Suing To Save The Climate: What To Do When Your Future’s At Risk And Your Government Doesn’t Care

Huffington Post - Kelly Rigg

New Zealand is the latest country to be sued for its failure to act on climate

Sarah Thomson

On June 8, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken observed, "I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society."
With these words, a case brought by a group of 21 young people against the government for failing to protect their right to a safe climate was granted permission to proceed to trial.
Her decision came nearly two years after the Urgenda Foundation sued the Dutch government and won – a decision which ordered the government to reduce emissions in line with scientific recommendations, by 25% from 1990 levels by 2020.
Although the governments of both countries are working to overturn these decisions, climate lawsuits are spreading rapidly around the world. Cases have been brought against the governments of Belgium, Switzerland, Norway, and Pakistan (not to mention countless others targeting corporate actors).
Next up is New Zealand, a country that is known for its ancient and spectacular natural landscapes and swaths of vast, untouched wilderness. But despite its pristine reputation, the country has a dirty secret: rising greenhouse gas emissions that make it one of the highest per capita emitters in the world, enabled by a woefully inadequate climate change policy.
That policy is about to come under sharp scrutiny in a court case being brought against the government by law student Sarah Thomson, which is due to be heard by a local court on June 26th.
Sarah claims that the government's inaction is completely out of step with the international scientific and political consensus regarding the steps needed to adequately respond to climate change.
It will be hard for the government to argue against her position.
After all, New Zealand is a part of this consensus: having accepted the findings of IPCC reports (the world's leading scientific body on climate change whose final reports are approved by governments) and ratified the Paris Agreement under the UN climate convention.
Under the Paris Agreement, countries agreed to hold temperature rise to well under 2°C, with the aim of limiting it to 1.5°C. To do so, they committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decades with the aim of reaching net zero emissions by the second half of the century. With those goals in mind, New Zealand's commitment is laughable – a reduction of only 11% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.
This is irresponsible not only from an international perspective, but it is suicidal for New Zealand itself.
As Sarah's case points out, the IPCC has concluded that New Zealand will be hit with increasingly intense and frequent floods and wildfires if greenhouse gases continue to be emitted at current rates. And despite its relative isolation, the country can expect an influx of refugees from neighboring Pacific Island States as their islands ultimately disappear under the waves.
Indeed the first climate refugees have already arrived: in 2014, a family from Tuvalu was granted residence in New Zealand on humanitarian grounds, taking into account the impacts of climate change.
More requests are starting to come in, suggesting that this is only the tip of a melting iceberg.
If Sarah is successful, New Zealand's Minister for Climate Change Issues will have to revise the government's policy to bring it in line with the global consensus regarding the actions that developed countries must take to prevent dangerous climate change.
In the meantime, regardless of the outcome, Sarah has joined a powerful and growing global movement of citizens taking their governments to court for climate change.
Lawsuits are costly, and are generally seen as a strategy of last resort. But with only a few short years remaining to bend the curve on emissions to stave off a full-blown climate catastrophe, we can expect many more to come.
Desperate times clearly call for desperate measures.

Links

• White House Effort To Stop Youth Climate Lawsuit Is 'Drastic And Extraordinary'
• Could Governments And Oil Companies Get Sued For Inaction On Climate Change?
• Why The Fossil Fuel Companies Won't Defend the Government In Court On Climate
• Trump Will Make The US Face Loss And Damage Claims
• Loan Bodies' Adani Conflicts: Answers Needed
• Governments Sued Over Climate Change, With Banks And Firms Next
• More People Heading To Court To Spur Action On Climate Change, Study Finds
• Thinking Globally, Acting Transnationally
• Laws To Tackle Climate Change Exceed 1,200 Worldwide: Study
• More Countries Are Backing Their Paris Pledges With National Laws
• Companies Must Take Climate Change Litigation Risk Seriously

Embracing Hope — And A Carbon Tax

bioGraphic - Elisabeth Holland*

To curb climate change, step one is imagining a sustainable future; step two is figuring out how to pay for it. 

When I need inspiration, I stop for a moment and recite the names of the countries I represent—the 16 tropical island nations that rise from the Pacific Ocean: Timor Leste, Cook Islands, and Samoa; Kiribati, Fiji, and Vanuatu…. The poetry created by the recitation calms me, reminds me of the history and resilience of these countries and the people who live there, and reassures me that there is still hope for a better future, for our oceans and our planet.
As a climate scientist who has worked on climate adaptation strategies in these communities for the past six years, I know that hope—while sometimes hard to come by—is a necessary first step for imagining and enacting a more sustainable future. We'll need more than hope to get there, though.
I am convinced that we need a carbon tax with global reach and revenues that benefit the countries and communities most heavily impacted by climate change. Willing nations, states, and cities must come together to impose a carbon tax that will, in turn, accelerate action to reduce carbon emissions, increase mitigation, and catalyze greater innovation.

