Budget 2017: No Mention, No Policy, No Idea On Climate

Independent Australia - Kelly O'Shanassy

Not a single mention. Climate change is the biggest social, moral and political issue of our time and yet Treasurer Scott Morrison didn’t utter those words once in his entire Federal Budget speech.

(Cartoon courtesy cartoonmick.wordpress.com)

Alarm bells are ringing because the Turnbull Government seems determined to continue Tony Abbott’s environmental negligence.
This is a budget that puts big polluters ahead of the community and the air, water, forest and land that sustain us. It will be every day Australians that pay the price.
In a nutshell, the budget continues with a 14% cut in environment expenditure since the Coalition formed government in 2013; this is projected to be a 27% cut by 2020. Meanwhile, $7.6 billion have been allocated for polluting subsidies — more than six times the environment budget.
There is no climate change policy, no plan for the environment and no plan to transition the energy economy to prepare for the next century.
Astonishingly, Malcolm Turnbull still wants to give Adani a "cheap" billion dollar loan from his coal slush fund. This one loan is almost the same amount of money that our prime minister is willing to provide our nation’s rivers, reefs and forests this year. He has lost his moral compass.
The prioritisation of gas in this budget further demonstrates the Coalition's failure to recognise the need for a long-term transition plan for Australia’s energy system. Budget measures which foreshadow investment in gas infrastructure and new gas exploration mean Australia will remain shackled to fossil fuels instead of accelerating the transition to renewables.
Australians want their elected representatives to take seriously their responsibility to Australia’s reefs, rivers, people, forests and wildlife seriously. But unsurprisingly, there is a crisis of confidence in the Turnbull Government’s ability to protect nature.
New ReachTEL polling released this week and commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) shows only 40% of voters think the government has a plan. Contrary to the Turnbull Government’s actions, Australians support increased investment to protect nature (60%), want big business (67%) or polluters (76%) to foot the bill and are more likely to support parties who have a comprehensive national plan (74%).
That’s because the government spends more time barracking for a dangerous, polluting coal mine than it does for protecting our environment. Their credibility is in tatters. They’re completely out of touch with what Australians expect their elected representatives to do.

buzzfeed.com

In a nutshell, the budget continues with a 14% cut in environment expenditure since the Coalition formed government in 2013; this is projected to be a 27% cut by 2020. Meanwhile, $7.6 billion have been allocated for polluting subsidies — more than six times the environment budget.
There is no climate change policy, no plan for the environment and no plan to transition the energy economy to prepare for the next century.
Astonishingly, Malcolm Turnbull still wants to give Adani a "cheap" billion dollar loan from his coal slush fund. This one loan is almost the same amount of money that our prime minister is willing to provide our nation’s rivers, reefs and forests this year. He has lost his moral compass.
The prioritisation of gas in this budget further demonstrates the Coalition's failure to recognise the need for a long-term transition plan for Australia’s energy system. Budget measures which foreshadow investment in gas infrastructure and new gas exploration mean Australia will remain shackled to fossil fuels instead of accelerating the transition to renewables.
Australians want their elected representatives to take seriously their responsibility to Australia’s reefs, rivers, people, forests and wildlife seriously. But unsurprisingly, there is a crisis of confidence in the Turnbull Government’s ability to protect nature.
New ReachTEL polling released this week and commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) shows only 40% of voters think the government has a plan. Contrary to the Turnbull Government’s actions, Australians support increased investment to protect nature (60%), want big business (67%) or polluters (76%) to foot the bill and are more likely to support parties who have a comprehensive national plan (74%).
Here are a few results from the ReachTEL poll, published here for the first time:

Do you agree with the following statement? 'The current Federal government has a plan to protect the reefs, rivers, forests and wildlife for the current and future generations.'

Source: Australian Conservation Foundation

Currently out of a budget of $445 billion the Federal Government spends just over $1 billion on protecting reefs, rivers, forests and wildlife. In the upcoming Federal Budget would you like to see the Government spend (much more, more, the same, less, much less) on protecting nature?

Source: Australian Conservation Foundation

Would you support a proportion of company tax being spent directly on protecting Australian wildlife in danger of extinction and protecting Australia’s reefs, rivers and forests?

Source: Australian Conservation Foundation

Would you support a levy on polluting companies if funds were directly spent on protecting Australian wildlife in danger of extinction and protecting reefs, rivers and forests?

Source: Australian Conservation Foundation

Thinking about big picture solutions to the problems we have with our reefs, rivers, forests and wildlife, would you support a political party with a policy for a national plan where nature thrives?

