer temperatures on record for almost 45 per cent of NSW.

Dryer conditions are making inland Australia less habitable.  Photo: Mal Fairclough

Scientists have called it "the angry summer" as more than 205 records were broken in just 90 days, according to a new report from the Climate Council.
"We are into the latter half of the critical decade, and temperatures are continuing to increase and extreme weather events are worsening. Climate change is increasing the frequency, duration and intensity of heatwaves and warm spells. Hot days and heatwaves, like those experienced in the 2016/17 angry summer, are becoming the new normal, and even more extreme heat is on the way in future unless rapid and deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are achieved around the world," the report warned.

Australia's fossil-fueled summer
Eastern Australia experience an unprecedented heat wave this summer as evidence linking climate change with burning fossil fuels grows ever stronger. Courtesy ABC News24.

The reports authors, which include Professor Will Steffen, the inaugural director of the Australian National University's Climate Change Institute, warned that Australia will continue to warm up throughout the 21st century and experience increasingly severe impacts.

But it is not too late to stop the worst case predictions from coming true.
"Whether or not extreme heat becomes even worse during the second half of the century depends on whether the world, including Australia as one of the 15 largest emitters, can rapidly and deeply reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to a carbon-neutral global economy by mid-century," the report says.

Scientists are calling for a rapid uptake of renewable energy to drive down Australia's use of fossil fuels. Photo: Pacific Hydro Limited

If present rates of greenhouse gas emissions continue, large areas of Australia's interior would become uninhabitable while, in NSW, the current one-in-50 year extreme heat event would occur every five years.
But if greenhouse gas emissions are cut very rapidly and deeply then the rise in temperature increases could be minimised.

The summer of 2016/17 was the hottest summer on record in Sydney. Photo: Getty Images

The Climate Council is an independently crowd-funded organisation. It took over the work of the Climate Commission, the independent body set up in 2011 by the then Labor government, which was abolished by the Coalition after it came to office in 2013.
Despite Australia's commitment to decrease its production of greenhouse gas emissions at the Paris international climate change talks in 2015, our emissions rose by 0.8 per cent last year.

"This rise puts into serious doubt whether even Australia's very weak emissions reductions target of 26 to 28 per cent by 2030 can be achieved," the report warned.
"With Australia's emissions continuing to rise, it is clear that the federal government's current climate policy is failing. Australia needs to transition rapidly to cheap, clean, renewable energy to reduce our emissions as opposed to 'clean coal' plants."
The federal government said last month that coal-fired power stations could be eligible for funding from Australia's $10 billion green bank.
In what would represent a significant weakening of the country's environmental financing rules, Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg confirmed the government is considering issuing a new ministerial directive to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to put investment in so-called "clean coal" on the table.
Professor Steffen told a press conference on Wednesday morning that the government needed to realise that coal fired power stations were "20th century thinking".
"I hope we realise, like any big technological breakthrough, going to renewable energy and smart systems is the way of the 21st century...Rather than fighting this transition we need to support them [forms of renewable energy] and embrace them and make them work to our benefit."

Links

• Angry Summer 2016/17: Climate Change Super-Charging Extreme Weather
• Australia's 'angry summer' smashes unprecedented extreme weather records
• 200 weather records broken during Australia's 'angry summer': Climate Council
• Australia's summer broke 205 weather records, climate group says

Australia Must Put A Price On Carbon, Say Institutional Investors

The Guardian - Katharine Murphy

Move needed to drive orderly transition to low-emissions power sources, Investor Group on Climate Change says

The Investor Group on Climate Change has urged the government to take concreted steps to unlock new investment. Photograph: Hamish Blair/Getty Images

