Intelligence Community To Trump: When It Comes To Global Warming, You're Wrong

Mashable Australia - Andrew Freedman

Cyclone Debbie hits Queensland, Australia on March 28, 2017. Image: Newspix/REX/Shutterstock

Each year the intelligence community puts together a "Worldwide Threat Assessment" report, and it inevitably scares the hell out of Congress and the public by detailing all the dangers facing the U.S. (Hint: there are a lot of them.)

This year's report, published Thursday and discussed at a congressional hearing, makes for particularly disquieting reading.
While it focuses on the increasing danger that North Korea's nuclear weapons program poses as well as cyberterrorism threats, one environmental concern stands out on the list: climate change.

SEE ALSO: 9-year-old girl seeks clean air for her generation, sues Indian government over pollution

According to the new report, delivered to the Senate Intelligence Committee by Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence (DNI), warns that climate change is raising the likelihood of instability and conflict around the world.
This is surprising given the Trump administration's open hostility to climate science findings.
"The trend toward a warming climate is forecast to continue in 2017," the report states, noting that 2016 was the hottest year on record worldwide. Climate scientists have firmly tied this to human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases, though the report does not make that link.

Norfolk Naval Base, the largest in the world, is experiencing flooding from sea level rise. Image: US NAVY HAND/REX/Shutterstock

"This warming is projected to fuel more intense and frequent extreme weather events that will be distributed unequally in time and geography. Countries with large populations in coastal areas are particularly vulnerable to tropical weather events and storm surges, especially in Asia and Africa," the report states.

The report also cites worsening air pollution in urban areas around the globe, potential water resources conflicts in places like the Middle East. Interestingly, the intelligence report also says that biodiversity losses from pollution, overexploitation and other causes is "disrupting ecosystems that support life, including humans."
"The rate of species loss worldwide Is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than the natural background extinction rate, according to peer-reviewed scientific literature," the report states.
The findings in this report are surprising considering the Trump administration's hostility to mainstream climate science findings and policies aimed at cutting emissions of greenhouse gases that are warming the planet. Some agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Interior Department, have gone so far as to take down pages devoted to peer-reviewed scientific reports on climate change.
For example, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt has said he does not believe that carbon dioxide is the main driver of global warming. This view goes against thousands of peer reviewed climate studies, as well as findings from his own agency.
However, there is a caveat in the intelligence community's assessment that lets Coats avoid being accused of aligning himself with the administration's critics in the environmental community.
"We assess national security Implications of climate change but do not adjudicate the science of climate change," the report states. In other words, "We're just telling you what's happening, not why it's happening."

Waves batter the sea wall and the lighthouse at Porthcawl, south Wales as storm Doris hits the UK in February 2017. Image: Huw Evans/REX/Shutterstock

"In assessing these Implications, we rely on US government-coordinated scientific reports, peer reviewed literature, and reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which Is the leading International body responsible for assessing the science related to climate change."
Past intelligence and Defense Department assessments have also warned of potentially severe blowback from global warming. For example, a 2016 report from the National Intelligence Council (NIC), which advises the DNI, found that extreme weather events have growing implications for humans, which “suggest[s] that climate-change related disruptions are well underway."
That report also stated that climate change will cause growing security risks for the U.S. during the next several years. It was the first major intelligence review to cast climate change as a present-day security challenge, rather than a distant, far-off threat.
The military is already experiencing global warming impacts at its bases, particularly the Navy, which is dealing with sea level rise at its facilities.
WATCH: 2016 was Earth's warmest year on record, continuing a three-year streak

Links

• Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Covering the Period January 6, 2015 to January 2, 2017
• Trump's big EPA website change should make you furious
• EPA chief denies carbon dioxide is main cause of global warming and... wait, what!?
• 9-year-old girl seeks clean air for her generation, sues Indian government over pollution

