28/09/2017

'Attacked From Two Sides': Antarctic Sea Ice Hits Another Record Low

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

Sea ice around Antarctica has shrunk about 2 million square kilometres in just three years, swinging from a record large maximum area covered to a record low, in a shift that could have implications for the global climate.
While a late burst in ice cover this spring cannot be ruled out, it appears the sea ice around Antarctica has peaked for the sea at about 18.013 million square kilometres, the smallest maximum extent in the 30-plus years of satellite readings, Jan Lieser, from the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, said.


Trillion-tonne iceberg breaks off Antarctica
As big as Bali, the loss of the Larsen C ice shelf will require maps to be redrawn and could ultimately cause sea levels to rise.

"It looks like we have passed the peak," Dr Lieser told Fairfax Media, adding the sea ice "is being attacked from two sides", from above and below.
For Antarctica, the lowest maximum extent, recorded on September 12, follows a record low minimum sea ice coverage recorded on March 1 after the summer thaw, he said.
As with the Arctic, the warming oceans are undercutting sea ice from below, while the warming atmosphere is melting ice from above.




Antarctica's variability, though, makes it a more complex problem to understand than its polar opposite.
For instance, the freshwater from melting land-based glaciers more readily freezes than salty sea water, increasing sea ice in some regions of the continent.
Blue iceberg floating in the sea near Cierva Cove on the Antarctic Peninsula. Photo: Renato Granieri / Alamy Stock Photo
Altered precipitation patterns can also lead to extra snow, adding depth to both land and sea ice.
Zack Labe, an ice researcher at the University of California, Irvine, cautioned against a definitive call that maximum sea ice coverage had been reached this year.
Melting is going on at both ends of the planet, with Antarctic and Arctic sea ice extents reaching record lows in the past year. Photo: Richard Harker
He noted the first week of October in 2015 had a large net increase of sea ice after an extended retreat. (See chart below from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center.)

"Antarctic sea ice extent is particularly variable day-to-day, given weather conditions, and it's worth waiting another week," Mr Labe said.
Those conditions include wind and wave action that can bunch sea ice or spread it out.
John Turner, a research scientist with the British Antarctic Survey, said the September 12 maximum reading - which he put at 18.023 million square kilometres - looks to have been the peaked. That would place it at slightly less than the previous smallest maximum of 18.027 million square kilometres in 1986.
"This year's maximum is a far cry from the 20.201 million square kilometres record maximum we had in 2014 and shows the highly variable nature of sea ice around the Antarctic continent," Dr Turner said.
"[On 25 September], the ice extent had fallen to 17.689 million square kilometres so it's highly unlikely that the extent will increase by much over the next few weeks and we can assume that we've seen this year's maximum."

Climate signals
Even if the record low maximum wavers slightly, the Antarctic sea coverage is well shy of the average of about 19 million square kilometres over the past three decades or so, Dr Lieser said.
(See the latest NASA satellite image of Antarctica below.)

While the climate change signal is much clearer in the northern latitudes - where longer-term records show a relatively steady retreat of Arctic sea ice - evidence of global warming's impact around Antarctica is also showing up in the observations.
"We see an increase in the storminess of the Antarctic, and that's obviously redistributing the sea ice around" the continent differently, Dr Lieser said.
"Maximum sea ice extent is attributed to that change in wind patterns."
The storms can also have an impact "far and wide", including on Australia's weather, he said.
Scientists are less sure of the trends in sea ice volume in the southern hemisphere than in the north, given the difficultly satellites have in distinguishing sea ice from the snow that has accumulated on it, for instance.

'Conveyor belts'
Understanding such processes, though, is "critically important to understanding the climate of the earth" because of the way sea ice formation works as the initial driver of the global ocean "conveyor belts", Dr Lieser said.
When sea ice forms, brine from salty sea water is expelled. As it sinks by gravity, it draws in surface water, helping to disseminate warm tropical heat towards the poles.
There is no sign yet of a slowing in the major over-turning circulation belts, such as the Gulf Stream that transports warmth from the Gulf of Mexico to northern Scandinavia, keeping that region much more habitable.
Still, climate models suggest the belts could weaken or change course in the future, Dr Lieser said.
Disturbing one variable in such complex systems can have "major implications" on the global climate, he said.
(See US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chart below of percentage changes of sea ice concentration in September, compared with previous years in the satellite era.)

Dr Lieser is one of more than 60 representatives from 12 countries gathered this week in Hobart to discuss sea ice, including how it is beginning to affect ship traffic
"We have seen a number of private and commercial ships becoming stuck in the Antarctic sea ice in recent years, which have led to costly rescue operations that can delay scientific work," he said.