Sinking nations and stormy seas
Climate change is already shifting weather patterns in the Pacific, often to disastrous ends. In February of 2016 Tropical Cyclone Winston became the most intense tropical cyclone yet to make landfall in Fiji.
The destruction began near dawn and roared through Fiji's islands and waters for a full day and night; wave heights topped 30 meters (98 feet) and inundation extended kilometers inland. Despite having spared the most populated areas, thus avoiding worst-case scenarios, the Category 5 cyclone brought with it $1.4 billion in damage—nearly a third of Fiji's GDP—and took the lives of 44 people, including an 8-month-old baby who was torn from his mother's arms, never to be seen again. Now, more than a year later, children still study in tent schools as the rebuilding continues.
And Cyclone Winston is just the latest in a string of devastating examples. In March of 2015, Tropical Cyclone Pam, another Category 5 storm, slammed into Vanuatu with the highest wind speeds ever measured in the South Pacific. The cyclone killed at least 15 people on the island, and the resulting storm surge displaced 45 percent of the population on Tuvalu.
Climate scientists know that if global carbon emission trends continue, the impacts of climate change will be felt much more severely by Pacific Island nations over the course of the next century. As continental ice sheets melt, sea levels could rise more than 3 meters (10 feet) by the end of the century. In the coral atoll nations of Kiribati, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Tuvalu, 3 meters is the islands' maximum elevation—which means our homes, our nations, and our entire reality could be submerged beneath the waves.
As the world's waters continue to rise, the availability and quality of fresh water is falling fast. Ocean warming extends 1.5 kilometers (almost 1 mile) beneath the surface, changing the species compositions and ecosystems on which Pacific food and economic security depend. Ocean acidification, too, is worsening, and will further threaten the coral reefs that sustain fisheries and protect our islands from wave energy.
When Pacific leaders raise the issue of an existential crisis, it is not a hypothetical exercise meant to spark philosophical discussion. For the Pacific Islands, the crisis is literal, and refers to very real questions about whether or not these nations have a future at all.
Will Tuvalu continue to exist? Will Kiribati culture find a way to persist? Will Republic of the Marshall Islands retain its voting rights in the United Nations, one of the few organizations in which Pacific voices are heard? What happens in the high islands, like Fiji, Vanuatu, and the Solomon Islands, where more than 80 percent of people now live along the coast? Where will our Pacific climate refugees go?



Slowing the rising tide
The Paris Agreement is a critical cornerstone of survival for Pacific nations. It reflects key demands made in declarations by the leaders of these island countries in advance of the Paris negotiations. The result is an international commitment to: a long-term temperature goal limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit); a periodic five-year review; and increasing ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Some 195 member nations have signed the accord. In keeping with the vagaries of shifting national positions on climate change, though, Australia established and then two years later abolished its carbon tax—the world's first. And in June, President Trump announced the U.S. was pulling out of the Paris Agreement altogether.
These moves stand in stark contrast to the commitment and leadership of the Pacific nations, which was reinforced by the United Nation's first-ever Oceans Conference, held just after Trump's announcement. The result was a global call to action that underscored the connections between healthy oceans and climate change.

Why a carbon tax?
Our climate change research at the University of the South Pacific focuses on both describing the problems and searching for solutions relating to adaptation, risk, and science-backed policy. The famed climatologist James Hansen has long argued that a carbon tax is the only way to ensure that everyone, every country, is accountable for their own carbon emissions—their own contributions to changing a climate. Like Hansen, I support early action to reduce emissions as well as a carbon tax—that is, a tax on fossil fuel consumption—to create economic incentives to reduce carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions.
But I take the carbon tax argument a step further. Revenues from the tax should be reinvested in those countries most affected by climate change, such as the Pacific Islands. The Paris Agreement acknowledges that these states retain special status because of their vulnerability to climate change, defined as the seriousness of the challenges and impacts they face as a result of increasing climate change worldwide.
In order to support the Pacific, carbon tax revenues should be directed toward sustaining and generating ecosystem services. Take, for example, the coasts. By investing the revenue from a carbon tax in replanting mangrove or dilo silo seedlings, we could provide storm protection, create subsistence fisheries, and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. These coastal ecosystems also support the establishment of sustainable blue carbon economies that do not rely on intensive fossil fuel emissions. Protecting these services could become the foundation for truly sustainable ocean economies for our big ocean states.
While such investments are certainly costly, the value of these services is very real. Every year, in Fiji alone, healthy ecosystems provide nearly $1 billion worth of services, driving $78 million in fisheries revenue and $574 million in tourism revenue, not to mention $85 million worth of coastal protection and carbon sequestration. The positive effects of these investments will reverberate throughout the globe, which is growing more connected every day. At the unsuccessful Copenhagen climate negotiations in 2008, a journalist asked Minister and climate champion Tony deBrum of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, "Are you here to save your island?" deBrum replied, "No, I am here to save the planet."
A healthy future depends on the creation and maintenance of healthy ecosystems, both in our land, voana, and our seas, moana. The Paris Agreement, combined with a carbon tax, would give us a chance to do just that. And the best way to do it is through talanoa, the collective and inclusive decision-making process used by our Pacific ancestors—a strategy that Fiji will employ during its COP23 presidency this November. Such global collective action will lay the foundation for Pacific leaders to take us all on a new voyage to a sustainable planet on which diverse peoples and cultures flourish into the future.