The Turnbull government needs to put a price on carbon to unlock new investment in the electricity sector and drive an orderly transition to low-emissions power sources, according to the Investor Group on Climate Change.
The group, which represents major institutional investors in Australia and New Zealand, has used its submission to the Finkel review to argue that the government's oft-repeated concerns about network reliability, energy affordability and emissions reductions will be addressed if concrete steps are taken to unlock new investment.
The investor group has joined a host of other organisations in arguing that the government needs to put a price on carbon and adopt a technology-neutral approach in planning new energy infrastructure to ensure the grid is up to the task of supplying reliable base load power and producing emissions reductions consistent with Australia's Paris commitments.
It warns that policy and regulatory uncertainty is now the key barrier to investment in Australia's electricity sector "across all energy sources and technology types".
The advocacy comes as the Climate Council will on Wednesday release a new report arguing that the heat Australia experienced this past summer demonstrated the energy grid was unable to cope with escalating extreme weather.
"Climate change is worsening the impacts from heatwaves and hot weather and is putting a strain on critical infrastructure," the new report says.
"This summer alone has shown the vulnerability of the electricity grid to heatwaves, with power outages during peak times in South Australia during a severe February heatwave, while New South Wales narrowly avoided widespread outages several days later."
The report notes that in just 90 days, more than 205 records were broken around Australia this summer, with the state-wide mean temperature the hottest for NSW since records began, with temperatures 2.57C above average, and Brisbane and Canberra recording their hottest summers on record.
The report argues that the only viable approach to slowing and eventually halting the increasing trend of heat-related extreme weather is to "rapidly increase the uptake of renewable energy and to phase out all forms of coal-fired power plants, as well as phasing out other fossil fuels".
On Tuesday the National Farmers' Federation reversed its once vociferous opposition to carbon pricing, using its submission to the Finkel review to call for a market-based mechanism to secure clean and affordable energy.
The NFF's stance mirrors calls for consideration of a market mechanism from Energy Networks Australia, the retailer EnergyAustralia, the electricity provider AGL, the Climate Change Authority, the Business Council of Australia and the CSIRO.
The renewed activism around carbon pricing or a market mechanism to reduce pollution and drive efficient investment decisions in the national electricity market stands at odds with the Turnbull government's decision to rule out such measures last December.
The energy and environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, initially signalled the government would look at the desirability of an emissions intensity trading scheme for the electricity sector as part of its scheduled review of its Direct Action climate policy – but he reversed his position after key government conservatives voiced their objections.
The man conducting the energy review, the chief scientist, Alan Finkel, gave implicit support for an emissions intensity scheme in his preliminary report, saying it would integrate best "with the electricity market's pricing and risk management framework" and "had the lowest economic costs and the lowest impact on electricity prices".
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has also used its submission to the Finkel review to argue Australia needs "a stable bankable policy framework … to promote investor confidence and capital availability and reduce risk".
The CEFC has floated a range of potential policy options to drive the decarbonisation of the electricity sector, "including pricing mechanisms such as carbon pricing or an emissions intensity target; 'technology-pull' policies such as a renewable energy target, a low-emissions target, or reverse auctions with contracts for difference; or regulatory interventions such as regulated closures or absolute baselines".
It has also repeated previous arguments that new investment in coal-fired capacity would be unlikely to be financed by Australian or international capital markets because of the risk of stranded assets.
"Further, there is arguably no longer a social licence for new coal-fired power stations in Australia," the submission says.
The CEFC notes there are now several proposals in the market for new gas-fired generators in Australia but it says proponents are finding it "challenging" to find long-term domestic gas supply agreements to support new investment.
Senior executives from AGL Energy told a Senate committee on Tuesday the main issue causing problems with reliable energy supply in South Australia was "dysfunction" in the gas market – not too many windfarms making the grid unreliable.
Richard Wrightson, AGL's general manager of wholesale markets, told Tuesday's hearing the problem was so dire the company was contemplating building its own LNG hub in Queensland to help secure reliable supply downstream.

Links

• Energy executives say gas market – not windfarms – to blame for South Australia's woes
• National Farmers' Federation joins calls for market mechanism to lower carbon emissions
• State of the Environment report: bright spots, but much more to do
• South Australia says states could go it alone after Turnbull rules out carbon tax
• Malcolm Turnbull rules out carbon tax or emissions trading
• Carbon price needed to avoid economic disruption from Paris climate goals – analysis
• Australia to claim success on climate target, with help of accounting rules
• West Australian $30bn LNG project allowed to have no carbon emission targets
• An apology from Australia to the rest of the world is now warranted
• The government can reduce emissions without reinstating a carbon tax – this is how
• Australia kills off carbon tax

Half Of World’s Ocean To Face Multiple ‘Climate Stressors’ By 2030, Study Warns

Carbon Brief - Roz Pidcock

Climate change is altering the world's watery expanses in a number of ways, with serious knock-on effects for the ocean's plants and animals, according to new research.

Shoal of spade fish in the Atlantic. Credit: leofrancini/iStock/Getty Images

The study finds that with just 15 more years of current emissions, over half of the world's ocean will be exposed to more than one source of stress, affecting everything from the tiniest plants to the mightiest whales. By 2050, that figure rises to around 86% of the ocean, say the authors.
The paper, published today in the journal Nature Communications, finds that if all countries stick to their pledges to cut emissions, as part of the Paris Agreement, this would relieve the pressure by giving organisms an extra 20 years to adapt or migrate.
But for Arctic species, there may be no refuge from climate change, the paper warns, regardless of how quickly we act to cut emissions.