Source: Australian Conservation Foundation

That’s because the government spends more time barracking for a dangerous, polluting coal mine than it does for protecting our environment. Their credibility is in tatters. They’re completely out of touch with what Australians expect their elected representatives to do.
Our message to Prime Minister Turnbull is pretty simple:

"The only way for you to restore your credibility on environment and climate change is to reverse environment sector cuts and develop a comprehensive national plan to protect nature and move to clean energy. There is no other solution for your leadership, or for our environment."

By choosing to prop up big polluting companies with loans and subsidies, our government is choosing not to invest in clean energy, education and creating a better future for our children and grandchildren. The government’s own State of the Environment report called for more spending on our reefs, rivers, forests and lands — not less.
Australians care about our rivers, reefs, wildlife and forests and expect governments to protect them for our children and grandchildren. They understand the value of nature in a way that the Turnbull Government doesn’t appear to do.
Polluters and big business should be made to pay for the damage they cause to the environment, not everyday Australians. It is the government’s responsibility to ensure this.

Budget 2017 and the environment:

• No active climate change policy; no further funding for the Emissions Reduction Fund;
• No energy transition plan;
• No national environment protection plan;
• No reform of the Fuel Tax Credit subsidy, which will cost Australians $6.3 billion next year and $27.1 billion to 2020;
• No change to the aviation fuel excise concessions which subsidise the fuel of the aviation sector — will cost Australians $1.3 billion next year, $5.8 billion over the next four years;
• The government has announced an energy package which focuses on gas and the Snowy Hydro Scheme;  
• The government affirms its election commitment to provide a $110m of equity for a solar thermal plant in Port Augusta;
• No further research funding for the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility — it has been given $600,000 next year to work with CSIRO to maintain an online database of specific parts of its research. It has no funding after that;
• The government has committed to funding Landcare till 2022-23 with total funding of $1 billion over the seven years. However, there is no new funding over the forward estimates above what has already been foreshadowed;
• Nothing new in the budget on Indigenous Ranger programmes; and
• $15 million for new Indigenous Protected Areas from existing environment funding
• Despite the Finkel Review, the Government’s Climate Policy Review, the Vehicle Emissions Review and the completed National Energy Productivity Plan, there is no funding to address Australia’s growing climate pollution; and instead,
• The Environment and Energy Minister, Josh Frydenberg, is planning for failure, saying it is uncertain Australia can achieve net zero climate pollution by 2050.

Where's Mr Turnbull's leadership on climate change?

Links

• Budget 2017: Turnbull government funds pollution over people and nature
• Big polluters should pay and the government is without a plan: Australians at odds with their government over nature
• Correcting Adani’s response to evidence of Abbot Point pollution
• ENA & CSIRO embarrass PM on energy policy as gas sideshow plays on
• Adani Abbot Point coal spill: Carmichael coal mine won’t be any different
• Victorian national parks budget funding should go to establishing Great Forest National Park
• New legal advice - NAIF investment in Adani coal infrastructure likely illegal due to financial risks
• Palaszczuk to put Adani before Queensland with secret water licence deal

Climate Change Is The Elephant In The Budget Room

Eureka Street - Francine Crimmins*

When Scott Morrison announced the 2017-18 Budget this week there was one phrase he didn't dare to utter in his meticulously written and rehearsed speech. It's just two short words, climate change, but when used together they conjure a public debate even our minister for the environment gets tongued tied over.

Morrison's omission of climate change in the federal budget has set a tone of ignorance to improving energy policy in a meaningful way. Dr Paul Burke, a fellow at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University, thinks 'It shows that climate change isn't a number one priority if it's not mentioned at all in a budget speech.'
The only mention of energy security was in the wider context of pressures on the cost of living for Australians. Morrison said the Prime Minister's energy security plan will provide 'reliable and affordable energy for all Australians' and that $3 billion was already being invested in new emissions technologies.
When it comes to new funding to assist in reducing emissions — nothing to see here. Funding for the environment budget was cut 14 per cent since the Coalition formed government in 2014. Under this budget, it is predicted the cut could be up to 27 per cent by 2020.
New energy related measures in this budget include a focus on increasing gas production, taking out the most funding with $86.3 million. This sum will cover $19.6 million to increase gas market transparency and over $30 million for discovery of new potential gas stores.
On the renewable energy front, $6.2 million is going to support the Solar Communities program which supports food rescue charities and other community groups to install solar to reduce their emissions and save on energy costs. There's also $110 million being set aside for Turnbull's Snowy Hydro 2.0 and a hefty investment into a solar thermal project in Port Augusta.
In addition, the National Landcare Program will receive $5 million to support a community led project into threatened species. The Great Barrier Reef will also receive $1 billion after the worst coral bleaching season in history was reported late last year.
Despite this, it's clear an overwhelming focus in environmental funding is on exploration and harvesting of gas for Australia's future in energy. It is short sighted to place money into environmental conservation projects, such as the reef fund, without first actively attempting to treat the cause of the coral bleaching — our fossil fuel emissions.