Climate Change A Major Mental Health Threat, Experts Warn

Medscape - Alicia Ault

Climate change is a major threat to mental health, the American Psychiatric Association (APA), warns. The association has joined the growing ranks of physician groups that are sounding the alarm about the multifactorial effects that rising seas, temperature extremes, and changing environments are having on individuals' physical and mental health.
In a new position statement, the APA focuses on the profound impact of climate change on mental health, which may include the development or exacerbation of mental illnesses such as anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or substance abuse.
"Those with mental health disorders are disproportionately impacted by the consequences of climate change. APA recognizes and commits to support and collaborate with patients, communities, and other healthcare organizations engaged in efforts to mitigate the adverse health and mental health effects of climate change," the APA statement said.
Climate change and its weather-related consequences are occurring more frequently, becoming more destructive, are are occurring in places where they were not as common before, Joshua C. Morganstein, MD, the lead author of the position statement, told Medscape Medical News.
The APA began working on its climate change response in 2015. After review by various committees, the association's assembly approved the statement in November 2016 and submitted it to the board, which gave its backing in March of this year.
The statement is supported by a growing body of scientific evidence on the damaging effects of climate change, said Dr Morganstein. "There's a relatively robust body of literature about the adverse psychological and behavioral health effects of weather-related disasters," he said.
Dr Morganstein and coauthor Robert Ursano, MD, who are both members of the APA's Psychiatric Dimensions of Disaster Committee and are practicing psychiatrists in Bethesda, Maryland, also contributed to the chapter on mental health in a recent key federal report on climate change, The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. The report was issued by the US Global Change Research Program in April 2016.
Among the report's main findings for mental health:

• Exposure to disasters results in mental health consequences, some chronic.
• Children, the elderly, people with preexisting mental illness, the economically disadvantaged, and first responders are at higher risk for distress and other adverse mental health consequences from climate- or weather-related disasters. Communities that rely on the natural environment for sustenance and livelihood, as well as populations living in areas most susceptible to specific climate change events, are at increased risk for adverse mental health outcomes.
• Just the threat of climate change can cause some people to experience adverse mental health outcomes, and media and popular representations of climate change can influence stress responses and mental well-being.
• Extreme heat can put people with mental illness at higher risk for poor physical and mental health.

Dialing Down the Stress
The report helped solidify the idea that mental health is just as important as physical health, especially when it comes to weather-associated disasters caused by climate change, said Dr Morganstein. "For some disasters, the mental health effects can vastly exceed the economic costs or other health effects," he said.
Often, the mental impact of a natural disaster is lost in the shuffle, he said. Having an understanding of the potential short- and long-term fallout on mental well-being is key to preventing worse outcomes, said Dr Morganstein.
ndividuals with existing anxiety or depression or PTSD could see a worsening of symptoms. Individuals may develop these disorders as a result of the stress of the event. Distress reactions may also occur in the form of risky behaviors, such as increased alcohol or drug use, he added.
Many individuals will show up in the emergency department or primary care physician's office first — that's why it's important for psychiatrists to collaborate with other specialties to help prepare for these disasters, he said.
For many individuals, just the thought of climate change is enough to produce severe anxiety and/or depression, and perhaps a sense of hopelessness. For others, it gives rise to a strong denial reaction.
Dr Morganstein said psychiatrists can help dial down stress in patients —especially those who are more vulnerable because of existing mental disorders — by giving them pragmatic steps, such as asking them to determine and understand their child's school emergency plan or their own workplace emergency plan.
"Feeling like you can help yourself and feeling like you can help others is a really important piece of how people can respond to disasters," said Dr Morganstein.
Another recommendation, especially for people already prone to anxiety, is to limit exposure to media, he said. For some, repeated ingestion of climate change news can increase stress and negative reactions. "We encourage people to be very cautious about this," said Dr Morganstein.
A sense of preparedness can help ease stress, at least on a population level, he said. "We can't control when disasters will occur," he said. But physicians can help patients "control how well prepared they feel" for a disaster, said Dr Morganstein.