'Stress factor'
The oceans are essential for human existence, the paper begins, providing a primary source of protein for one in seven of the global population.
But through our own activities, humanity is putting a strain on the ocean's ability to perform that function, in four main ways.
First, warmer water is more inclined to stratify into layers, restricting access to nutrients for plants living on the surface. At the same time, excess CO2 absorbed by the ocean is making it more acidic, with consequences for marine life that build shells or skeletons.
Thirdly, warmer water reduces the amount of oxygen in the top layer of the ocean, the study explains. Finally, all of these things affect the process by which marine plants produce food to live and grow, known as primary production.
Dr Stephanie Henson, a specialist in biogeochemical oceanography at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, who is the lead author on the paper, tells Carbon Brief:

"Primary production is the base of the food web so the ultimate food source for everything in the oceans. If that food source is declining, that will obviously put stress on the marine ecosystems as well."

The study looks at how those four types of stressors interact in the future to give an overall "stress factor".

A calanoid copepod, a type of zooplankton. Species of warm-water copepod in the North Atlantic have shifted northward in recent decades. Credit: Proyecto Agua.

Defining stress
First, the team need to define what kind of conditions in the oceans count as normal and what is likely to move marine life into stress mode. Henson explains:

"Ecosystems are adapted to the natural range of variability that they experience. This means that organisms living in a particular part of the ocean are able to survive the normal range of winter-to-summer temperatures."

The scientists used those bounds of the natural summer-winter cycle to define what was tolerable for a particular region. Henson continues:

"Then we looked at where conditions under climate change went outside that boundary of normal conditions – and stayed there until the end of the century. That gave us our definition of when things became unusual."

But it gets more complicated, the paper explains. The four different stress factors rarely occur in isolation, sometimes overlapping to amplify the overall impact on marine life.
A lowering of pH and oxygen concentration can make corals and crustaceans more sensitive to rising temperatures, for example. Sometimes stressors can interact in unexpected ways to trigger a positive effect – all of which makes studying this topic in field or lab studies extremely challenging, the paper notes.
Today's study is a new attempt to streamline research in a lot of different areas, says Dr Scott Doney, department chair in marine chemistry at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, who wasn't involved in the research. He tells Carbon Brief:

"The study is novel because it brings together several different science threads to create a unified picture of ocean climate change."

Time of emergence
The team ran 12 different climate models to try to pinpoint when the "signal" of each of the four stressors – temperature, pH, oxygen and primary production – was likely to emerge from the background "noise" of natural variability, marking the shift to stressful conditions.
The results show that pH is the fastest of the four stress factors to escalate. In fact, the team found 99% of the open ocean already is experiencing stress from water getting more acidic.
The maps below from the paper shows how each of the four stress factors pan out across the world. The red colour spread across panel c shows how widespread exposure to stress from acidifying oceans is already.
Similarly, rising temperatures are already causing stress to organisms in the subtropics and the Arctic, the paper explains. You can see this in panel a in the graphs below. On average, the world's oceans will tip into temperature-related stress by about 2034, assuming emissions continue to track as high as they are now.
For primary production, that point is reached later in the century, around 2052 (panel b). For oxygen, it is later still, in 2070 (panel d). Henson tells Carbon Brief:

"Ocean acidification happens very quickly, the oceans warm up relatively quickly while primary production and oxygen take longer to affect ecosystems."

Multi-model average for the year when stress exceeds natural variability for (a) sea surface temperature (b) primary production, (c) pH and (d)oxygen content assuming a 'business-as-usual' scenario (RCP8.5). Henson et al., (2017)

Pace of change
Whether or not organisms will be able to cope with the effects of climate change depends to some extent on the speed of the change. As the paper explains:

"The more rapidly the system is pushed out of its natural range of variability, the less time the organisms will have to adapt or acclimate to the new conditions or migrate to more suitable areas."

Another factor is whether more than one rapidly-developing stressor occur together. The Arctic appears to be a "hotspot of change", says the paper, experiencing very rapid changes in pH, sea surface temperature and oxygen all at once.
For everywhere else, the changes are slower. But by 2030, 55% of the world's oceans will encounter a "mosaic" of stressors, rising to 86% in 2050. By 2100, nearly two-thirds of the ocean (62%) will be stressed by all four factors together, the study finds. Henson tells Carbon Brief:
"If organisms are negatively affected by climate change, that effect is going to continue all the way up the food chain, up from phytoplankton at the base, through fish and into animals like dolphins and whales, seabirds and so one." The impacts of stressed oceans will be particularly important for coastal developing nations, which depend heavily on the oceans for protein sources. Henson adds:

"There are areas around the Indian Ocean, for example, that will be quite rapidly affected. So there is the possibility that fishing countries along those borders will suffer."

The team looked at an alternative scenario in which all nations signed up to the Paris Agreement succeed in their pledges to reduce their emissions.
For those well-versed in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's emissions scenarios, this approximately corresponds to RCP4.5, implying warming by the end of the century of between 2.6-3.1C.
This level of mitigation would mean the pace of climate change in the oceans is much slower, says Henson. She tells Carbon Brief:

"What the mitigation scenario shows us is that it allows an extra 20 years or so for organisms to adapt and acclimate to conditions."