*Elisabeth Holland directs The Pacific Center for Environment and Sustainable Development at The University of the South Pacific in Fiji. She works with Pacific Island communities to build resilience as sea levels rise. Holland was a co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for her contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.
 
Links

• Sidelining God: Why Secular Climate Projects In The Pacific Islands Are Failing
• Marshall Islands President Hilda Heine Says Australia's Standing In Pacific 'At Risk' Over Climate Change Debate
• 'Our Country Will Vanish': Pacific Islanders Bring Desperate Message To Australia
• Protection Of Human Rights Should Be At The Center Of Climate Actions
• One Looming Consequence Of Climate Change: Small Island Nations Will Cease To Exist
• Pacific Pariah: How Australia's Love Of Coal Has Left It Out In The Diplomatic Cold
• Unmet And Underfunded – Report Finds Australia Failing Pacific On Climate
• American Leadership for a Sustainable Future
• The Lungs of the Planet
• Learning the Lessons of the Planet

Paris Agreement's 1.5c Target 'Only Way' To Save Coral Reefs, UNESCO Says

The Guardian - Elle Hunt

First global assessment of climate change impact on world heritage-listed reefs says local efforts are ‘no longer sufficient’

The report says the Great Barrier Reef was ‘seriously affected’ by bleaching this year and last, despite considerable investment in efforts to build resilience. Photograph: Greg Torda/EPA

Greater emissions reductions and delivering on the Paris climate agreement are now “the only opportunity” to save coral reefs the world over from decline, with local responses no longer sufficient, a report by UNESCO has found.
The first global scientific assessment of the impacts of climate change on the 29 world heritage-listed coral reefs, published on Saturday, found that the frequency, intensity and duration of heat-stress events had worsened with increasing global warming, with massive consequences for the 29 world heritage sites.

The reported level of coral die-off can hardly be seen by anyone to be acceptable.
Contributing author Jon Day

Analysis of recent studies and newly-developed data from the US national ocean and atmospheric administration (NOAA) coral-reef watch showed that 13 of the 29 listed reefs had been exposed to levels of heat stress that cause coral bleaching, on average more than twice per decade from 1985 to 2013.
Bleaching had occurred more frequently in recent years than in decades prior, with coral mortality during the third global bleaching event from mid-2014 to mid-2017 “among the worst ever recorded”. Twenty-one listed sites had suffered severe and/or repeated heat stress in the last three years.
Compounding the devastating impact of bleaching – which can take coral communities at least 15 to 25 years to recover from – were more frequent and more severe extreme weather events, increasing ocean acidification, and pollution.
The Great Barrier Reef, “one of the world’s most iconic coral reef systems” and among four of the total 29 listed located in Australia, had been “seriously affected” by back-to-back severe bleaching events this year and last, despite considerable investment in efforts to build resilience.
Professor Terry Hughes, director of the Australian Research Council centre of excellence for coral reef studies in Townsville, provided an analysis of bleaching records for the report. “It basically makes the point that everywhere is bleaching,” he said. “It’s certainly not a phenomenon only on the Great Barrier Reef.”
Australia’s scientific community had appealed to the UN world heritage committee to list the Great Barrier Reef as “in danger” last year. Hughes said this was “not on the current agenda”, as the committee awaited the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s third outlook report due in 2019.
The UNESCO report found that local efforts to increase reefs’ resilience “remain necessary but are no longer sufficient” without complementary national and international efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels – the most ambitious target set by the Paris agreement, and understood to be the maximum possible to secure coral reefs’ long-term survival.
“We need all of the above,” said Jon Day, a former director with the Great Barrier marine park authority, now at James Cook University. “We can’t just assume local responses are enough, and they must be augmented by global’s efforts too.”
He said while the world heritage convention aimed to “transmit the world heritage values” of listed sites for future generations, a natural system would inevitably change with time. “The question is what is acceptable change, and the reported levels of coral bleaching and coral mortality can hardly be considered by anyone to be acceptable.”
The report found that, if emissions were to follow their current trajectory and not decline – similar to a “business-as-usual scenario” – 25 of the 29 world heritage reefs (68%) would suffer severe bleaching twice per decade by 2040, rapidly killing most corals present and preventing successful reproduction necessary for their recovery.
Reducing emissions so that they peak around 2040 and then decline would reduce that number of affected sites to 14 (48%), and allow an extra 12 years, on average, for them to recover.
Hughes said the prospects of coral reefs’ long-term survival was at a crossroads, with the worst-case scenario able to be avoided only “if we quickly adopt the 1.5C target”.
“1.5C or 2C degrees won’t be a particularly comfortable place for reefs – they will still see quite regular bleaching and they will be different to how they were 15 or 20 years ago – but they will be able to survive.”
He said he was optimistic about reefs’ prospects, given that the business-as-usual path was looking “increasingly unlikely” as cities and states the world over moved to exceed federal or commonwealth commitments to curbing emissions.
A draft decision prepared by UNESCO, to be addressed by the world heritage committee at its meeting in Krakow in Poland from 2 to 12 July, had stated the report’s findings were of “utmost concern”.
But Day said it was “very disappointing” that the draft decision only committed to further studies at this stage: “How much evidence do they need?”