Links

27/09/2017

What Is Loss And Damage From Climate Change?

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars |  | 

First Academic Study Reveals Different Perspectives, Challenging Questions

Following a series of recent devastating extreme weather events – mudslides in Sierra Leone, flooding in south Asia, and severe storms hitting the Philippines and the Gulf of Mexico, many have called attention to the role of climate change in these disasters. The string of Atlantic hurricanes that has devastated the Caribbean has prompted fresh calls to make nations and communities more resilient to the effects of climate change, and especially to address “loss and damage” in island nations.
In fact, there are already official agreements about loss and damage in international climate policy. But what does this actually mean? And does it have the same significance for different players? Our new paper, published today in Nature Climate Change, presents the first academic study of stakeholder perspectives on loss and damage. We interviewed 38 experts, including negotiators, practitioners, and researchers, between April and November 2015. These interviews revealed four distinct perspectives, which can help policymakers and practitioners better understand each other as they move forward on implementing international agreements.

What Is Loss and Damage?
For many years, vulnerable countries have pushed for loss and damage (L&D) to be tackled as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). As early as 1991, small island states were calling for an international insurance pool covering residual damage from rising sea levels that couldn’t be prevented by mitigation and adaptation efforts. This is also not the only time that extreme weather has prompted further demands to address L&D. Many will remember the heartfelt plea from a Philippine delegate at the Warsaw climate negotiations following Typhoon Haiyan, which killed more than 6,000 people in 2013.
The Loss and Damage issue is complex — and sensitive
The L&D issue is complex — and sensitive — involving climate impacts and risks for developing countries, which are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Despite the challenges, L&D has now entered the formal architecture of the UNFCCC, first with the establishment of the Warsaw International Mechanism in 2013, and later as part of the Paris Agreement in 2015. The role of the Warsaw International Mechanism is to promote the implementation of approaches to addressing L&D associated with the adverse effects of climate change, by enhancing understanding, strengthening dialogue, and enhancing support (financial, technical, and capacity-building). The Paris Agreement explicitly states that this support does not refer to liability or compensation.
The language of these documents can be difficult for those outside the policy community to interpret, and some suggest “strategic ambiguity” has been fundamental for reaching agreement. But now, researchers and practitioners are starting to ask how they can help address L&D, and many are confused, particularly about how L&D mechanisms might be distinct from existing approaches to adapt to climate change, and manage disaster risk. So, practically speaking, what does addressing L&D mean? Experts have begun to develop concepts and frameworks for L&D policy, but, until now, there has not been an empirical research study to analyze expert opinions.

Four Distinct Views on Loss and Damage
Are existing frameworks to address climate change sufficient, or are new L&D-specific mechanisms needed? Some experts suggested that the UNFCCC should focus on improving mitigation and adaptation, rather than treating L&D as a separate challenge. Others emphasized the need for additional approaches to address the losses and damages that cannot be avoided, and climate changes which cannot be adapted to.
A related question is whether L&D mechanisms should focus on minimizing negative consequences of climate change, or instead on addressing impacts that have already occurred and will inevitably occur in the future. Some experts put more emphasis on reducing risks, whereas others emphasized recovery, rehabilitation, and migration. Many experts agreed, though, that both challenges were important, highlighting the importance of integrated risk management, including risk reduction, risk retention, risk transfer, and recovery.

What’s Climate Change Got To Do With It?
When it comes to managing L&D, many of the practical interventions suggested – insurance, social safety nets, early warning systems – are familiar territory for disaster risk managers. So what’s new about addressing L&D from climate change?
Human-induced climate change is modifying the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events
Human-induced climate change is modifying the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, and causing slow onset changes such as sea-level rise and ocean acidification. The challenge of addressing L&D associated with weather and climate is amplified by anthropogenic climate change.
But for any specific case of loss or damage, the influence of climate change interacts with natural climate variations, as well as the level of exposure and vulnerability to hazards. Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria are apt examples: Scientists can agree that more events of this magnitude can be expected in a warming climate. But the precise contribution of human-induced climate change to each disaster is harder to quantify, and the extent of L&D is also highly dependent on local factors, such as urban planning and emergency preparedness.
This creates difficult questions about how to address L&D. Should L&D mechanisms under the UNFCCC deal only with L&D that can be directly related to climate change? Our interviewees had different answers. Some highlighted that the UNFCCC’s mandate is to address human-induced climate change, and therefore L&D mechanisms should focus only on that. Others, particularly practitioners, suggested that it would be more productive to work with existing disaster risk management and humanitarian efforts, to ensure that these incorporate the added risk from climate change.