Mitigation would mean that only 34% of the ocean becomes exposed to multiple stressors within the next 15 years, compared with 55% under a "business-as-usual" scenario. By 2100, 30% of the ocean is affected by all four stressors in the mitigation scenario, compared to 62% under "business as-usual".
The exception to the rule is the Arctic, where mitigation does little to slow the emergence of multiple drivers, the paper notes.

'One way street'
The study makes the implicit assumption that organisms will suffer with prolonged exposure to conditions outside of their natural ranges. But some studies have shown species appearing to thrive in environments that are less than optimal, the paper notes.
Across most of the global ocean, however, the implications for marine life will be similar:

"When the environment changes sufficiently that new conditions, or a new combination of conditions, emerge and persist, the organisms must adapt, migrate to more favourable areas, or face extinction."

Marine creatures that already encounter big swings in natural variability may show the greatest resilience to change, the study suggests. Others may be able to migrate to new habitats. For example, a species of warm-water copepod in the North Atlantic has shifted northward in recent decades. But, as the paper notes, this tactic won't work for all species:

"Polar species are also particularly vulnerable as they cannot shift their geographical range northward in response to emerging drivers and so must either adapt to changing conditions or go extinct."

Human societies will need to adjust so that livelihoods are protected, as well as marine biodiversity. Doney tells Carbon Brief:

"The next steps are to develop better informed strategies for protecting and managing marine ecosystems (for example, fisheries, coral reefs, marine mammals and seabirds) in light of climate stressors."

Henson agrees, telling Carbon Brief that while her research defines the changes we're likely to see in the oceans, scientists don't yet understand what the ultimate effect on the marine ecosystem will be. She says:

"The marine ecosystem is so complex and there are so many different organisms. It's interesting to think, does that mean some will be winners and some will be losers in the future ocean? Right now, we just haven't got the information to know how that will play out."

As the paper notes, climate change is "essentially a one-way street", meaning that whatever changes occur in the marine environment, they are "unlikely to be reversed".

Links

• Uncertainty behind climate projections could be cut in half by 2030, study shows
• Expect twice as many extreme La Niña events under climate change, study warns
• Climate change 'a serious threat' to king penguins, study warns
• Farming Africa's wet savannahs would have a high climate cost, study warns

Climate Change Has ‘Irreversible Impact’

The Australian - Rosie Lewis

The Great Barrier Reef has experienced a bleaching event. Picture: Brian Cassey

A major independent review into the state of Australia’s environment has found climate change is placing an “increasingly important and pervasive pressure” on the nation and some of its impacts “may be irreversible”.

The state of the environment report, produced every five years independently of government, shows the country has faced a mix of improvements and challenges since 2011 but the “main pressures” — climate change, land use change, habitat fragmentation and degradation, and invasive species — remain the same.

The effects from humans were greatest in Australia’s more populated coastal areas and some urban “growth” areas, particularly in the southeast.

“Climate change is an increasingly important and pervasive pressure on all aspects of the Australian environment. It is altering the structure and function of natural ecosystems, and affecting heritage, economic activity and human wellbeing,” the report states.

“Climate change will result in location-specific vulnerabilities, and people who are socially and economically disadvantaged are most sensitive to climate change. Evidence shows that the impacts of climate change are increasing, and some of these impacts may be irreversible.”

The Department of Environment and Energy, which commissioned the report, lists profiles of its lead authors. They range from scientists at the CSIRO and Australian Antarctic Division to environment experts at the Australian Bureau of Statistics and marine ecologists.

Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg, who concedes the government’s target of 23.5 per cent renewable energy generation by 2020 “will be quite a stretch”, said good news from the report included improvements in the ozone layer above the Antarctic, the protection of more indigenous areas, and the listing of more Australian places on the national and world heritage lists.

But he said climate change continued to be a “major challenge”.

“We’ve seen a bleaching event last year in the Great Barrier Reef and we’re concerned about further bleaching events and climate change and the El Nino effect causes for that,” Mr Frydenberg told ABC TV.

“We’re also seeing some real challenges with invasive species, particularly feral cats that prey on marsupials and birds and reptiles, many of which are on the endangered list.”

The report’s panel of independent authors, including environmental consultants, scientists and public servants, said a key challenge for the government was to produce an “overarching national policy that establishes a clear vision for the protection and sustainable management of Australia’s environment to the year 2050.

“Meeting these challenges requires: integrated policies and adaptive management actions that address drivers of environmental change and the associated pressures, national leadership, improved support for decision-making, a more strategic focus on planning for a sustainable future, new, reliable sources of financing,” the report says.