Links

• Great Barrier Reef: Australia must act urgently on water quality, says UNESCO
• John McCain urges action on Great Barrier Reef and Paris climate deal
• Loss of coral reefs caused by rising sea temperatures could cost $1tn globally
• Australia's politicians have betrayed the Great Barrier Reef and only the people can save it
• This mortal coral: new bleaching at the Great Barrier Reef – in pictures
• Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage': scientists despair at latest coral bleaching data
• Stopping global warming is only way to save Great Barrier Reef, scientists warn
• Climate change will lead to deformed and virus-hit coral reefs
• Al Gore: battle against climate change is like fight against slavery
• Adani mine 'not a positive thing for Australia', Labor's Mark Butler says

Great Barrier Reef 'Too Big To Fail' At $56b, Deloitte Access Economics Report Says

ABC News - Louisa Rebgetz


Severe coral bleaching hits two-thirds of Great Barrier Reef (ABC News)

Key points: Deloitte Access Economics says GBR has calculated economic, social and iconic value of $56 billion Tourism is the biggest contributor to the total asset value making up $29 billion But tourist figures are down 50 per cent in the Whitsundays — operators say "this is as bad as it was during the GFC"

The Great Barrier Reef has a total asset value of $56 billion and is "too big to fail", according to a new report.
Deloitte Access Economics has calculated the economic, social and iconic value of the world heritage site in a report commissioned by the Great Barrier Reef Foundation.
Tourism is the biggest contributor to the total asset value making up $29 billion.
The Great Barrier Reef generates 64,000 jobs in Australia and contributes $6.4 billion dollars to the national economy, the report said.
It states the brand value, or Australians that have not yet visited the Reef but value knowing it exists, as $24 billion.
Recreational users including divers and boaters make up $3 billion.

"That's more than 12 Sydney Opera Houses, or the cost of building Australia's new submarines. It's even more than four times the length of the Great Wall of China in $100 notes," the report states.

The report does not include quantified estimates of the value traditional owners place on the Great Barrier Reef and it said governments should consider doing more to protect it.

Climate change remains biggest threat
It also references the back to back coral bleaching events which have devastated the reef and says climate change remains the most serious threat to the entire structure.
"We have already lost around 50 per cent of the corals on the GBR in the last 30 years. Severe changes in the ocean will see a continued decline ahead of us," the report states.
"Today, our Reef is under threat like never before. Two consecutive years of global coral bleaching are unprecedented, while increasingly frequent extreme weather events and water quality issues continue to affect reef health," said Dr John Schubert AO, Chair of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation.

The Great Barrier Reef supports 64,000 total jobs in Australia, including 31,000 outside Queensland. (Supplied)

Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators executive director Col McKenzie said the reef is crucial to the industry.
"We don't have an industry without the Barrier Reef being in good condition."
He said the negative coverage of the reef relating to the destruction caused by Cyclone Debbie earlier this year and the bleaching event is having an impact on visitor numbers.
Mr McKenzie said tourist figures are down 50 per cent in the Whitsundays and it is being felt along the Queensland coast.

"The majority of the operators in Cairns say this is as bad as it was during the global financial crisis," Mr McKenzie said.

Footage shows areas of the Great Barrier Reef in the Whitsundays devastated by Cyclone Debbie (ABC News)

Links

• Deloitte Report: Need a reason to save the Great Barrier Reef?
• Cyclone Debbie leaves Whitsundays reefs in ruins
• Severe coral bleaching hits two-thirds of Great Barrier Reef, aerial surveys show
• Great Barrier Reef valued at $56 billion by Deloitte economists
• Great Barrier Reef valued at $56bn as report warns it's 'too big to fail'

Climate Change In Drones' Sights With Ambitious Plan To Remotely Plant Nearly 100,000 Trees A Day

ABC News - Jake Sturmer


Can drones help fight deforestation and climate change? (ABC News)

Key points: The drone system fires germinated seeds into soil Drones can plant in areas previously impossible to reach, like steep hills The technology could also help rehabilitate land once used by mines

An Australian engineer is hoping to use drones to plant 1 billion trees every year to fight an unfolding global catastrophe.
Deforestation and forest degradation make up 17 per cent of the world's carbon emissions — more than the entire world's transportation sector, according to the United Nations.
Burned or cleared forests release their stored carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and land restoration experts say technology must play a big part in addressing the problem.
Dr Susan Graham has helped build a drone system that can scan the land, identify ideal places to grow trees, and then fire germinated seeds into the soil.
Drones can plant in areas previously impossible to reach, like steep hills.
The planet loses 15 billion trees every year and much of it is cleared for farmland to feed the world's booming population, but it's feared this could be exacerbating climate change.
"Although we plant about 9 billion trees every year, that leaves a net loss of 6 billion trees," Dr Graham said. "The rate of replanting is just too slow."
Now based in Oxford in the United Kingdom, she is working with an international team including an ex-NASA engineer who worked on the search for life on Mars.
Their company, BioCarbon Engineering, is backed by one of the world's largest drone makers.

The team hopes their technology can help with land restoration around the world. (ABC News: Dave Maguire)

Industrial-scale reforestation
Bulldozers and tractors can clear land rapidly — and replanting efforts haven't caught up.
Dr Graham is hoping to change that with a system that plants at "10 times the rate of hand planting and at 20 per cent of the cost", she said.
BioCarbon Engineering's CEO Lauren Fletcher said the drone could currently carry 150 seed pods at a time.

"We're firing at one a second, which means a pair of operators will be able to plant nearly 100,000 trees per day — 60 teams like this will get us to a billion trees a year," he said.

Mr Fletcher worked at NASA for two decades on projects including the International Space Station and with robotic technologies used in the exploration of Mars.
"I worked specifically on the intersection between biology and engineering on the life-sciences programs on the Space Station, so this has given me a lot of knowledge of how you take smart, cutting-edge engineering systems and apply it to a biological system," he said.
The firing drone follows a pre-set planting pattern determined from an algorithm, which uses information from a separate scanning drone.

The scanning drone can map an area within minutes. (ABC News: Jake Sturmer)

To work out the best possible place to plant, the team uses the drone to map the area, looking to create a 3D model of the land.
"The data gets downloaded and we've developed the algorithms that use that data to make smart decisions about exactly where to plant and how to manage that ecosystem," Dr Graham said.

The seed-firing drone follows the team's planting pattern. (ABC News: Jake Sturmer)

Opportunities to rehabilitate abandoned mines
The team has tested its drone technology around the world and was recently in Dungog, in the New South Wales Hunter region.
This involved trialling their seed-spreading drone to rehabilitate land once used by coal mines.
This drone — while not as efficient as the firing drone — spreads seeds over a far wider area.
"Coal mines have an enormous amount of land that they need to restore, both on the active mine site, once they've recreated a land form, as well as their offset areas ... around the mines," Dr Graham said.

The seed-spreading drone could be used to help restore mine sites. (ABC News: Giulio Saggin)

"We've had quite a lot of interest in Australia and they see such a benefit in terms of saving cost, saving time, and being able to a better job of restoring their ecosystems, and getting data to actually show what they've done."
In Dungog, it was tested to see how it performed on a steep hillside.
"Tractors find it very difficult over steep and undulating land," Dr Graham said. "It becomes very dangerous to get a tractor onto a steep hillside.
"However, a drone doesn't matter, it's already in the air, it's already flying the shape of the land."

Finding solutions for depleting farmland
Global research organisation World Resources Institute (WRI) has warned that the amount of arable land is declining.
WRI's Sofia Faruqi said this needed to be turned around in order to produce enough food for everyone on the planet.
"The way we plant trees today is very similar to how we planted them hundreds of years ago," she said.
"So there's major room for innovation in increasing the success rate of tree planting and also in improving the maintenance and monitoring of the restored land."

Seed-planting drones could play a big part in restoring land in a cost-effective way. (ABC Far North: Mark Rigby, file photo)

Ms Faruqi said around the world there was an area the size of Latin America waiting to be restored — unlocking potentially "massive" benefits.
"People often see planting trees as a feel-good activity but in fact restoration of degraded land has very tangible benefits for all humans," she said.

"Restoring land can provide food for 200 million people. This is because planting trees adds vital nutrients and organic matter into the soil.

"Many of the world's biggest cities rely on forests for their water supply; for example in the US, more than half of drinking water originates in forests, which act like giant sponges.
"Finally ... trees are essential to fight climate change [because] half of a tree's weight is carbon and essentially the trees will dig carbon out of the atmosphere where it's dangerous, and they'll bring it into the soil where it promotes life and vitality."
She added it was important to experiment with technologies such as seed-planting drones to work out the best way to restore land in a cost-effective way.

Links

• What will happen when this huge Antarctic ice shelf cracks?
• Arctic peatlands may release potent greenhouse gas as permafrost thaws
• Rapid greening of Antarctic Peninsula driven by climate change
• CSIRO 'missing in action' on climate
• Extreme heat is pushing parts of the Great Barrier Reef beyond recovery
• How humankind has changed our planet
• World heritage reefs at risk of coral bleaching, UNESCO says
• Collaboration, communication key to Australia's agricultural science future

World's Biggest Coal Company Closes 37 Mines As Solar Power's Influence Grows

The Independent - Harriet Agerholm

Plummeting price of renewable energy puts pressure on fossil fuel firms

India has announced it will not build any more coal plants after 2022 Getty

The largest coal mining company in the world has announced it will close 37 mines because they are no longer economically viable.
Coal India, which produces around 82 per cent of India's coal, said the mines would be decommissioned by March 2018.
The closures, of around 9 per cent of the state-run firm's sites, will reportedly save around 8,000,000,000 rupees (£98m).
India's solar sector has received heavy international investment, and the plummeting price of solar electricity has increased pressure on fossil fuel companies in the country.
The government has announced it will not build any more coal plants after 2022 and predicts renewables will generate 57 per cent of its power by 2027 – a pledge far outstripping its commitment in the Paris climate change agreement.
Plans for nearly 14 gigawatts of coal-fired power stations – about the same as the total amount in the UK – were scrapped in May, signalling a seismic shift in the India's energy market.
Analyst Tim Buckley said the move away from the dirtiest fossil fuel and towards solar in the country would have “profound” implications on global energy markets.
“Measures taken by the Indian government to improve energy efficiency coupled with ambitious renewable energy targets and the plummeting cost of solar has had an impact on existing as well as proposed coal fired power plants, rendering an increasing number as financially unviable," he said.
“India’s solar tariffs have literally been free falling in recent months.”
A report in February by Delhi-based research group, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), found that if the cost of renewable energy continued to fall at the same rate, India could phase out coal completely by 2050.

Links

• World’s largest coal company to retire 37 mines in India
• India could eliminate the use of coal by 2050
• India Will Sell Only Electric Cars Within The Next 13 Years
• To Slow Climate Change, India Joins The Renewable Energy Revolution
• Macron Says France, India To Work Together On Climate Change
• India, Once A Coal Goliath, Is Fast Turning Green

Final Chapter In Adani Loan Deal

Saturday Paper - Karen Middleton

While the dealings of the government's Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility remain shrouded in secrecy, pressure mounts over funding for the Adani rail line.

While federal politicians shouted and shivered through the last subzero sitting week of this parliamentary session in Canberra, arguing among other things about how best to keep on the nation's lights and heaters, another cohort with a keen interest in energy policy was gathering in warmer climes to the north.
Among those addressing the annual Developing Northern Australia conference, held this year in Cairns, was Sharon Warburton, the chairwoman of the somewhat opaque Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, known as the NAIF.
The NAIF is a $5 billion-government-owned lender, set up to make concessionary loans to companies planning infrastructure projects in northern Australia that are of demonstrated public benefit and would not otherwise be able to proceed.
For its purposes, the area defined as northern Australia reaches below the Tropic of Capricorn, from south of Carnarvon in the west, across the whole Northern Territory, to just south of Gladstone in Queensland.
In its first year of operation, the NAIF has developed a reputation for secrecy, relying heavily on commercial-in-confidence to refuse to reveal beyond the most basic detail who has applied, for how much and how assessments are progressing.
The NAIF has not yet lent any money. But Warburton is hinting that it's close to a decision on at least one application, the one that's attracted the most controversy and has become an open secret: the request from Indian mining conglomerate Adani for $1 billion to fund a railway line to support its proposed Carmichael coalmine in Queensland's Galilee Basin.
"We know there is a lot of interest in NAIF and the Adani rail project," Warburton told the conference on Monday. "I can confirm we are in our due diligence phase on that project."
That translates as the final stage of assessment, with three other applications apparently also reaching finality. But, Warburton said, she could not say any more about Adani than that.

BRENDAN PEARSON WELCOMED WHAT HE SAYS IS A MOVE TOWARDS "A MORE RATIONAL DEBATE ON THE ROLE THAT COAL CAN PLAY".

"Put yourself in that position," she explained. "Would you expect people you were negotiating with to discuss publicly any of those details?"
Opponents of what would be oneof the world's biggest thermal coalmines are answering her rhetorical question with a "yes".
The proposed Adani Carmichael mine development has struck repeated setbacks, not least that it has struggled to secure financial backing. All of Australia's biggest banks have declined to invest, most recently Westpac, whose decision prompted Adani to accuse it of "choosing to bow to environmental activists".
More than a dozen other banks abroad have also shunned the project, on the grounds that low coal prices and an increasing focus on sustainable energy sources make coal an unattractive investment.
But Adani's Australian spokesman, Ron Watson, says the company is currently in "negotiations and discussions" with a potential overseas financier.
"The length of those discussions will take as long as they're going to take," Watson said.
He said the company was prepared for the NAIF to also take as long as it needed.
"If we have to wait, we have to wait. Patience, grasshopper, so to speak."
Resources and Northern Australia Minister Matt Canavan lashed out again this week at what he suggested was ideological prejudice against coal.
"There is a whole, in my view, ignorant and ill-informed campaign against fossil fuels and mining more generally across our country, and that puts at great risk our wealth because so much of our wealth comes from our natural resources," Canavan told Sky News on Thursday.
This week, the government reaffirmed its desire to build a "high energy, low emissions", or HELE, coal-fired power station to address future baseload power issues, accepting all but one of the recommendations in the recent energy report by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel.
The recommendation not accepted in its current form was the central one, the adoption of a clean energy target that would reward non-polluting forms of energy, but which Finkel recommended setting at an emissions threshold that would rule out even HELE coal-fired plants.
The Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Brendan Pearson welcomed what he says is a move towards "a more rational debate on the role that coal can play".
"Let the best energy source win," Pearson said.
Greens senator Larissa Waters said clean coal was "a lie".
"This is straight from the big tobacco playbook," Waters said. "Remember 'light' cigarettes? To meet the commitment under the Paris Agreement to keep global warming to safe levels, we need to reach zero pollution in the electricity sector transitioning away from coal. Building more coal-fired power stations is simply incompatible with the science."
Environmental activists continue to mount a strenuous campaign against any kind of coal-fired power and the Adani mine development in particular, on the grounds that it represents an investment in a backwards-looking energy source that will add to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions and damage the Great Barrier Reef.
The mine's backers argue it will provide a much-needed economic boost to central Queensland and – most importantly – jobs, although the company's original estimate of 10,000 has now been scaled back to about 1400.
Adani also has investments in massive solar farms in India and has proposed investing in solar energy in Australia, in both Queensland's Bowen Basin and in South Australia.
The company has sent mixed messages on whether it needs the NAIF loan to proceed, initially saying it wasn't essential and then saying it was, a distinction crucial to NAIF's considerations.
Details of any NAIF decision will only be published after it has been finalised and within 30 days of being taken.
Larissa Waters and Labor senator Murray Watt succeeded last week in establishing a senate inquiry into the NAIF, and Waters is pushing to have Adani called before it.
In recent senate budget estimates committee hearings, Labor and the Greens attempted to extract information on the status of the NAIF's deliberations in general and the fate of Adani's bid in particular.
As part of its processes, the NAIF must consult with Infrastructure Australia on projects it proposes to fund.
Greens leader Richard Di Natale asked Infrastructure Australia chief executive Philip Davies whether it had received a submission on the Adani rail line, as per the requirement that it must assess all projects seeking more than $100 million.
Davies said it had not.
Di Natale asked if the rail line was on IA's list of infrastructure priorities.
"That is not something that we have currently identified, no," Davies said, confirming that it had not conducted any cost–benefit analysis of the project.
Davies said neither the NAIF nor the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, which acts on its behalf, had consulted with IA about the Adani project, nor any project in detail.
Adani faces local competition for a NAIF loan to build a rail line. Australian rail freight giant Aurizon has also applied.
Watt has been demanding information on how the NAIF will make its assessments.
"Regional Australia desperately needs new projects and new jobs, so we support the NAIF," Watt told The Saturday Paper. "But people need to have confidence that $5 billion in taxpayers' money will be spent independently and impartially."
In his sights in particular is NAIF director Karla Way-McPhail, who is chief executive of two companies that service the mining industry.
Minister Matt Canavan confirmed to a senate estimates hearing this month that Way-McPhail, who has spoken out in support of opening up the Galilee, was a friend whom he had recommended for the board.
"She is a successful businesswoman in my area of the world," Canavan said, noting both lived in Yeppoon. "… She is a very well-regarded individual in the community and brings a lot of business expertise, particularly from Northern Australia, to the board."
NAIF chief executive Laurie Walker declined to tell the senate estimates committee whether Way-McPhail or any other NAIF director had recused themselves from any discussions on the grounds of a potential conflict of interest. Walker said that was "not information that I think is appropriate to disclose".
She said more than six conflicts had been declared.
"All I can say is that I am comfortable that the board members understand their obligations and have complied with them," she told the senators.
Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce said recently that he would investigate any alleged conflicts of interest. But Canavan said he was unaware of any such investigation.
Karla Way-McPhail was one of two of the seven NAIF directors who did not attend this week's Cairns conference.
The Greens' main focus has been on the suitability of the loan applicant rather than the assessors.
Larissa Waters wants the government to insert a "suitable person" test into the NAIF's process for assessing loan bids, arguing she believes it would rule out Adani.
The Greens also want the environmental history test strengthened within environmental law and are calling for Adani's approvals for the Carmichael project to be reviewed on the basis of "revelations about their environmental and corporate history" in activities overseas.
Waters has produced a private member's bill to reflect the concerns but the government is not obliged to bring it forward for a vote.
The Queensland Resources Council insists that, notwithstanding the NAIF decision, the development can and should now go ahead.
"There is a high degree of confidence that the Adani mine will now proceed with the resolution of the native title issues," the council's chief executive and former federal minister Ian Macfarlane told The Saturday Paper.
But despite Adani having announced with flourish recently that it had taken the final decision to proceed, others argue there are still obstacles to be cleared.
Tim Buckley, a director at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, believes it is not viable without massive taxpayer subsidies.
"The green light that Adani made such a fuss about a couple of weeks ago was actually just a sham," Buckley told The Saturday Paper.
He has written a paper suggesting "defer, delay and pray" appear to be the company's unspoken watchwords.
Adani's Ron Watson said the project was absolutely viable.
"If it's not viable, what is [Buckley] worried about?" Watson asked. "We will go away. We will slip away into the darkness."
But he said far from doing that, Adani had already invested $3.3 billion in Australia alongside $40 billion in integrated baseload and solar investments across Asia. Adani was aiming to become Australia's biggest solar producer within a decade and to invest in agribusiness too.
While the Queensland government has promised a royalties concession if the development goes ahead, it has also decided not to process the NAIF loan if approved – something that may require federal legislation to circumvent.
And for the Carmichael mine to proceed, the company must have concluded an Indigenous land use agreement, or ILUA, with the area's native title holders.
Last week, the federal government and Labor combined to pass legislation to reverse a Federal Court ruling that all members of a registered native title claimant group in any relevant area were required to sign an ILUA for it to have force.
The move affected agreements well beyond the Adani ILUA and was welcomed by some Indigenous groups and opposed by others.
That followed Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's promise to Adani owner Gautam Adani during a meeting in India earlier this year that he would fix the native title problems that were preventing the development from proceeding,
But the Wangan and Jagalingou traditional owners are challenging the ILUA on three other grounds. The court hearing has been set down for next year.

OPPONENTS OF THE MINE ARE GEARING UP TO ARGUE THAT SUCH GLOBAL BAD PUBLICITY SHOULD BE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL.

Originally, Adani had said it expected to achieve financial close on its Carmichael project by December this year. But recently that date was revised to March – the same month the court is due to hear the ILUA challenge.
What is not clear is whether there is a NAIF deadline by which an applicant must prove it has fulfilled all requirements, or whether an application can remain live for as long as that takes.
This week, Adani announced a new jobs portal for anyone interested in working on the project once it proceeds and is hiring senior executives, with plans to begin surveying and pre-construction in September.
"Adani has said that they are seeking to make financial close by later this year or early next year, and that would be the timing of any NAIF loan," Matt Canavan said.
In the latest public criticism of the whole proposal, an international group of high-profile conservationists wrote to Malcolm Turnbull late this week urging the government not to proceed.
The Ocean Elders, which include ocean explorer Jean-Michel Cousteau, marine biologist Dr Sylvia Earle, businessman Richard Branson and Jordan's Queen Noor, wrote that the mine would worsen damage to the Great Barrier Reef that Australia, as its custodian, had a global obligation to protect.
The group's spokeswoman, marine biologist Earle, told ABC Radio that Australia should reject fossil fuels and hence the Carmichael mine, despite its advanced state of official approval.
"It's never too late as long as the people and as long as rational individuals with power can change course, now that we know what we know," Earle said.
A prime ministerial spokesman declined to comment on the letter.
One of the conditions of the NAIF approving a loan is that it must not be likely to "cause damage to the Commonwealth Government's reputation or that of a relevant State or Territory government".
Opponents of the mine are gearing up to argue that such global bad publicity should be grounds for refusal.
In her speech to the Cairns conference, Sharon Warburton said the NAIF must both reflect government policy and be independent of it.
"First NAIF must align with Commonwealth policy, and that is a whole-of-government position, remembering it is taxpayer funds we are deploying," Warburton said. "Secondly – importantly – we cannot lend funds if all regulation at both a Commonwealth and state level are not in place.
"The other tremendously important parameter under which we operate is that it was set up to be an independent body making decisions independently of all outside influence."
Given the attempts at influence being made on all sides of the argument, that may prove to be a challenge.

Links

• 'Ocean Elders' Urge Malcolm Turnbull To Reject Adani Coalmine
• Adani's 'Green Light' On Carmichael Coal Mine More Mirage Than Reality
• Adani Announces 'Green Light' For Carmichael Mega Coal Mine
• Queensland Says It Won't Play Any Role In Funding For Adani Project
• Federal Labor Feels The Heat Over Adani, And Coalition Is Sweating Too
• New Coalmines Will Worsen Poverty And Escalate Climate Change, Report Finds
• Just 7 Per Cent Of Voters Want The Government To Invest In Adani Mine: Poll
• Queensland Government Offers Adani Mining Group A 'Royalties Holiday' That Could Cost State $320 Million
• This Is Not Rhetoric: Approving The Adani Coal Mine Will Kill People
• Climate Council: Climate, Health And Economics Are Against Carmichael Mine
• Adani May Face Fine Over Sediment Released In Floodwaters After Cyclone Debbie