So It’s Not All About Finance?
In short: no. Some interviewees did suggest that compensation will be needed, but they also highlighted that this was not the only – or even the most important – intervention to address L&D. They raised more fundamental questions about how to deal with irreversible losses from climate change. For example, if parts of small island states become uninhabitable, a payout might provide important financial support for the former residents, but it will not answer more challenging questions about where people should live or how to address their lost livelihoods. And that’s even before considering more intangible losses, such as loss of community, sovereignty, and mental health.
In other words, the question “Who pays?” might obscure even more challenging questions about what to do with the money, and how to deal with losses that cannot be quantified.

Implications for Policymakers
So what do these four distinct expert perspectives mean for progress to address L&D? The fact that countries have reached agreement on L&D – despite their different views – is an important achievement. However, given that the agreements are still quite vague, it remains to be seen what will be prioritized.
The question “Who pays?” might obscure even more challenging questions
Policymakers should be aware of these different perspectives, since if they are not reflected in actions to address L&D, negotiations could re-emerge. The good news for policymakers is that we did not find a simple split between those who seek compensation and those who wish to avoid paying compensation, so perhaps some aspects of the debate can be depoliticized.
Our research might provide helpful background information for upcoming discussions, such as the 6th meeting of the Executive Committee to the WIM, which will take place in mid-October in Bonn, as well as the annual climate negotiations in November. Meanwhile, practitioners and researchers are already looking for ways to help understand and address L&D. We hope that by identifying four perspectives of L&D we can help them identify possible actions and research questions.

Links

Climate Change Is Complex. We’ve Got Answers To Your Questions.

New York Times

We know. Global warming is daunting. So here’s a place to start: 17 often-asked questions with some straightforward answers.
Jon Han

Part 1 What Is Happening?

1. Climate change? Global warming? What do we call it?

Both are accurate, but they mean different things.

You can think of global warming as one type of climate change. The broader term covers changes beyond warmer temperatures, such as shifting rainfall patterns.
President Trump has claimed that scientists stopped referring to global warming and started calling it climate change because “the weather has been so cold” in winter. But the claim is false. Scientists have used both terms for decades.

2. How much is the Earth heating up?

Two degrees is more significant than it sounds.

As of early 2017, the Earth had warmed by roughly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (more than 1 degree Celsius) since 1880, when records began at a global scale. The number may sound low, but as an average over the surface of an entire planet, it is actually high, which explains why much of the world’s land ice is starting to melt and the oceans are rising at an accelerating pace. If greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked, scientists say, the global warming could ultimately exceed 8 degrees Fahrenheit, which would undermine the planet’s capacity to support a large human population.

3. What is the greenhouse effect, and how does it cause global warming?

We’ve known about it for more than a century. Really.

In the 19th century, scientists discovered that certain gases in the air trap and slow down heat that would otherwise escape to space. Carbon dioxide is a major player; without any of it in the air, the Earth would be a frozen wasteland. The first prediction that the planet would warm as humans released more of the gas was made in 1896. The gas has increased 43 percent above the pre-industrial level so far, and the Earth has warmed by roughly the amount that scientists predicted it would.

4. How do we know humans are responsible for the increase in carbon dioxide?

This one is nailed down.

Hard evidence, including studies that use radioactivity to distinguish industrial emissions from natural emissions, shows that the extra gas is coming from human activity. Carbon dioxide levels rose and fell naturally in the long-ago past, but those changes took thousands of years. Geologists say that humans are now pumping the gas into the air much faster than nature has ever done.

5. Could natural factors be the cause of the warming?

Nope.

In theory, they could be. If the sun were to start putting out more radiation, for instance, that would definitely warm the Earth. But scientists have looked carefully at the natural factors known to influence planetary temperature and found that they are not changing nearly enough. The warming is extremely rapid on the geologic time scale, and no other factor can explain it as well as human emissions of greenhouse gases.

6. Why do people deny the science of climate change?

Mostly because of ideology.

Instead of negotiating over climate change policies and trying to make them more market-oriented, some political conservatives have taken the approach of blocking them by trying to undermine the science.
President Trump has sometimes claimed that scientists are engaged in a worldwide hoax to fool the public, or that global warming was invented by China to disable American industry. The climate denialists’ arguments have become so strained that even oil and coal companies have distanced themselves publicly, though some still help to finance the campaigns of politicians who espouse such views.

Part 2 What could happen?

1. How much trouble are we in?

Big trouble.