A “new and emerging” stress in coastal and marine zones was the “increasing amount of human litter”, with plastic making up about three-quarters of debris found along the Australian coast.

Grazing continued to be a “major threat” to biodiversity.

The authors adopt a mildly optimistic tone, saying with the right choices, policies, management and technologies Australia “has the capacity” to ensure economic prosperity and look after people’s health, education, social and cultural needs, while protecting the environment for future generations.

“Evidence shows that some individual pressures on the environment have decreased since 2011, such as those associated with air quality, poor agricultural practices, commercial fishing, and oil and gas exploration and production in Australia’s marine environment,” they say.

“During the same time, however, other pressures have increased — for example, those associated with coalmining and the coal-seam gas industry, habitat fragmentation and degradation, invasive species, litter in our coastal and marine environments, and greater traffic volumes in our capital cities.”

The Australian Conservation Foundation seized on the report, declaring the government needed to increase funding for conservation and environmental protection “by at least 400 per cent” if the “dramatic decline” of wildlife, reefs and forests was to be reversed.

“Our national anthem proudly says our land abounds in nature’s gifts, but based on this report we need to seriously question how much longer this will be the case,” the foundation’s CEO Kelly O’Shanassy said.

“This report documents how big polluters, mining companies and land clearers continue to greedily grab nature’s gifts – our forests, rivers, air and seas – and exploit them for profit.”

States and Trends of the Environment:

• Australian average temperatures have increased by 1C since 1910.
• Australian rainfall has been variable during the past 100 years, particularly the last 40 years, with declining long-term rainfall observed across much of southern Australia.
• Air quality is generally good in our urban areas, with some local areas of concern.
• Advserse human health impacts appear to occur at lower concentrations of air pollution than previously thought.

Links

• Full report: State of the Environment
• Australia's greenhouse gas emissions are rising and forecast to miss 2030 target
• Arctic sea ice could disappear even if world achieves climate target
• Josh Frydenberg insists Paris climate deal lives on, despite MPs' claims
• State of the Environment report: bright spots, but much more to do
• Emissions trading backflip a recipe for price rises, say business groups
• Josh Frydenberg backtracks on emissions trading comments
• Direct Action review: Coalition leaves carbon trading option open
• Great Barrier Reef progress report: We have to do better on water quality, says Australia
• Climate change: Australia falling behind rest of world on emissions cuts, says report

Climate Change Impact On Australia May Be Irreversible, Five-Yearly Report Says

The Guardian - Katharine Murphy

Exclusive: State of the Environment report says heritage and economic activity are being affected and the disadvantaged will be worst hit

The Tarkine wilderness area in Tasmania. Josh Frydenberg says the State of the Environment report indicates the impact of changing weather patterns is being felt on both land and sea. Photograph: Jason Edwards/Getty Images/National Geographic RF