"Climate Change Is a Fact"
Some of the Trump administration's appointments and policies — such as pledging to renegotiate the landmark 2015 Paris agreement to fight climate change that was backed by the United States and some 200 countries — have caused concern that the public's health will be put at risk during the next 4 years.
But the APA's statement was not issued as a rebuke to the new administration, said Dr Morganstein, noting that it had been in the works for several years.
The American College of Physicians issued a position statement on climate change in May 2016.
"The issue of climate change is not political," Nitin Damle, MD, MACP, immediate past president of the ACP, told Medscape Medical News. "Climate change is a fact," he said. "It's occurring now, and it's affecting our patients' health from an individual and a public health standpoint."
Dr Damle cites increases in respiratory illness, asthma, and allergies from increased pollution and longer pollen seasons, heat waves that put people at risk for heat-related illnesses, and an increase in vector-borne diseases such as Lyme disease, dengue, West Nile virus, and chikungunya. Forced migration due to environmental changes such as drought or flooding are leading to a strain of social relationships, depression, and PTSD, he said.
The time to take action is now, said Dr Damle.
The ACP is part of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health, which released a report in March, Medical Alert! Climate Change Is Harming Our Health.
The consortium includes the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society of General Internal Medicine, among other medical and scientific groups.
The American Psychological Association is also a member of the consortium. It, too, released a massive report on the mental health effects of climate change in March.

Not Politically Motivated
The report's release was not politically motivated, said Howard Kurtzman, PhD, the American Psychological Association's acting executive director for science.
Mental Health and Our Changing Climate: Impacts, Implications, and Guidance, was an update of a 2014 report, he said. In fact, when the American Psychological Association started the update, there was a sense of optimism in the wake of the Paris accord, Dr Kurtzman told Medscape Medical News.
The 2017 report — which incorporated more and newer evidence — has received more attention, likely in part because of the concerns about the Trump administration, Dr Kurtzman said. But, he also said, "I think people are ready to hear this message."
The message? That climate change has effects not only on physical health —through the spread of disease and the reemergence of old disease, for example — but also on mental health and that certain communities are at higher risk for damage from climate change because of where they live or because they have preexisting mental health issues or live in poverty, said Dr Kurtzman. "On the other hand, there are ways people and communities can address this challenge," he said.
That includes taking political action, and also supporting each other and learning how to prepare. "We need to find ways to help people and communities obtain a sense of control," Dr Kurtzman said.
Psychologists can help patients build resilience and learn how to adapt, he said. They should also work together with other colleagues in the health field, said Dr Kurtzman.
"There's much more to be done in terms of us working together, but I'm sure we'd all agree on the importance of that," he said.

Links

• Medical Societies Come Together on Harms of Climate Change
• What Are the Mental Health Effects of Climate Change?
• Reader Poll: Should Physicians Be Leaders in Responding to Climate Change?
• Physicians Must Respond to Climate Change: An Interview With ACP President Damle
• ACP Urges Physicians to Step up Climate Change Fight
• Air Quality and Climate Change: A Delicate Balance
• Leaders Make Link Between Climate Change Effects, Health of Americans: New Initiatives
• Climate Change Is Shifting Areas of Skin Disease Concern
• Scientists Use Climate, Population Changes to Predict Diseases

Earth Could Break Through A Major Climate Threshold In The Next 15 Years, Scientists Warn

Washington Post - Chelsea Harvey

(NASA via Associated Press)

Global temperatures could exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius above their preindustrial levels within the next 15 years, according to a new scientific study, crossing the first threshold under the Paris climate agreement and placing the world at a potentially dangerous level of climate change.
The report comes as climate agreement participants are watching the United States — where the Trump administration is debating whether to withdraw from the Paris accord — and as scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are working on a special report about the 1.5-degree goal (equivalent to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) and the consequences of overshooting it.
That IPCC's upcoming special report and the increasing urgency about minimizing global warming were one impetus for the study, according to co-author Benjamin Henley, a research fellow at the University of Melbourne in Australia. "We are working on a number of scientific avenues to help inform that report," he told The Washington Post.
The study focuses on a natural planetary system known as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, or IPO (it's also sometimes referred to as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation). It's an alternating pattern of ocean temperatures that shifts periodically between warm and cool phases, helping to drive temperature and weather patterns all over the world.
During cool, or "negative," phases, tropical regions of the Pacific Ocean tend to be colder, and the global mean temperature is lower. The system is similar to the El Niño/La Niña cycle, the major difference being that phases of the IPO tend to last much longer — sometimes a decade or more. The phenomenon is believed to be a natural form of climate variability unrelated to human-caused climate change, although it does have the potential to influence the progression of global warming.
For most of the 2000s, the IPO has been in a negative phase, and scientists think its cooling effect has helped to slightly offset the effect of climate change, an explanation for the so-called global warming pause in the first part of the 21st century. As multiple studies have pointed out, this temporary slowdown is consistent with the overall long-term warming trend and in no way suggests that human-induced climate change is not occurring. Rather, this natural variation in the global climate helped to slightly blunt those effects.


Researchers say 2015 was the hottest year on record, and that it "smashed" the previous record, which was 2014. The Post's Chris Mooney explains what that could mean for weather patterns, the Paris climate deal and 2016. (Gillian Brockell, Chris Mooney/TWP)

Many scientists believe that the planet is now transitioning back into a positive, or warm, phase, which could amplify, rather than offset, human-caused climate warming. This means we could reach milestone temperature thresholds faster than we would if the IPO had remained in its negative phase.
That's the conclusion of the new study, written by Henley and Andrew King of the University of Melbourne. Using model projections of future climate warming under a business-as-usual scenario, they suggest that the Earth could hit the 1.5-degree temperature threshold as early as 2025, while the continuation of the negative phase probably would delay this event until after 2030.
The exact difference in timing depends on how we define the milestone itself, the researchers point out. We could say we've hit the threshold the first year the global mean temperature is 1.5 degrees warmer than it was during the preindustrial era, regardless of how the temperature fluctuates after that point. Or we could say it has happened when the mean temperature meets this point over the course of a five-year period or longer. Or, because global mean temperature tends to wiggle up and down a bit from one year to the next, we could say it's the point at which we cross the 1.5-degree threshold and never dip below it again.
The scientists explored all but the last scenario in their paper and found that the projected year for crossing the 1.5-degree threshold varied slightly among them. Generally, however, the models suggested it would occur between 2025 and 2029 (most likely around 2026) if the IPO shifts to a positive phase, and around 2031 if it stays in a negative phase. (They were not able to investigate the final scenario, they noted, because it probably will occur much further in the future and the number of IPO phases humans have observed since detailed record-keeping began is not sufficient to inform the model simulations required.)
"The paper emphasizes the way that natural climate variations, like the IPO, can interact with the progression of human-caused global warming," Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, told The Washington Post. "Therefore, the timing of when we cross certain thresholds depends on the interplay between these two factors." Meehl was not involved with the new study but has previously published research on the IPO.
And the 2025 date for hitting the 1.5-degree temperature threshold is looking more and more likely. Multiple studies in the past few years suggest that the transition to a positive IPO phase has  begun. Henley said there's some uncertainty about whether that has happened, but other scientists are more confident. Scientists John Fasullo and Kevin Trenberth, also of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, have published research to this effect, and both told The Post that we have been in a positive phase for several years now.
In fact, Trenberth and Fasullo suggested that the paper's conclusions have been generally known for some time. They also pointed out that the study has its limitations. Fasullo suggested that the various reasons given for the 1.5-degree temperature threshold are "deficient" for precisely the reason that they're sensitive to climate variations such as the IPO.
Trenberth said that the 1.5 degrees — as a single, concrete number — is "pretty irrelevant." He noted that "it is all of the other things going on when that stage is reached that really matter: the heat waves, wildfires, droughts, extreme rainfalls, etc."
It's also unclear, for now, how significant the difference between a positive and negative IPO really is in terms of what the planet would look like under either scenario. The timing difference for hitting the 1.5-degree target is only about five years. At the point when a positive IPO would cause us to cross the threshold, the researchers note that the global temperature under a negative IPO would probably be about 0.2 degrees Celsius cooler. Whether there would be a significant difference in the actual climate effects produced under these different mean temperatures is uncertain.
It's also possible that the business-as-usual scenario used in the study won't come to pass and that the Paris agreement will indeed drive down global emissions enough to push off 1.5 degrees for a longer period of time. (Overall, the accord lists a goal of staying "well below" 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.)
But the paper clearly indicates that the 1.5-degree target is fast approaching. In fact, according to Meehl, the paper underscores a point that many climate scientists have been warning about: that we're increasingly likely to blow past our climate goals, and soon. And with a potential U.S. withdrawal from the Paris accord looming, this scenario is now more likely than ever.
"Given our rapid approach, one way or another, to the 1.5-degree threshold, the most plausible way to reach it at this point looks like we would have to overshoot and attempt to come back down to it afterward with policies that would significantly reduce emissions going forward," Meehl suggested. Some scientists have proposed technology that would actually remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thus cooling the climate in the future, but that's a long way from being a practical solution to climate change.
"I guess the important thing is that policymakers should be aware of just how quickly we are approaching 1.5 degrees, and just realizing the urgency of reducing emissions," Henley said. "It's critical to keep pursuing the 1.5-degree goal."