Over the coming 25 or 30 years, scientists say, the climate is likely to gradually warm, with more extreme weather. Coral reefs and other sensitive habitats are already starting to die. Longer term, if emissions rise unchecked, scientists fear climate effects so severe that they might destabilize governments, produce waves of refugees, precipitate the sixth mass extinction of plants and animals in the Earth’s history, and melt the polar ice caps, causing the seas to rise high enough to flood most of the world’s coastal cities. The emissions that create those risks are happening now, raising deep moral questions for our generation.

2. How much should I worry about climate change affecting me directly?

Are you rich enough to shield your descendants?

The simple reality is that people are already feeling the effects, whether they know it or not. Because of sea level rise, for instance, some 83,000 more residents of New York and New Jersey were flooded during Hurricane Sandy than would have been the case in a stable climate, scientists have calculated. Tens of thousands of people are already dying in heat waves made worse by global warming. The refugee flows that have destabilized politics around the world have been traced in part to climate change. Of course, as with almost all other social problems, poor people will be hit first and hardest.

3. How much will the seas rise?

The real question is how fast.

The ocean has accelerated and is now rising at a rate of about a foot per century, forcing governments and property owners to spend tens of billions of dollars fighting coastal erosion. But if that rate continued, it would probably be manageable, experts say.
The risk is that the rate will increase still more. Scientists who study the Earth’s history say waters could rise by a foot per decade in a worst-case scenario, though that looks unlikely. Many experts believe that even if emissions stopped tomorrow, 15 or 20 feet of sea level rise is already inevitable, enough to flood many cities unless trillions of dollars are spent protecting them. How long it will take is unclear. But if emissions continue apace, the ultimate rise could be 80 or 100 feet.

4. Is recent crazy weather tied to climate change?

Some of it is.

Scientists have published strong evidence that the warming climate is making heat waves more frequent and intense. It is also causing heavier rainstorms, and coastal flooding is getting worse as the oceans rise because of human emissions. Global warming has intensified droughts in regions like the Middle East, and it may have strengthened a recent drought in California.
In many other cases, though — hurricanes, for example — the linkage to global warming for particular trends is uncertain or disputed. Scientists are gradually improving their understanding as computer analyses of the climate grow more powerful.

Part 3 What can we do?

1. Are there any realistic solutions to the problem?

Yes, but change is happening too slowly.

Society has put off action for so long that the risks are now severe, scientists say. But as long as there are still unburned fossil fuels in the ground, it is not too late to act. The warming will slow to a potentially manageable pace only when human emissions are reduced to zero. The good news is that they are now falling in many countries as a result of programs like fuel-economy standards for cars, stricter building codes and emissions limits for power plants. But experts say the energy transition needs to speed up drastically to head off the worst effects of climate change.

2. What is the Paris Agreement?

Virtually every country agreed to limit future emissions.

The landmark deal was reached outside Paris in December 2015. The reductions are voluntary and the pledges do not do enough to head off severe effects. But the agreement is supposed to be reviewed every few years so that countries ramp up their commitments. President Trump announced in 2017 that he would pull the United States out of the deal, though that will take years, and other countries have said they would go forward regardless of American intentions.

3. Does clean energy help or hurt the economy?

Job growth in renewable energy is strong.

The energy sources with the lowest emissions include wind turbines, solar panels, hydroelectric dams and nuclear power stations. Power plants burning natural gas also produce fewer emissions than those burning coal. Converting to these cleaner sources may be somewhat costlier in the short term, but they could ultimately pay for themselves by heading off climate damages and reducing health problems associated with dirty air. And expansion of the market is driving down the costs of renewable energy so fast that it may ultimately beat dirty energy on price alone — it already does in some areas.
The transition to cleaner energy certainly produces losers, like coal companies, but it also creates jobs. The solar industry in the United States now employs more than twice as many people as coal mining.

4. What about fracking or ‘clean coal’?

Both could help clean up the energy system.

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is one of a set of drilling technologies that has helped produce a new abundance of natural gas in the United States and some other countries. Burning gas instead of coal in power plants reduces emissions in the short run, though gas is still a fossil fuel and will have to be phased out in the long run. The fracking itself can also create local pollution.
“Clean coal” is an approach in which the emissions from coal-burning power plants would be captured and pumped underground. It has yet to be proven to work economically, but some experts think it could eventually play a major role.

5. What’s the latest with electric cars?

Sales are still small overall, but they are rising fast.

The cars draw power at night from the electric grid and give off no pollution during the day as they move around town. They are inherently more efficient than gasoline cars and would represent an advance even if the power were generated by burning coal, but they will be far more important as the electric grid itself becomes greener through renewable power. The cars are improving so fast that some countries are already talking about banning the sale of gasoline cars after 2030.