An independent review of the state of Australia’s environment has found the impacts of climate change are increasing and some of the changes could be irreversible.
The latest State of the Environment report, a scientific snapshot across nine areas released by the federal government every five years, says climate change is altering the structure and function of natural ecosystems in Australia, and is affecting heritage, economic activity and human wellbeing.
It warns climate change will result in “location specific vulnerabilities” and says the most severe impacts will be felt by people who are socially and economically disadvantaged.
Record high water temperatures caused “widespread coral bleaching, habitat destruction and species mortality” in the marine environment between 2011 and 2016, it says.
The minister for energy and the environment, Josh Frydenberg, was due to release the report card on Tuesday morning.
In a column for Guardian Australia, Frydenberg says the report indicates the impact of changing weather patterns is being felt in the ocean, on the Great Barrier Reef and on land, affecting biodiversity and species habitat.
“While carbon emissions per capita have declined from 24.1 tonnes in 2011 to 22.2 tonnes in 2015 and energy efficiency improvements are reducing electricity demand, the report makes clear that, for the world to meet its Paris goals, there is much more to do,” Frydenberg says.
The minister says the report makes clear Australia needs to prepare for changes in the environment and “put in place a coordinated, comprehensive, well-resourced, long-term response”.
He warns that failure to do so “will have a direct and detrimental impact on our quality of life and leave a legacy to future generations that is inferior to the one we have inherited”.
The minister says the report presents the government with a mixed picture. “Good progress has been made in the management of the marine and Antarctic environments, natural and cultural heritage and the built environment – while pressures are building in relation to invasive species, climate change, land use and coastal protection,” he says.
Frydenberg says the doubling of Australia’s population in the past 50 years and growing urbanisation “have all combined to contribute to additional pressures on the environment”.
Australia’s heavily populated coastal areas are under pressure, as are “growth areas within urban environments, where human pressure is greatest”, the report finds.
Grazing and invasive species continue to pose a significant threat to biodiversity.
“The main pressures facing the Australian environment today are the same as in 2011: climate change, land use change, habitat fragmentation and degradation, and invasive species,” the report’s summary says. “In addition, the interactions between these and other pressures are resulting in cumulative impacts, amplifying the threats faced by the Australian environment.
“Evidence shows that some individual pressures on the environment have decreased since 2011, such as those associated with air quality, poor agricultural practices, commercial fishing, and oil and gas exploration and production in Australia’s marine environment.
“During the same time, however, other pressures have increased — for example, those associated with coal mining and the coal-seam gas industry, habitat fragmentation and degradation, invasive species, litter in our coastal and marine environments, and greater traffic volumes in our capital cities.”
The report criticises the lack of “an overarching national policy that establishes a clear vision for the protection and sustainable management of Australia’s environment to the year 2050”.
It points to poor collaboration, gaps in knowledge, data and monitoring and a lack of follow-though from policy to action.
“Providing for a sustainable environment both now and in the future is a national issue requiring leadership and action across all levels of government, business and the community,” it says. “The first step is recognising the importance and value of ecosystem services to our economy and society.
“Addressing Australia’s long-term, systemic environmental challenges requires, among other things, the development of a suite of stronger, more comprehensive and cohesive policies focused on protecting and maintaining natural capital, and ongoing improvements to current management arrangements.”
Late last year, the government established a review of its Direct Action climate policy. The current policy has been widely criticised by experts as inadequate if Australia is to meet its international emissions reduction targets under the Paris climate change agreement.
Shortly after establishing the review, Frydenberg ruled out converting the Direct Action scheme to a form of carbon trading after a brief internal revolt. Many experts argue carbon trading would allow Australia to reduce emissions consistent with Paris commitments at least cost to households and businesses.
The Direct Action review still allows for the consideration of the potential role of international carbon credits in meeting Australia’s emissions reduction targets – a practice Tony Abbott comprehensively ruled out as prime minister – and consideration of a post-2030 emissions reduction goal for Australia.
The review also requires an examination of international developments in climate change policy, which is code for an assessment of what is happening on global climate action in the event the US pulls out of the Paris climate agreement.
The New York Times reported last week that the White House was fiercely divided over Trump’s campaign promise to cancel the Paris agreement.
Its report said Trump’s senior strategist Steve Bannon wanted the US to pull out of the Paris agreement but Bannon’s stance was being resisted by the new secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, and the president’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, who are concerned about the diplomatic fallout.
The Turnbull government has already indicated that it intends to stay the course with the Paris agreement, and has argued it would take the US four years to withdraw from the deal under the terms of ratification.
But if the US withdraws from Paris, internal pressure inside the Coalition will intensify, and the prime minister will face calls from some conservatives to follow suit.
In his column for Guardian Australia, Frydenberg says the Coalition is doing good work on the environment and the conservative parties in Australia have been responsible for establishing legislation such as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, and programs such as the Natural Heritage Trust and the first mandatory Renewable Energy Target.
“The task now is to build on this proud Coalition tradition and to use this report to continue the good work the Turnbull government is already doing across so many areas of environmental policy,” he says.

Links

• Australia's greenhouse gas emissions are rising and forecast to miss 2030 target
• Arctic sea ice could disappear even if world achieves climate target
• Josh Frydenberg insists Paris climate deal lives on, despite MPs' claims
• State of the Environment report: bright spots, but much more to do
• Emissions trading backflip a recipe for price rises, say business groups
• Josh Frydenberg backtracks on emissions trading comments
• Direct Action review: Coalition leaves carbon trading option open
• Great Barrier Reef progress report: We have to do better on water quality, says Australia
• Climate change: Australia falling behind rest of world on emissions cuts, says report

World Is Facing A Water Crisis

EIN News

The world faces an acute water crisis within ten years, affecting food supplies, megacities and industry globally, a leading science writer has warned.

“World water use is already more than ten trillion tonnes a year. While the human population has tripled since 1950, our water use has grown sixfold,” says Julian Cribb, author of ‘Surviving the 21st Century’ (Springer International 2017). The book focusses on the ten greatest threats to the human future – one of which is resource scarcity – and what we can do about them.
“Rising demand from megacities, mining, agriculture and the fossil fuels sector in particular is combining with climate change to threaten major water scarcities across the world’s subtropical, arid and semi-arid regions. When this affects the food supply there will be vast migrations of people – like the world has never seen before.”
Mr Cribb says that scientific studies show:

• groundwater is running out in practically every country in the world where it is used to grow food, posing risks to food security in northern India, northern China, Central Asia, the central and western US, and the Middle East. Most of this groundwater will take thousands of years to replenish.
• the icepack on high mountain chains is shrinking, emptying the rivers it once fed in practically every continent. 
• around the world, large lakes are drying up, especially in Central Asia, China, sub-Saharan Africa and the South American Andes. 
• 50,000 dams break up the world’s rivers, sparking increased disputes over water between neighbouring countries
• most of the world’s large rivers are badly polluted with chemicals, nutrients and sediment.