"This lack of commitment to energy in public policy, and now national budgeting, ignores overwhelming scientific evidence that not reducing to net zero emissions by the end of the century will cause climate change levels to become extremely dangerous."

Environmental organisations on Twitter were not oblivious to the omission in the Treasurer's address. Friends of the Earth Australia tweeted: 'Like many, we're disappointed to see so little funding for the environment and no mention of climate change in the budget speech.'
The lack of attention given to climate change in this budget comes after Minister for the Environment Josh Frydenberg admitted Australia wouldn't meet its Paris commitment of zero emissions by 2020. Instead, he predicts 2050 is a more realistic target. The Energy Reduction Fund, the government's climate policy, has no new funding under this budget.
This lack of commitment to energy in public policy, and now national budgeting, ignores overwhelming scientific evidence that not reducing to net zero emissions by the end of the century will cause climate change levels to become extremely dangerous. Countries at The Paris COP21 agreed on a limit of keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees by 2020. This decision was reached as a way to limit warming before it reaches a catastrophic level of 2 degrees. This promise appears to be abandoned by the Turnbull government in the most recent budget.
Australia's budget not only is a betrayal of the future of Australia's health, biodiversity and economic security, but also negligent of an international agreement which was set up to ensure a fair approach to climate for nations.

*Francine Crimmins is studying a double degree of Journalism and Creative Intelligence & Innovation at the University of Technology Sydney.

Links

• Racism and renewables in the developing world
• People power the solar revolution
• Climate pipe dreams
• Trump's coal crusade will cost
• Why we will never give up flying

Turnbull Lets Fig Leaf Droop And Stands Naked On Climate Policy

RenewEconomy - Giles Parkinson

You would think that with all the hoo-ha about the scandalous increases in electricity prices that it would have rated some sort of mention in the budget. You know, one of the biggest cost inputs for business being addressed in the government’s economic centrepiece.
But no. The 2nd Morrison/Turnbull fiscal document blithely ignores the issue, despite the fact that their lack of policy direction in the last few years has been the major contributor to the price surges that are scorching household and business budgets.
There’s some pointless extra money for coal seam gas, the removal of some funds for carbon capture (finally) and some previously promised funds for solar thermal (about time), and even another thought bubble on Snowy Hydro – this time to buy it out from the state governments. See Matt Rose’s article for more details.
But there is nothing on climate change, no grand vision on energy. There are no new funds for the Direct Action policy that Turnbull had once ridiculed as a fig leaf for a climate action, and nothing on what might take Australia along the path to the pledge it signed in the Paris deal – effectively to reach zero net emissions by 2050.
As Labor’s Mark Butler noted this morning, the Coalition’s climate change policy has officially gone from that fig-leaf to a non-existent farce.

Nearly three years after celebrating the dumping the carbon price (above), slashing the RET and ignoring expert advice (CCA and the Climate Council), the Coalition government has no actual policy, on energy or climate, and its negligence is adding to the stunning rise in electricity prices it is trying to blame on everything and everyone else.
“Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister who once said he didn’t want to lead a Liberal Party that didn’t feel as strongly about climate change as he did, is now the Prime Minister who has completely dropped any pretence of attempting to combat climate change,” Butler says in his statement, noting that climate change did not rate a single mention in the Budget speech.
“As the central pillar of the Direct Action policy, the Emission Reduction Fund, runs out of funds, this budget delivers ZERO new policies or funding to drive down pollution and combat climate change. This budget allocates more new money to the Department of the House of Representatives than it does to tackling climate change.
“Budgets are about choices and priorities, and this budget makes it perfectly clear the Turnbull government isn’t choosing a safe climate because they don’t think it is a priority. This budget finally makes official what we already know; this Liberal government is failing all future generations of Australians.”
We took big slabs of Butler’s comments because we don’t think we could say it any better.
Ostensibly, the Coalition government is waiting for the results of the Finkel Review, and its own review into climate policy, or any of the other 24 different reviews whose outcomes it may find convenient.
Turnbull’s also waiting to sniff the breeze out of Washington, which is likely to be foul, and could amount to a complete withdrawal or at very least a two-fingered salute, something that his f***-you picks as head of the EPA and the energy department have all but guaranteed.
And then Turnbull has to consider the right wing of his own party, and the date in September when it will come to pass that he has served a day longer than his predecessor Tony Abbott, when we can only hope that we might see the emergence of Turnbull 2.0.
For the moment, the Coalition’s stance is untenable. It has suggested that “clean coal” might be the answer, but that idea – on both the notion that this coal might be clean or economic – has been hit out of the ball-park by all but a handful of market opportunists.
Gas is quickly being discounted too. The monies allocated for pipeline and C&G research are yet more fig leaves. Gas will play some role as a “peaking plant” and a “gap filler” over the next decade or two, but the idea of gas being a transition fuel has also been belted out of the ball-park, by the gas producers themselves.
AGL Energy says it is simply too expensive and can’t and won’t be able to compete with the stunning falls in wind, solar and battery storage technologies. Origin agrees, particularly after signing a long-term agreement to buy the output of the 530MW Stockyard Hill wind farm for just $55/MWh.
Santos is signing up for solar plants because it might be the cheapest way of freeing up more gas, which is just one small light in a gas business strategy that is based around an untenable, f*** the next generation, 4°C climate strategy.
The Finkel Review, like the CSIRO/ENA reports that preceded it, and the new thinking coming out of the Australian Energy Market Operator, and the major utilities, will likely tell us that the transition to zero net emissions is both possible, imperative, and likely to cost a lot less than most people think.
The trick will come in the policy suite that is deemed best to reach that target. One is the emissions intensity scheme, but this was largely designed as a free kick for a technology (gas) that is now longer considered necessary.
That can be solved, perhaps, with a really biting EIS, or perhaps more effectively by adopting state-style renewable energy schemes and having a managed transition through a series of auctions, the policy of choice in many other countries.
The idea that Turnbull is now considering buying out Snowy Hydro, completely, suggests the latter may be an option. Current market settings and rules clearly don’t work because the price of electricity is preposterously and unnecessarily high.