6. What are carbon taxes, carbon trading and carbon offsets?

It’s just jargon for putting a price on pollution.

The greenhouse gases being released by human activity are often called “carbon emissions” for short. That is because two of the most important gases, carbon dioxide and methane, contain carbon. (Some other pollutants are lumped into the same category, even if they do not actually contain carbon.) When you hear about carbon taxes, carbon trading and so on, these are just shorthand descriptions of methods to put a price on emissions, which economists say is one of the most important steps society could take to limit them.

7. Climate change seems so overwhelming. What can I personally do about it?

Start by sharing this with 50 of your friends.

Experts say the problem can only be solved by large-scale, collective action. Entire states and nations have to decide to clean up their energy systems, using every tool available and moving as quickly as they can. So the most important thing you can do is to exercise your rights as a citizen, speaking up and demanding change.
You can also take direct personal action to reduce your carbon footprint in simple ways that will save you money. You can plug leaks in your home insulation to save power, install a smart thermostat, switch to more efficient light bulbs, turn off unused lights, drive fewer miles by consolidating trips or taking public transit, waste less food, and eat less meat.
Taking one or two fewer plane rides per year can save as much in emissions as all the other actions combined. If you want to be at the cutting edge, you can look at buying an electric or hybrid car or putting solar panels on your roof. If your state has a competitive electricity market, you may be able to buy 100 percent green power.
Leading corporations, including large manufacturers like carmakers, are starting to demand clean energy for their operations. You can pay attention to company policies, support the companies taking the lead, and let the others know you expect them to do better.
These personal steps may be small in the scheme of things, but they can raise your own consciousness about the problem — and the awareness of the people around you. In fact, discussing this issue with your friends and family is one of the most meaningful things you can do.

Links

There Could Be 2 Billion Climate Change Refugees By 2100

Global CitizenJoe McCarthy

And 1.4 billion by 2060.
UNHCR / Matthew McConnell
By 2100, the human population is expected to shoot up to 11 billion people.
At the same time, the world’s landmass will shrink as rising sea levels swallow coastlines, displacing an estimated 2 billion people from their homes, according to a new analysis from Cornell University.
The world is already struggling to cope with the largest displaced persons crisis in history, 65.6 million people, and a crisis that’s orders of magnitude bigger will present radically different challenges.
Most immediately, countries will have to find a way to accommodate those displaced as they flock inward on remaining land mass and determine how to provide enough food, water, and other necessities when resources are strained by the other effects of climate change — droughts, storms, extreme precipitation, and so on.
“We’re going to have more people on less land and sooner that we think,” said lead author Charles Geisler, professor emeritus of development sociology at Cornell, in a statement. “The future rise in global mean sea level probably won’t be gradual. Yet few policy makers are taking stock of the significant barriers to entry that coastal climate refugees, like other refugees, will encounter when they migrate to higher ground.”
By 2060, the authors estimate that 1.4 billion people will be displaced, more than four times the prediction of an earlier report.
This change reflects the growing understanding of climate change and its acceleration. A recent analysis found that sea level rise increased by 50% since 1993. Further, there are signs that natural buffers against climate change are reaching their breaking points. While carbon emissions stayed flat in the past three years, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere surged, meaning that less carbon is being soaked up by the oceans and forests.
All around the world, coastal places are dealing with the escalating dangers of climate change.
In Miami, politicians across the political spectrum have begun preparing for a mass exodus.
The Maldives, a small string of Pacific islands, is building new islands for people to relocate to when existing islands get submerged at tremendous expense.
In Palau, another small Pacific island, the government created the largest marine reserve in the world to serve two purposes: create a large buffer against waves and attract global investment for inevitable relocation.
In coastal Bangladesh, rising sea levels, landslides, erosion, and cyclones are causing saltwater to seep into rivers, ruining vast sections of rice fields and rendering water undrinkable.
In Mexico City, the ground is sinking as the city’s aquifers get depleted from overuse, drought, overdevelopment, and warming temperatures.
The city of Guangzhou, a multi-trillion dollar powerhouse in China, is being inundated by rising waters and extreme precipitation. In 2016, the city experienced the most rainfall in history and the sewage systems of the poorer and more crowded neighborhoods are already becoming wrecked.
The authors of the report warn that humanity’s many vulnerabilities will be exposed as these problems intensify and it could force reconceptions of borders, human rights, global aid, and more.
“The pressure is on us to contain greenhouse gas emissions at present levels,” he said. “It’s the best ‘future proofing’ against climate change, sea level rise and the catastrophic consequences likely to play out on coasts, as well as inland in the future.”