“The water crisis is sneaking up on humanity unawares. People turn on the tap and assume clean, safe water will always flow. But the reality is that supplies are already critical for 4 billion people - over half the world’s population. During times of drought, megacities like Sao Paulo, La Paz, Los Angeles, Santiago, 32 Indian cities and 400 Chinese cities are now at risk.”
Among world leaders, Pope Francis recently warned that we could be moving toward “a major world war for water”. He deliberately altered his prepared speech to issue this caveat when addressing an international seminar on the human right to water, hosted by the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Feb. 23 and 24, 2017.
Each of the last three UN secretaries-general – Ban Ki-Moon, Kofi Annan and Boutros Boutros-Ghali – has warned of the dangers of world water scarcity and of ‘water wars’ in the future. The world’s leading scientific journal, Nature, issued a sobering warning of water scarcity under climate change in December 2013.
“Other than in water circles, these warnings seem to have passed largely unheeded by governments and the population at large,” Cribb says. “The sense of urgency necessary to prevent a world water crisis is not there.”
“Especially overlooked is the impact of water scarcity on the world food supply. As cities and energy corporations combine to rob farmers of the water needed to grow crops, the global irrigation sector is stagnating at a time when it needs to double food output to meet rising global demand for food. This will directly impact the availability and price of food to city people everywhere.
“We commonly assume that the natural hydrological cycle of evaporation and rainfall means there will always be ample water. In reality, we pollute and misuse water so badly, it is often not safe for drinking, domestic use or food production. Meanwhile rainfall, effluent and wastewater in most cities is wasted or discharged to the ocean.
“The average citizen of Planet Earth uses 1,386 tonnes of water per year, and the demand continues to rise every year, stressing supplies in many cases to their limits,” Cribb says.
A study by NASA (2015) shows that a third of the world’s major groundwater basins are stressed, and people are using the water without knowing when it will run out.
A timeline maintained by Professor Peter Gleick of the World Water Institute reveals the increasing frequency and tempo of disputes and conflicts over water globally.
“The evidence points to serious trouble for the world over water within the next ten years. The world focus of attention has been on climate – rightly so, as it is an integral factor in water scarcity – but the massive water crises that will disrupt food supplies and dislodge huge populations are much closer than other climate impacts. Present policy does not reflect this.”
Mr Cribb says it is time to put world water science, technology and management on a war footing, if the crises are to be averted. “Currently humans spend US$1.8 trillion a year on new weapons. If we spent a tenth of that on clean water technologies, fixing leaky supplies, recycling city water, measuring availability, agricultural water efficiency, effective water markets and controlling demand we could avoid the conflicts which the Pope and UN heads foresee.
“Current evidence suggests most countries prefer war to water.”
"Surviving the 21st Century" (Springer International Publishing 2017) is a powerful new book exploring the main risks facing humanity: ecological collapse, resource depletion, weapons of mass destruction, climate change, global poisoning, food crises, population and urban overexpansion, pandemic disease, dangerous new technologies and self-delusion – and what can and should be done to limit them.

The author: Julian Cribb FTSE is an Australian science writer and former newspaper editor, with over thirty awards for journalism to his credit. The author of 9 books and 8000 media articles, his other works in this series include The Coming Famine (UCP 2010), chosen as a 'Book of the Times' by the NY Times, and Poisoned Planet (Allen&Unwin 2014).

The book: Surviving the 21st Century: humanity's ten great challenges and how we can overcome themby Julian Cribb is published by Springer NY, 2017. ISBN 978-3-319-41269-6. DOI  10.1007/978-3-319-41270-2 is available online in softback and e-book formats from the following suppliers and from quality book shops. 

Links

• Amazon
• Goodreads
• Barnes & Noble
• Booktopia
• The Book Depository

‘Claim The Sky’: A New Climate Movement For The Trump Era

The Conversation - Robert Costanza

We need to take back the atmosphere to save it from pollution. China Stringer Network/Reuters Pictures

President Donald Trump is making it less likely the United States will meet the emissions targets it agreed at the 2015 Paris climate conference. These targets are themselves insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement’s overall goal of keeping global warming well within 2℃.
But there is another possibility for those who want action. The idea is called “claim the sky” and it would involve a global movement, working together with the most affected countries, to claim ownership over our atmosphere.
Trump has promised to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, appointed the former chief executive of oil giant Exxon as his secretary of state, and is planning huge changes to Obama’s Clean Power Plan and the Environmental Protection Agency.
It is true that the cost of renewables like solar and wind energy is dropping rapidly. It’s therefore conceivable that economic factors alone will drive the shift away from fossil fuels. But if nothing more is done, and America and other countries continue to dish out billions in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, it may take far longer than necessary to achieve the goals of Paris, if they can be met at all.