As this graph shows, the average price has more than doubled over the last year. At times, the rise has been three or four-fold, particularly when the incumbents were able to take advantage of their market power in South Australia and Queensland.
That has the single happy outcome of making distributed generation – rooftop solar and battery storage – very popular.
But as the CSIRO and the networks point out, that could have unintended consequences if power prices stay high and the technology costs of solar and storage continue to fall to the levels anticipated by South Australian Power Networks, of just 15c/kWh, or less than half of their bills.
That could cause a stampede out of the grid just at a time that the equipment installed by households and business should be harvested to add to the power and security of the grid.
As so many people are saying, this is going to require some smart technologies, and some smart policies. There is absolutely no sign of the latter from this government yet.
Then again, this budget does jettison the conservative ideology on small government. Perhaps it can also dump – with or without permission from the IPA – its antipathy on climate change, and do energy consumers a favour by accelerating, not slowing, the inevitable energy transition away from centralised fossil fuels.

Links

• Turnbull’s budget ignores energy crisis and dodges climate
• The energy revolution is here – but are consumers invited?
• Budget criticised for lack of climate change measures
• Budget 2017: government goes hard on gas and hydro in bid for energy security

Budget 2017: Government Goes Hard On Gas And Hydro In Bid For Energy Security

The Conversation - Hugh Saddler | Alan Pears | Roger Dargaville |Tony Wood

Gas infrastructure and exploration attracted the lion’s share of new energy announcements in the 2017 federal budget. Sean Heatley/Shutterstock.com

The budget contains several measures designed to boost energy security, including:

• A$90 million to expand gas supplies, partly through increased unconventional gas exploration
• a potential Commonwealth buyout of an expanded Snowy Hydro scheme
• up to A$110 million for a solar thermal plant at Port Augusta
• monitoring of gas and electricity prices by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

Below, our experts react to the measures.

Gas price problem far from solved
Roger Dargaville, Deputy Director, Melbourne Energy Institute, University of Melbourne
The budget contains a broad range of funding in energy-related areas, with a significant focus on gas resources, making A$78 million available for onshore unconventional gas exploration and reform in the gas markets, and A$7 million for studies into new gas pipelines to South Australia, from both Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
Interestingly, there is A$110 million in equity available (but not guaranteed) for a solar thermal plant in Port Augusta. And most notably, the government has proposed purchasing the Snowy Hydro Scheme from the New South Wales and Victorian governments, ensuring that the scheme stays in public hands.
The budget also includes A$13 million for CSIRO to improve energy forecasting tools, and A$8 million for the ACCC to investigate consumer energy pricing issues.
Overall, the budget highlights the government’s desire to do something about gas prices, but offers little to make a significant difference to a very difficult problem. Gas market reform and new pipelines are unlikely to reduce the exposure of the domestic market to price rises driven by international exports.
Importantly, there is little new funding in the budget directly relating to reducing carbon emissions and meeting the pledges made in the Paris Agreement (a 26-28% emission reduction relative to 2005 levels by 2030). Also noteworthy is the fact that funding for the carbon capture and storage flagship ceases in 2018-19.

‘On energy this budget is small fry’
Tony Wood, Energy Program Director, Grattan Institute
The budget does little more on energy than endorse the government’s deal with Senator Nick Xenophon on corporate tax cuts, complemented by modest commitments to energy security, more gas and better regulation.
Government facilitation of gas development and beefing up the energy capability of the Australian Energy Regulator and the ACCC are simple logic, and the one- off payment to pensioners to help with electricity bills will be welcomed by them.
Major public funding for further feasibility studies is a little more questionable. If the gas crisis can’t galvanise support from pipeline companies and gas consumers for pipelines, why would governments reach a different conclusion?
And finally, one can only speculate as to why the federal government is contemplating buying out the NSW and Victorian governments’ share of Snowy Hydro. Presumably it is because the feds are concerned about securing support for the proposed expansion.
In summary, on energy this budget is small fry ahead of major policy decisions that rest on the forthcoming Finkel Review of the National Electricity Market next month, and the climate change policy review later in the year.

The Commonwealth will look at expanding the Snowy Hydro Scheme and buying it off the states. AAP Image/Lukas Coch

A step towards radical energy reform?
Hugh Saddler, Honorary Associate Professor, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, Australian National University
Few announcements in the budget speech are more emblematic of complete policy reversal than the announcement that the Commonwealth would buy the shareholdings in Snowy Hydro Limited of the governments of NSW (58%) and Victoria (29%), to add to the 13% currently owned by the Commonwealth. This comes almost exactly 11 years after Prime Minister John Howard, responding to vociferous public opposition, pulled the plug on plans by all three governments for a public float of their entire shareholdings. What is more, Treasurer Scott Morrison has now announced that, once owned by the Commonwealth, Snowy Hydro would remain in public ownership.
This announcement of course accompanies the government’s Snowy 2.0 proposal, for a fivefold increase in the Snowy scheme’s current 500 megawatt pumped storage capacity (at Talbingo). This was used, after commissioning in 1974, to allow inflexible coal fired power stations to operate with constant output levels day and night, but is now almost never used. This presumably reflects commercial decisions by Snowy Hydro, as it trades in the National Electricity Market.
The rationale for Snowy Hydro 2.0 is to facilitate operation of a grid with a high share of renewable generation, by smoothing out variations in wind and solar supply. Does this announcement mean that the government envisages moving away from a strictly commercial approach to using the assets of the Snowy scheme? Is this a first step towards radical restructuring, or even dismantling, of the National Electricity Market?

Stronger legislation needed
Alan Pears, Senior Industry Fellow, RMIT University
The detailed A$265 million energy package includes a number of useful measures to strengthen the weak regulatory culture of the energy sector that has allowed our energy crisis to evolve. But it is still limited: strong legislative reform and active support of emerging competitors will also be needed. It is a modest investment compared with recent multibillion-dollar energy cost increases. If it is successful, it will deliver vary large net benefits to the economy by limiting energy price increases. Unfortunately, past efforts to fix the energy situation have largely failed to deliver real outcomes: we need clear objectives for outcomes, and a mechanism to implement contingency strategies if they are not achieved.
In a context of increasing urgency for stronger action on climate, and the reality that the global “burnable carbon” budget is very limited, investment to encourage more gas development seems misplaced. More emphasis on energy efficiency, renewables and smart energy systems would make much more sense. Energy efficiency already saves billions on energy costs and could save much more, while renewable energy is becoming cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives. They also help to achieve our climate targets. And fossil fuels are responsible for almost three-quarters of Australian emissions, so we need strong action to meet our international obligations.
The extension of the A$20,000 tax write-off for small business spending on equipment is a measure that, at least for small businesses, offsets a significant barrier to investment in energy efficiency. Firms will also be able to continue to claim the write-off to improve the economics of investments in on-site renewable energy and storage. Of course, the problem still remains for spending over A$20,000 by small businesses, and for larger businesses.
The energy security plan, which includes funding for ACCC to police energy industry behaviour is only a small step towards fixing the disastrous failures of energy policy and a transition to a 21st century energy policy framework. Much more will need to be done.

Links

• Gas crisis? Energy crisis? The real problem is lack of long-term planning
• Snowy Hydro gets a boost, but ‘seawater hydro’ could help South Australia
• With gas and hydro plans, the government is looking at the whole picture
• Turnbull unveils Snowy plan for pumped hydro, costing billions

A Parable From Down Under For U.S. Climate Scientists

New York Times - Justin Gillis

John Church in Hobart in September 2010. He is known internationally for helping to bring statistical and analytical rigor to longstanding questions about sea level rise. Credit Peter Boyer 

HOBART, TASMANIA — John A. Church, a climate scientist, did not look or sound like a man who had recently been shoved out of a job.