Links

26/09/2017

The Truth About Soaring Power Prices: Wind And Solar Not To Blame

ABC NewsIan Verrender

A vocal but powerful minority argues coal is the future, but that's simply not the view shared by the power generators. (AAP)
Separate events, different states, alternate days. Between them, however, competition kahuna Rod Sims and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull last week demolished an old chestnut about renewable energy: it is not the cause for the recent spike in electricity prices.
In fact, according to both, it has had very little impact.
For the past decade or more, we've been bombarded with the message from a vocal but powerful minority within Parliament and the broader community that the switch to renewable energy has made Australia uncompetitive, crippled our industry and driven power prices higher.
The real issue is that, fundamentally, they don't believe climate change is real or that humans have adversely affected the planet.
Having spent so long denying science and rejecting the overwhelming body of evidence, they're now being forced to ignore economics; that renewables have become a cheaper longer term power source.
Coal is the future, they argue.

Coal-fired generators have no future here

That's simply not a view shared by the power generators, whose primary motivation is to turn a profit and stay in business, or the banks who must finance them.
Nor is it a view shared by BHP, the nation's biggest company that built a large part of its wealth on coal exports.
Last week, it confirmed it was reviewing its membership of the Minerals Council of Australia because of "materially different positions" on issues such as a Clean Energy Target and climate change.
Technical innovation around renewable energy generation has seen costs plummet.
So much so that US investment bank Goldman Sachs — hardly a standard bearer for radical ideology — now argues that, rather than pushing power costs higher, renewable energy is the cheapest form of power generation. More on that later.

The truth about the power price spike
As the theatre over keeping open the creaking Liddell coal-fired power station in NSW's Hunter Valley played an encore last week, the ACCC boss and the PM delivered a few sobering nuggets.
First, there was Rod Sims at the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday: "Forty-one per cent of the increase in electricity prices over the last 10 years has been in network costs and we keep forgetting that."
He went on: "Those poles and wires that run down your street are the main reason you are paying too much for your electricity."


Rod Sims addresses the National Press Club on "Australia's Gas and Electricity Affordability Problem"

According to Mr Sims, extra retail charges account for 24 per cent of the higher prices while higher generation costs as a result of a failure to invest make up 19 per cent of the price hikes.
Green energy initiatives contribute just 16 per cent to the recent price hikes.
On Thursday in Brisbane, responding to questions, the PM concurred, explaining that "particularly for retail customers, the largest single part of your bill is the network costs."
"That's the poles and wires basically," he said.

Gas, not coal, will fix prices

But then he elaborated on the more immediate issues, particularly around generation and the changes that have been foisted upon consumers.
"In terms of the green schemes, they do have a cost but it is a relatively small cost," he said.
"Gas is the biggest single fact at this point in time."
What does gas have to do with it? As the PM explained, the electricity price is set by the last generator to come into the stack.
It's what economists call the marginal cost of production. You might be to meet half the demand at low price. But it is the expensive bit at the end that determines how much a producer will charge everyone.
When it comes to electricity, gas is that last final element.
"It is peaking power," the PM said. "The increase in the gas price has increased the cost of electricity."

The gas debacle
Gas prices haven't just increased. They have quadrupled.
And the tragedy is that Australia, with one of the greatest reserves of gas on the planet, now charges its households and businesses far more to use that energy than the countries to which we export.

Gas forgotten in energy debate

With the continued reversal of policy on carbon pricing and climate change, the unofficial industry consensus was to build solar and wind generation with gas-fired back-up to shore up reliability; a decision affirmed by the chief scientist Alan Finkel in his report on how to cope with future challenges.
But three major export terminals were built at Curtis Island just off Gladstone in Queensland, with Santos building a plant that required far more gas than to which it had access.
To fulfil its export contracts, it began sourcing gas previously destined for the domestic market.
That forced the price of domestic gas sky high just as a global glut sent international prices crashing.
It's now cheaper to buy Australian gas in Asia. A fortnight ago, gas from West Australia's giant Gorgon project was sold to India at $8.70 a gigajoule. East coast gas sells here for $17.50.
That's why the Federal Government has shanghaied gas producers like Santos to direct export gas back into the local market.
If Australians could get the same deal on our gas that Indians have secured, our electricity would be much cheaper.