Links

• 'We all knew this was coming': Alaska's thawing soils are now pouring carbon dioxide into the air
• The Senate is poised to repeal a final Obama-era environmental rule as soon as Wednesday
• Pipeline spill by Dakota Access company could have a 'deadly effect'
• The EPA just buried its climate change website for kids
• The EPA climate website taken down for review was accurate, scientists say

The 2017 Budget Has Axed Research To Help Australia Adapt To Climate Change

The Conversation - Tayanah O'Donnell | Josephine Mummery

Flooding on the Coomera River near Queensland’s Gold Coast. AAP Image/Ed Jackson

The 2017 federal budget has axed funding for the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF), an agency that provides information to decision-makers on how best to manage the risks of climate change and sea level rise.
The NCCARF received A$50 million in 2008 to coordinate Australia’s national research effort into climate adaptation measures. That was reduced in 2014 to just under A$9 million. For 2017-18, a mere A$600,000 will be spread between CSIRO and NCCARF to support existing online platforms only. From 2018, funding is axed entirely.
This decision follows on from the 2014 streamlining of CSIRO’s Climate Adaptation Flagship, and comes at a time when a national review of Australia’s climate policies is still underway.
Despite a growing global impetus to address the risks of climate change, there is evidence that Australia is being hampered by policy inertia. A review of 79 submissions to the Productivity Commission’s inquiry on Barriers to Effective Climate Change Adaptation, published in 2014, found that:

adaptation first and foremost requires clear governance, and appropriate policy and legislation to implement change.

Earlier this year the World Economic Forum listed “failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation” as one of the top five risks to the world, in terms of its potential impact. Meanwhile, in Australia, local governments, professionals and community groups have consistently called for more national policy guidance on how best to adapt to climate risks.
The government’s decision to slash funding for climate adaptation research is therefore at odds with the growing urgency of the problem. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its most recent major assessment report, pointed out that Australia can benefit significantly from taking adaptation action in highly vulnerable sectors.
These areas of vulnerability include: the risk of more frequent and intense floods; water shortages in southern regions; deaths and infrastructure damage caused by heatwaves; bushfires; and impacts on low-lying coastal communities.
To put it simply, lives and money will be saved by strong climate adaptation measures.
Australia needs a coherent policy approach that goes beyond the current focus on energy policy, although climate adaptation is indeed an important issue for our electricity grid as well as for many other elements of our infrastructure. A coherent, whole-of-government, approach to climate risk is the economical and sensible approach in the long term.
Like it or not, the federal government has to take a leading role in climate adaptation. This includes the ongoing need to address existing knowledge gaps through well-funded research.
The federal government is the major funder of leading research in Australia, delivered through CSIRO, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Cooperative Reserach Centres, the Australian Research Council and universities. This role should not be divested. Without climate adaptation research, Australia can expect significantly higher infrastructure damage and repair costs, more death and disease, and more frequent disruption to services – much of which would be avoidable with the right knowledge and preparation.
The damage bill from the 2010-11 Queensland floods alone exceeded A$6 billion. Since 2009, natural disasters have cost the Australian government more than A$12 billion, and the private sector has begun trying in earnest to reduce its risk exposure.
In response to these known risks, there is demand for robust policy guidance. Effective partnerships between government, industry and the community are crucial. One such example led by the NCCARF is CoastAdapt, an online tool that collates details of climate risks and potential costs in coastal areas.
For projects like this, success hinges on full engagement with all relevant spheres of government, industry, research, and the community. There is more to be done, and it needs leadership at the highest level.

Links

• Climate Change Is The Elephant In The Budget Room
• Budget 2017: Government Goes Hard On Gas And Hydro In Bid For Energy Security
• Who will speak up for climate change adaptation?
• Government doesn’t need climate bodies: it needs commitment
• Adapting to climate change: more questions than answers!
• Who should fund Australia’s adaptation to climate change?
• 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

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