Claim the sky
“Claiming the sky” could help reduce emissions more quickly. At the same time it would assist with adaptation, poverty reduction and public perception, and counter policies of the Trump administration and other countries that support fossil fuels.
It involves establishing a trust to collect fees when damage is done to the atmosphere. That money can then be used to reduce poverty, rebuild communities and restore the atmospheric commons.
After all, the atmosphere is a community asset that belongs to all of us. The problem is that it is an “open access” resource – anyone can emit carbon dioxide with very little direct consequence for themselves, despite the huge cumulative consequences for everyone.
Charging companies and individuals for the damage their emissions cause – for example through a carbon tax or trading system – would encourage lower emissions. However, despite some interesting regional experiments, implementing such a system at a global scale has proved to be next to impossible.
Global civil society could change this, if it claims property rights over the atmosphere. By asserting that we all collectively own the sky, we can begin to use the legal institutions that uphold property rights to protect our collective property, charging those who damage it and rewarding those who improve it.

A public trust
The Public Trust Doctrine is a legal principle that holds that certain natural resources are to be held in trust as assets to serve the public good. Under this doctrine it is the government’s responsibility to protect these assets and maintain them for the public’s use. The government cannot give away or sell off these public assets. The doctrine has been used in many countries in the past to protect water bodies, shorelines, fresh water, wildlife and other resources.
Several court cases have confirmed this responsibility. Just before the Paris talks, a Washington state judge ruled that the government has “a constitutional obligation to protect the public’s interest in natural resources held in trust for the common benefit of the people”. Earlier in 2015, a New Mexico court recognised that the state has a duty to protect the state’s natural resources – including the atmosphere – for the benefit of residents. The same year, a court in the Netherlands ordered the Dutch government to cut the country’s emissions by at least 25% within five years.
The time has come to expand this principle to cover all of the natural capital and ecosystem services that support human well-being, including the atmosphere, oceans and biodiversity.

Creating a trust
Holding climate polluters accountable for their damage is more straightforward than it might seem. Just 90 entities are responsible for two-thirds of the carbon emitted into the atmosphere.
I and several colleagues wrote an open letter asking nations to establish an atmospheric trust on behalf of all current and future generations. The proceeds could fund restoration projects or expedite the transition to non-nuclear, renewable energy. In addition, governments could charge for ongoing damage via a carbon tax or other mechanisms.
Many of us already know or have experienced the benefit of a trust. There are private land trusts, such as the Nature Conservancy in America, or water trusts like the Murray-Darling’s Environmental Water Trust in Australia. The Alaska Permanent Fund and the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund are examples of trusts that put aside royalties from fossil fuel extraction for public benefit.
Just as governments individually levy fines in the event of an oil spill or other environmental damage within their borders, the creation of a trust is an opportunity to do this on a wider scale. The trust will maintain transparency through the internet, publishing financial carbon accounts of projects funded by polluters.
In addition, all governments need not agree in order to create the atmospheric trust. As all governments are co-trustees in the global atmospheric asset, a subset of nations could create the trust and bring the claims.
But given that governments have not acted on their own, pressure from civil society will be required to compel them to act and to counteract the inevitable corporate resistance. In other words, a concerted effort to “claim the sky” as a public trust on behalf of all of global society, in combination with the solid legal framework provided by the Public Trust Doctrine, may just do the trick.
As US Senator Bernie Sanders has said, “When millions of people stand up and fight back, we will not be denied.” It is time to claim our right to the atmospheric commons and a stable climate.
We need a broad coalition of individuals and groups to claim publicly that the atmosphere belongs to all of us and our descendants, and to demand that polluters pay for damage done and for restoring and maintaining our climate.
The fossil fuel era is coming to an end. The industry is making a last-ditch attempt to sell off its assets before these become stranded, aided by government policies and subsidies. This will cause severe and lasting damage to our atmospheric commons.
But if we can claim the sky, create an atmospheric trust and bring damage claims against the biggest polluters, we can further tip the economic scales against fossil fuels and toward renewable energy sources. We can speed up the transition to the 1.5-degree world that the Paris Agreement aims for, and that current and future generations of humans claim as our common asset.

Links

• Doctrine of Public Trust
• The Urgenda Climate Case Against The Dutch Government
• Judge Rules School Children Can Pursue Climate Change Lawsuit Against Washington State
• In The Age Of Trump, A Climate Change Libel Suit Heads To Trial
• Our Children's Trust Unleashes Wave of Climate Change Litigation
• Are Countries Legally Required To Protect Citizens From Climate Change?