Renewables or coal: What is the cheapest?
When it comes to cost, coal lobbyists usually refer to the subsidies doled out to the renewable sector to argue the industry wouldn't exist if it had to stand on its own.
That's a valid point. But it overlooks two things; the vast billions handed out to the coal industry and the increasing competitiveness of renewables.
Every coal fired generator in Australia was built, not just partially subsidised, entirely with taxpayer funds.
When they were privatised, many were given state owned coal mines with contract prices way below market, effectively a further subsidy.
Then there are the health costs.
A health study in the Latrobe Valley last year identified much higher respiratory and asthma admissions to hospital than the Victorian average while life expectancy was significantly lower than the state average.
But it is the cost of energy generation where the game really is changing.
As the Goldman Sachs graphs above show, renewable energy costs have plunged by up to 70 per cent since 2009 and will be the cheapest form of generation in Europe this year and in the US within eight years on a levelised cost basis.
When the cost of installation is taken into account, however, the story changes.
When the cost of installation is taken into account, wind and solar are much cheaper. (Goldman Sachs)
Wind and solar are much cheaper. Not only is the fuel free and faces no regulatory risk — in the form of a carbon price — but the technology is simpler and quicker to install.
Australia's chief scientist Alan Finkel went one step further. He factored the extra costs of adding gas or battery backup to ensure stability or baseload power in the system.

The Finkel review, explained

Wind still came out cheapest, with solar only marginally more expensive than black coal.
Renewable plants can be built within one to three years while coal-fired plants take between four and seven years to build.
Putting aside arguments about climate change, the main problem with coal-fired electricity is that the numbers no longer stack up.
It's too expensive, it has much higher regulatory risks and renewable technology is rapidly advancing.
It will take more than a taxpayer subsidy to build one here. It will need a full taxpayer handout. And it will result in more expensive power bills.
Coal is simply a form of stored solar energy. New technology has delivering cleaner, more efficient and cheaper ways to directly harvest solar energy to power our lives.
Don't expect that innovation to stop.

Links

Portuguese Children To Crowdfund European Climate Change Case

The Guardian

Group from region hit by deadly forest fires to sue 47 countries alleging failure to tackle climate change threatens their right to life
The fires in Leiria this summer killed more than 60 people. Photograph: Paulo Cunha/EPA
Portuguese schoolchildren from the area struck by the country’s worst forest fires are seeking crowdfunding to sue 47 European countries, alleging that the states’ failure to tackle climate change threatens their right to life.
The children, from the Leiria region of central Portugal, where fires this summer killed more than 60 people and left hundreds injured, are being represented by British barristers who are experts in environmental and climate change law.
Supported by the NGO Global Legal Action Network (Glan), they are seeking an initial £35,000 to mount the case in the European court of human rights.
The crowdfunding bid was published on Monday on the platform CrowdJustice, which has raised millions to help bring citizen-led cases to court.
Lawyers will seek a ruling from the court that the countries being sued must significantly strengthen their emissions reduction policies and commit to keeping the majority of their existing fossil fuel reserves in the ground.
The lead counsel, Marc Willers QC of Garden Court Chambers, said: “This case intends to build on the successes which have been achieved through climate change litigation across the world so far.
“It will be unique because it will be the first case in which multiple governments are brought before a court at the one time in relation to their failure to properly tackle climate change.
“Climate change poses a major and increasingly worsening threat to a number of human rights and governments in Europe are simply not doing enough to address it.”
The children, aged between five and 14, all come from Leiria, which suffered Portugal’s deadliest fires this summer.
Some experts have blamed the increase in forest fires in Europe on climate change.
A 14-year-old who is part of the group taking action said: “Climate change causes many problems, but if I had to name the ones that worry me the most, it would be the sea level rise, which leads to the destruction of shores and infrastructure such as dams, roads and houses, and also the increase in the number of forest fires that we’ve been observing lately – especially this summer, as the fires caused many deaths and left our country in mourning.”
The legal action will target the 47 nations who are the major emitters in Europe – including the UK, Ireland, Germany and France. These 47 were collectively responsible for roughly 15% of global emissions and held a significant proportion of the world’s known fossil fuel reserves, said the Glan director, Dr Gearóid Ó Cuinn.
European court of human rights decisions are binding on these states.
The case is also being taken to raise public awareness about what Glan says are the shortcomings in government policies on climate change.
Ó Cuinn said: “We will work with civil society organisations throughout Europe to use our case to highlight the fact that unless governments urgently take much stronger action to prevent the release of greenhouse gas emissions, it is only a matter of decades before we’ll be witnessing the catastrophic consequences of insufficient action.”
Two years ago a group of Dutch citizens – organised by the NGO Urgenda – successfully sued their government for negligence for knowingly contributing to a breach of the 2C maximum target for global warming.
Three judges ordered the Dutch government to cut its emissions by 25% by 2020, saying their lower targets were unlawful given the scale of the threat posed by climate change.