Speaking softly and downing coffee at an outdoor cafe in this old port city, he sounded more like a fellow fresh off a jousting match. “I think we had a win — a bigger win than I ever anticipated,” Dr. Church said in an interview last month.

Australian climate science went through an upheaval last year, one that engaged the press and the public in defending the importance of basic research. In the end, Dr. Church did indeed lose his job, but scores of his colleagues who had been marked for layoffs did not. Some of them view him as having sacrificed his career to save theirs.

What happened in Australia shows the power of an informed citizenry keeping watch on its government. And it may turn out to be a precursor to an attack on fundamental climate research in the United States.

Australian climate science is important not just for Australia, a country of 24 million people, but for the world. Australia is the most scientifically accomplished nation in the Southern Hemisphere, which has expanses of ocean and relatively little land.

In effect, this small country is keeping an eye on half the planet for the rest of us.

Much of the necessary work is done by scientists on the payroll of the country’s principal research agency, known as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. It was within that agency that last year’s controversy unfolded.

Budgets at the agency had been under pressure for years, much as scientific budgets have been in the United States. Then in 2015, a new boss, Larry R. Marshall, took over at the behest of the conservative government, controlled by a party known here, oddly, as the Liberals, and led now by Malcolm Turnbull. (Actual liberals join the Labor Party.)

Short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change

The issue can be overwhelming. The science is complicated. We get it. This is your cheat sheet.

Though Dr. Marshall is Australian, he made his name as a scientific researcher and entrepreneur in the United States. He went back to Australia with the goal of sprinkling some Silicon Valley pixie dust on the agency, doing more to turn its fundamental research into jobs and start-up companies to benefit the economy.

Studying the agency’s costs, Dr. Marshall and his aides decided that too many people were working on basic questions about the climate. If he laid off scores of them, he reasoned, he would have money to reinvest in other priorities. Those would include looking for ways to reduce emissions, and to adapt to climate changes that could no longer be avoided.

When they found out about the plan, though, the agency’s scientists were dumbfounded. They were entirely in favor of research on solutions, but the notion that basic climate monitoring and analysis could be scaled back struck them as preposterous.

While the world’s scientists have established that the planet is warming, that human activity is the main cause and that continued high emissions will pose profound risks, they are still far from having a complete understanding of the planetary climate.

When Dr. Marshall’s plan was unveiled, Australian researchers hit the panic button. Among those who swung into action was Dr. Church.

He is an oceanographer and climate scientist with decades of experience. Working from one of the research agency’s offices in Hobart, the capital of Australia’s island state of Tasmania, he had become known internationally for helping to bring statistical and analytical rigor to longstanding questions about sea level rise. With a colleague, Dr. Church was the first to establish that the rise had accelerated during the 20th century, a strong indication that the pace is linked to emissions of greenhouse gases.

He also had extensive contacts in the Australian press. Dr. Church said that by the time he reached Peter Hannam, a top environmental journalist with The Sydney Morning Herald, Mr. Hannam was already sniffing out the story of the cutbacks. Once he broke it, the situation developed into an international brouhaha.

A flood of internal documents leaked. Thousands of scientists weighed in from abroad, pleading with the Australian government to reconsider. People marched in the streets. Hearings were convened.

Dr. Church stuck his neck out farther than his colleagues. In an open letter to Dr. Marshall, he urged that the cuts be rolled back and accused his boss of being “disrespectful and insulting” toward the agency’s employees.

Trying to allay suspicion about his motives, Dr. Marshall took pains to make clear that he accepted the basic findings of climate research. The climate “absolutely is changing,” he declared before a committee of the Australian Senate. “It is changing, and we have to do something about it.”

Explaining the origins of the controversy, Dr. Marshall said in a recent telephone interview from Canberra, the national capital, “Unfortunately, with a finite funding envelope, you’ve got to make choices where you fund.”

Despite the government’s efforts to quell the controversy, the proposed layoffs became an issue last summer in a hard-fought election campaign, part of a larger argument about the perceived weakness of Australia’s climate policies.

The Liberal-led conservative coalition narrowly beat Labor, but lost seats in Parliament and returned to Canberra in a weakened position. Almost as soon as the election was over, the government partly backed down, with a new science minister, Greg Hunt, declaring that climate analysis would be a “bedrock function” of the research agency.

Originally, scores of scientists and staff members at a research center outside Melbourne had been marked for layoffs, but in the end only 20 or so left, many of them near or past retirement age. The center is now recruiting additional scientists, and may wind up larger than before the fight.

In the interview, Dr. Marshall said he wished he had communicated more effectively with the agency’s employees about the reasons for the shift in priorities. “We are a learning organization, and there are definitely things we’d do differently,” he said.

As the controversy unfolded, Dr. Church was implacable in public, but he said in our interview that he had wrestled with major doubts.

“I had sleepless nights for months,” he said. “I thought, am I doing the right thing by my colleagues? Am I looking after their positions, or am I making it worse for them and for the Australian public?”

The end, he said, came as no great shock. He was on a research ship in the middle of the Southern Ocean when the word came down that his job would not be one of those being saved.

“I’m still angry, in some sense,” he said, citing certain colleagues in the agency who he felt had not defended the integrity of science at a critical moment.

But he was able to take full retirement benefits. His reputation as a man of honor was burnished by the episode, and the University of New South Wales offered him a position that will allow him to continue his work. He expressed gratitude to that institution.

As Dr. Church and I were finishing our coffees, I noted that President Trump had offered a budget outline for the United States that, if enacted, would almost certainly require huge cuts in the basic scientific enterprise of monitoring and analyzing the climate.

Congress will have the last word after Mr. Trump presents a more detailed outline, so there is no way to know how that fight will end. But over two weekends in April, tens of thousands of Americans marched in the streets to defend science and to demand action on climate change.

That means the citizenry in the United States, just as in Australia, is alert and watching. You can bet a lot of American scientists are thinking these days about how they will respond if the government starts gutting climate research.

“I guess somebody in the United States,” Dr. Church said, “has to step out into the public and do what I did.”

Links

• CSIRO climate cuts 'devastating', almost 3000 scientists tell Malcolm Turnbull
• Australia to Lay Off Leading Scientist on Sea Levels
• Climate science to be gutted as CSIRO swings jobs axe
• Large Sections of Australia’s Great Reef Are Now Dead, Scientists Find
• In Shift, Australia Pledges More Resources for Climate Research
• Australia to Lay Off Leading Scientist on Sea Levels
• Australia Climate Report Predicts More Hot Days and Harsher Fire Seasons

Laws To Tackle Climate Change Exceed 1,200 Worldwide: Study

Reuters - Alister Doyle

Protesters throw up a globe-shaped balloon during a rally held the day before the start of the 2015 Paris World Climate Change Conference, known as the COP21 summit, in Rome, Italy, November 29 2015. REUTERS/Alessandro Bianchi/File Photo

Nations around the world have adopted more than 1,200 laws to curb climate change, up from about 60 two decades ago, which is a sign of widening efforts to limit rising temperatures, a study showed on Tuesday.
"Most countries have a legal basis on which future action can be built," Patricia Espinosa, the U.N.'s climate change chief, told a webcast news conference of the findings issued at an international meeting on climate change in Bonn, Germany.
She said the findings were "cause for optimism", adding that laws were one yardstick for tracking action on global warming alongside others such as investment in renewable energy or backing for a 2015 climate agreement, ratified by 144 nations.
The study, by the London School of Economics (LSE), reviewed laws and executive policies in 164 nations, ranging from national cuts in greenhouse gases to curbs in emissions in sectors such as transport, power generation or industry.
Forty-seven laws had been added since world leaders adopted a Paris Agreement to combat climate change in late 2015, a slowdown from a previous peak of about 100 a year around 2009-13 when many developed nations passed laws.
U.S. President Donald Trump doubts that climate change has a human cause and is considering pulling out of the Paris Agreement but legislation is often complicated to undo.
If you have that big body of 1,200 laws it is hard to reverse," Samuel Fankhauser, co-director of the LSE's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, told the news conference.
The study said that developing nations were legislating more but there were many gaps. Nations including Comoros, Sudan and Somalia had no climate laws.

"We don't want weaklings in the chain," said Martin Chungong, Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. He urged all countries to adopt laws that help limit downpours, heatwaves and rising sea levels.

Links

• Global trends in climate change legislation and litigation: 2017 update
• The Global Climate Legislation Study
• Summary for policymakers: COP22 update 
• Country legislative profiles 
• Search legislation database 
• Latest legislative developments 
• Related research and policy publications
• Trump to make decision on Paris climate pact after G7 summit
• U.S. Commerce chief says EPA permits top regulatory 'hit list'

More Countries Are Backing Their Paris Pledges With National Laws

Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment

Summary Climate Change Laws There are now over 1,200 climate change or climate change-relevant laws worldwide, a twentyfold increase over 20 years: in 1997 there were about 60 climate laws in place. The rate at which new laws are passed has decreased from over 100 new laws per year in 2009– 13 to around 40 new laws in 2016. This reflects the large amount of ground that existing climate laws already cover. The challenge for the future lies in strengthening existing laws and filling gaps, rather than devising new frameworks. Most (but not all) countries have the legal basis on which further action can build. Low-income countries are progressively active on climate change legislation. Reflecting their circumstances, the focus of low-income countries is on climate resilience rather than emissions. Climate change needs to be integrated better into mainstream development strategies. Only four in 10 countries have factored climate change explicitly into their development plans. The courts are complementing the actions of legislators, ruling on the implementation of existing climate laws or providing a basis for the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Outside the United States, there have been over 250 court cases in which climate change is a relevant factor. Two-thirds of court cases challenging regulation have either strengthened or maintained climate change regulation. In one-third of cases, policies have been weakened. However, the evidence base on court cases is less complete than that on climate change legislation.

A rise in the number of countries that have introduced legislation to support their 'nationally determined contributions' (NDCs) to the Paris Climate Change Agreement, is unveiled in a new analysis presented today by experts and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Analysis by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science shows that 14 new laws and 33 new executive policies related to climate change have been introduced since the Paris climate change summit in December 2015. 18 of the new laws and policies mainly focus on climate change and 4 specifically relate to NDCs. The analysis relies on a new online database of global climate change legislation developed by the Grantham Research Institute and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School. The database is available at http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/legislation/.
The new laws add to the over 1,200 climate-related laws that have been enacted globally since 1997, now in 164 countries and including 93 of the top 100 emitters—up from 99 countries in 2015.
Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, said:

"We are witnessing serious and significant support for the Paris Agreement from across countries and Continents and from cities and businesses to civil society. Some point to new, green investment flows and others to the growing penetration of clean energies as evidence of remarkable positive change. Today we present further evidence from the world of policy-making that shows how countries are starting to add and to tailor existing legislative framework to respond to the aims and ambitions of the new Agreement—clearly there is a lot more to do, but it is a further encouraging development."

A previous analysis showed that 7 G20 nations, including the EU as a whole, France, Germany, the UK, Japan, Mexico and South Africa, have emission reduction targets in domestic legislation or policy which are entirely consistent with their Paris pledges.
However the 2016 study also pointed out that in the 13 other G20 countries there was a gap between the emissions reductions signatories' pledged to the Paris Agreement and the legal frameworks they have in place to make those cuts.
Those G20 countries will need to make some adjustments to their existing legislation and policies to bring the level and timeframe of targets in consistency with the NDCs, or make more significant changes to translate the level and scope of their pledged emissions cuts into domestic frameworks, for example by upgrading targets from sectoral to economy-wide.
The new analysis released today provides an update on the progress some G20 countries have already made since November when the Paris Agreement came into force.
In Canada the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change has been introduced and Argentina has decreed on the Creation of the National Climate Change Cabinet, whose main tasks will be to prepare a National Plan for Response to Climate Change and Sectoral Action Plans at ministerial level for mitigation and adaptation in key and most vulnerable sectors. China has announced a new 5 year plan which sets emission peak targets and energy efficiency targets. It is not yet clear how new developments in the United States might affect its NDC.
Professor Samuel Fankhauser, Co-Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment said:

"These developments in climate legislation and policies since Paris should be taken in context. The 14 news laws and 33 policies add to a stock of more than 1,200 climate change or climate change-relevant laws worldwide: a twentyfold increase in the number of climate laws and policies over 20 years when compared with 1997 when there were just 60 such laws in place. This reflects the large amount of ground that existing climate laws already cover. Most countries now have the legal basis on which further action can build."

Since the Paris Agreement came into force many Least Developed Countries (LDCs) have also taken their first steps to consolidate their approach to climate change. For example, Malawi has passed its National Climate Change Management Policy, which makes explicit connection to its NDC and to the Paris Agreement.
However, legislative gaps remain. The analysis shows that only 42% (20 LDCs) have factored climate change into their development plans and that as a group LDCs have fewer laws and policies compared to the global average (5.5 per country compared to 7.7).
The analysis will be formally launched at an official side event at the UNFCCC intersessional in Bonn today on the Implementation of the Paris Agreement and NDCs – new tools for developing climate legislation. Experts will highlight that it is vital that legislation and policies not only embed NDCs as targets but also create the means by which to achieve those targets. For example by creating institutions, incentives and ratchet mechanisms.
Martin Chungong, Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union said:

"The database of global climate legislation is a very valuable resource for parliamentarians. It enables them to know what types of laws exist in the world and to look for ways to translate them into the realities of their countries. In other words, this tool facilitates the law-making process which is a first critical element for ensuring that the Paris Agreement translates into national legislation."

Professor Michael Gerrard, Faculty Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law said:

"This new resource brings together important databases related to climate change legislation and will help lawyers, judges and advocates around the world navigate the complex emerging legal regimes that govern this vitally important issue, and envision new ones."

Links

• Global trends in climate change legislation and litigation: 2017 update
• The Global Climate Legislation Study
• Summary for policymakers: COP22 update 
• Country legislative profiles 
• Search legislation database 
• Latest legislative developments 
• Related research and policy publications