Links

Climate Crunch: Australia To Fail On Paris Commitments Without Massive Renewable Switch

Fairfax

Australia will fall short of its Paris carbon reduction targets signed under Tony Abbott unless it lifts its renewable energy production to levels higher even than Labor's plan for 50 per cent green energy reliance by 2030.
The first assessment by the Australia Institute's new Climate and Energy Program, to be released on Monday, has found that unless a higher burden is placed on the more expensive process of carbon reductions in other sectors – agriculture, transport and manufacturing – then the electricity generation sector will need to aim for a renewable energy target of at least 66 per cent by 2030, and possibly as high as 75 per cent.
Australia's Paris carbon reduction targets were signed under former prime minister Tony Abbott. Photo: AAP
That is, a power generation sector where the fossil fuel component is reduced to perhaps a quarter of the size it is now.
Power generation currently accounts for 35 per cent of total emissions, which is twice as much as the next biggest contributor, fuel combustion and transport, at 18 per cent.
Industry produces 14 per cent and agriculture 13 per cent.
The current emissions reduction target, committed to in Paris while Mr Abbott was prime minister, is 26-28 per cent lower than the 2005 level – part of Australia's  contribution to a global effort to restrict the planet's temperature increase this century to no more than 2 degrees Celsius.
The government is now wrestling with how to go about this after  Chief Scientist Alan Finkel proposed a clean energy target which would lock in a 28 per cent reduction in energy-related emissions by 2030 through a four-pronged strategy emphasising energy security, reliability, affordability for households and business, and meeting Australia's emissions targets.
Last week Mr Abbott indicated he would cross the floor in Parliament to stop further renewable-friendly policies, calling it "unconscionable for a government that was originally elected promising to abolish the carbon tax and to end Labor's climate obsessions to go further down this renewable path".
Chief Scientist Alan Finkel proposed a clean energy target which would lock in a 28 per cent reduction in energy-related emissions by 2030. Photo: Wayne Taylor
The comments underlined the bind faced by the formerly green-tinged Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
Along with Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg, Mr Turnbull has been working feverishly behind the scenes to settle a CET in official policy by the end of the year, although his government's febrile internal politics now look like producing a watered-down and renamed version designed to foster a new so-called high-efficiency, low-emissions coal-fired power station.
Acting Labor leader Tanya Plibersek has indicated the party's support for a Clean Energy Target (CET). Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
However, the Australia Institute, which has taken over the intellectual property of the Climate Institute, says even Dr Finkel's model would be insufficient on its own to meet the international obligations signed under Mr Abbott.
"This analysis of the economic modelling demonstrates meeting these targets for the electricity sector with a policy like the clean energy target is likely to require 66-75 per cent of electricity to be supplied by renewables," said Australia Institute executive director Ben Oquist.
This was because a CET "provides less of an incentive for gas generation than an EIS (emissions intensity scheme) or a carbon price".
Mr Oquist said the country was at a "critical juncture" and government must decide if it is to meet its commitments in the cheapest way, which is through greater renewable energy dependency than currently envisaged, or by demanding the more expensive and disruptive changes required in other parts of the economy.
"If Australia adopts a weak clean energy target which does not provide a strong signal for renewables, we risk turning Australia's moderate Paris targets into an extremely expensive task," he said.
"It remains to be seen if we choose to meet those Paris commitments the easy way or the hard way."
The discussion paper was written by the institute's director of research, Rod Campbell, who described it as ironic that government-commissioned modelling showed that policies that would actually "minimise renewable energy penetration such as carbon pricing and an emissions intensity scheme have already been rejected".
"All that remains is the CET that would bring in the largest share of renewable generation, or the prospect of failing to meet our Paris climate targets," he said.
Acting Labor leader Tanya Plibersek said the solution to a 10-year political standoff on climate policy was within reach because Labor had signalled that it would "cop" a CET.
"We don't think that is the No.1 approach, but as the No.2 approach we are happy to compromise with the government to introduce a clean energy target," she told the ABC's Insiders.
"The problem is not the gap between Labor's position and Malcolm Turnbull's position, the problem is all inside the Liberal and National parties where they've got a determined small rump of people who are absolute wreckers when it comes to greater investment in renewable energy," she said.
"This government is in its fifth year, we've seen seven coal-fired power generators close down, taking 4,000 megawatts of baseload power out of the system and nothing replacing it. That's a real problem."
Last week, Mr Abbott proposed ending all subsidies on renewable energy as a political strategy for positioning the Coalition.
"This is an opportunity for us to sharpen the difference with Labor on an issue which is of deep concern to the public, on a hip-pocket issue where we can be on the side of voters and Labor is on the side of green extremists ... let Labor be the party of renewable energy and us the party of reliable energy," he said.

Links

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative