Donald Trump not invited to Paris summit where tag line of event was 'Make Our Planet Great Again'
The French President heading the Paris-based summit. Philippe Wojazer, Pool via AP
Emmanuel Macron has said that the world is “losing the battle” against climate change and issued a plea to the leaders of wealthy countries: “We’re not moving quick enough. We all need to act.”
Mr Macron was speaking at the One Planet summit in Paris, a meeting of 50 countries to which the US President was not invited.
But in a light-hearted nod to Donald Trump, who has
called climate change a “hoax”, the tag line for the summit was “Make
Our Planet Great Again”.
Mr Macron said the US was not willing to “join the club” on combating climate change, he told Time. As
part of the summit, 18 mostly US-based scientists will win paid
opportunities to live and conduct climate-related research in Europe,
away from the climate scepticism of Mr Trump.
Other attendees to the summit included Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, Theresa May and the secretary-general of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres.
France announced a raft of 12 non-binding commitments, from
a $300m pledge to fight desertification to accelerating the transition
towards a decarbonised economy. But there was no headline promise likely
to reassure poor nations on the sharp end of climate change that they
will be better able to cope.
Developed countries have pledged to provide $100bn
(£75bn) a year to poorer countries, every year after 2020 – when the
Paris Agreement, a global accord to curb greenhouse gas emissions and
limit global warming to 2C, comes into force.
The funds were supposed to go towards adapting poorer
countries’ infrastructures and economies to be more climate resilient,
particularly in the event of a natural disaster. But specific details
about financial pledges did not make it into the main text of the Paris
Agreement in 2015, as governments called for flexibility.
Barack Obama jokes ‘Thanks, Obama’ when talking about climate change progress
Now, there are fears that countries are not getting even close to that figure for the first year. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimates only about $68bn (£51bn) has been collected.
Also in focus is how public and private financial
institutions can mobilise more money and how investors can pressure
corporate giants to shift towards more ecologically friendly strategies.
More than 200 institutional investors with $26
trillion in assets under management said they would step up pressure on
the world’s biggest corporate greenhouse gas emitters.
Part of the reason to keep up momentum on fighting
climate change is the vacancy in action and financing left by the US
government under Mr Trump.
Hanna Petursdottir examines a cave inside the Svinafellsjokull glacier in Iceland, which she said had been growing rapidly. Since 2000, the size of glaciers on Iceland has reduced by 12 per cent. Tom Schifanella
The US withdrew a $2bn pledge to the Green Climate
Fund, one of the myriad pots set up for developing countries to receive
aid money.
In June, Mr Trump ordered the start of the official withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement, after former President Barack Obama was obliged to use an executive order to join the deal in 2016 to bypass climate deniers in Congress.
The US remains the only country not in the Paris
Agreement after previous holdouts Nicaragua and Syria joined the rest of
the world.
And the US actively promoted the use of fossil fuels at a UN climate change meeting last month.
Industry representatives from coal, oil, gas and
nuclear power companies like Peabody Energy, nuclear engineering firm
NuScale Power, and Tellurian, a liquefied natural gas exporter, were
prominently featured during the event.
During the panel, Mr Trump’s international energy
issues adviser George D Banks said it was “controversial only if we
chose to bury our heads in the sand”.
“Without question, fossil fuels will continue to be
used, and we would argue that it’s in the global interest to make sure
when fossil fuels are used that they be as clean and efficient as
possible,” Mr Banks said.
However, the US private sector and state governments – like Governor Jerry Brown representing California – have not been left out of the One Planet summit. Over a thousand
governors, mayors, and CEOs in the US have pledged to keep up the
commitments outlined in the Paris Agreement despite the federal
government’s inaction.
Adani protesters may have just got what their hearts desired. Picture: AAP
Re-elected
Queensland Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has written to Prime
Minister Malcolm Turnbull to veto a federal loan to the Adani coal
project in Queensland’s Galilee Basin.
In
one of her first acts after she was officially sworn in this morning,
Ms Palaszczuk has followed through on the shock announcement she made
during the election campaign to block a loan from the Northern Australia
Infrastructure Facility to the Indian conglomerate to build a
common-user rail line in the basin.
“My
government provides formal notification for the Commonwealth that
financial assistance should not be provided to Adani for the North
Galilee Basin Rail Project,” Ms Palaszczuk’s letter to Mr Turnbull
reads.
“As such, the government is
exercising its veto right under section 13(4) of the Investment Facility
Mandate in response to the Adani loan application.”
An
Adani spokesman said the company was still committed to Queensland
despite the veto, and insisted the Queensland government was still
supportive of its Carmichael coal mine proposal for the Galilee Basin.
“We
congratulate Premier Palaszczuk on her government’s election and look
forward to working closely and cooperatively with the state and federal
governments and regulatory authorities as we get on with the job of
making all of our projects a reality,” the spokesman said.
“Adani
Australia currently employs over 800 people and has invested over $3.3
billion in Queensland, which is one of the biggest investments by an
Indian company in Australia.
“We would
not be investing our time, money and energy in this manner if our
projects were not viable and if we were not serious about delivering our
projects which will ultimately generate more than 10,000 direct &
indirect jobs across all of our projects.
“The
projects are viewed in a positive light by the Queensland Government
and considered as critical infrastructure investments. The projects
continue to retain the support of the Queensland Government.
“Adani
Australia will now fully consider and adjust to the constraints the
veto of NAIF funding brings. Adani Australia is 100 per cent committed
to Queensland, we have a strong regional Queensland presence. This will
not change.
In response to Ms
Palaszczuk’s letter to Mr Turnbull, Northern Australia Minister Matt
Canavan said the Queensland government had “chosen to stand in the way
of North Queensland jobs as its first official act”.
“It
was the Palaszczuk Government that first asked last year that the NAIF
consider a loan to the Adani Galilee rail project in a letter from the
now-sidelined former Treasurer Curtis Pitt,” Senator Canavan said.
“But what the Queensland Premier has failed to say today is whether she intends to block all investment in the Galilee Basin.
“The people of regional Queensland deserve to know which jobs will be next on Labor’s hit list.
“I
hope the Adani project proceeds because there are 800 people whose
current jobs depend on it, and thousands of future jobs hang in the
balance. If Adani does proceed it will be in spite of Queensland Labor
not because of it.”
Under the constitution, the federal government funding must be facilitated by the state government to the private company.
Ms
Palaszczuk said newly appointed Treasurer Jackie Trad, the state’s
Deputy Premier, would write to federal Northern Australia Minister Matt
Canavan to provide the same advice.
Earlier today, Senator Canavan wrote to Ms Palaszczuk about the Adani veto.
“I
note an investment decision has not yet been made on Adani’s NGBR
proposal but is unlikely to progress any further in the NAIF’s
assessment given your announced position (during the campaign),” Senator
Canavan said.
“This project is crucial
to opening up the Galilee Basin and would mean economic growth, and
jobs for many Queenslanders. I would appreciate if you could confirm by
written notice that your government will veto the provision of the NAIF
finance to this important project. Further, I would appreciate your
urgent advice on whether your government intends to veto any investment
proposals to the NAIF that seek to service the Galilee Basin, or more
broadly in Queensland.”
During the
campaign, the Integrity Commissioner wrote to Ms Palaszczuk and said she
should not make any decisions about any NAIF applications, because of a
conflict of interest created by Ms Palaszczuk’s partner working on
Adani’s NAIF application.
However, she
flouted this advice and said she would veto the loan. Ms Palaszczuk has
not said what she would do for other NAIF projects, such as Aurizon’s
application to build a rail line in the Galilee Basin.
Some of the carbon offsets operating under a controversial $2.5
billion fund set up by the Abbott-Turnbull government are at
"significant risk" from bushfires, according to a review by the Climate
Change Authority.
The audit of the Emissions Reduction Fund, released by the authority on Monday,
released by the authority on Monday, found that evidence of systemic
problems had yet to emerge, but that there were questions over whether
some of the carbon stored under the scheme would have been stored
anyway.
World carbon emissions on the rise A new report has shown world carbon emissions set to reach a record high this year, with a 2 percent rise according to scientists.
The report noted the fund had so far paid out $2.23 billion for 189
million tonnes of emissions reductions, or about $11.80 per tonne. Some
26 million tonnes had already been delivered.
"Overall, this
review has found that the ERF is generally performing well," the report
said. "It has successfully incentivised new domestic abatement at low
cost that will help contribute to Australia meeting its international
target commitments."
However, critics such as Clive Hamilton – an academic at Charles Sturt University who resigned from the authority's board in February –dismissed the review as giving "a veneer of legitimacy to a discredited scheme".
"The
federal government has stopped talking about the ERF," he said. "It's
like bastard child whose existence no one wants to acknowledge."
Tim Baxter, a researcher at Melbourne University's Australian-German
Climate and Energy College, described the report as "a light touch" that
failed to address the many systemic problems with the fund.
"Pretty much in every methodology you look at there's some
fundamental accountability issue," Mr Baxter said. "This is almost big
enough that 30, 40, 50 per cent of the abatement you're claiming under
this methodology doesn't exist."
The report's release comes ahead of a review of the government's
overall climate policies is scheduled to be released before the end of
the year.
Josh Frydenberg, Minister for the Environment and Energy, welcomed the report's view that the ERF was "performing well".
Bushfires pose a threat to the carbon sequestered under the $2.2 billion spent so far under the Emissions Reduction Fund. Photo: Craig Abraham
"The government will carefully consider the review's recommendations and table its response in due course," he said.
Forest issues
Among the issues the report did highlight was the fact 139 million
tonnes of the abatement paid for was in vegetation and soil, and at
"significant risk" of reversal.
"[T]he Authority recommends that
scheme participants submit plans to the Clean Energy Regulator (CER)
outlining how they will maintain carbon in their projects and deal with
the risk of fire," it said.
Of the vegetation projects, 75 per
cent were located in the Cobar Peneplain and Mulga Lands of south-west
Queensland and western NSW.
The current buffer of 5 per cent
"may need to be reviewed to take into account increasing risk of natural
disturbances, particularly if sequestration projects are geographically
concentrated", it said, adding any changes should not affect existing
projects to avoid creating investment uncertainty.
Mr Baxter also
questioned the discounting by only 25 per cent projects that were
earmarked to run for 25 years compared with those meant to store carbon
for a century.
The discount rate seemed more to do government borrowing costs rather than natural processes.
"A 25-year
permanence period is very, very different - and a lot more than a 20-25
per cent difference - to a 100-year permanence period in terms of
emissions," Mr Baxter said.
"The odds of a government stepping in
and purchasing that future abatement…if one project fails through
from fire or drought …seem pretty slim."
Landfill issues
Similarly, he queried the report's findings that landfill projects
had met the "additionality" conditions even when ample evidence existed –such as reported by Fairfax Media – that many such ventures would have happened without the ERF.
Almost
all landfill operators had joined the bidding for funds even though
they got money from the Renewable Energy Target, didn't have to comply
with the newness requirement, and "a decent percentage are required by
law in their home state" to deal with emissions, Mr Baxter said.
"You've got things like that which are really, really problematic," he said.
Another
issue raised in the report was the market concentration. Just two firms
– GreenCollar and Corporate Carbon – control 55 per cent of the
abatement supplied by Carbon Service Providers.
The authority did not recommended any specific steps to address the domination of a few companies.
It
did, however, call for the government to seek to amend the Carbon
Credits Act 2011 so that agents be required to pass a fit and proper
test to address concerns such as those raised by the National Farmers'
Federation about CSPs "behaving unscrupulously".
By international
standards, the ERF was "reasonably good" and had problems that could be
fixed if governments were serious, Mr Baxter said.
"There are loopholes there you can drive a truck through but they can be closed over time," he said.
Political view
Adam Bandt, the Greens climate change spokesman, though, said the
previous Labor/Greens program had resulted in "real emissions cuts with
polluters paying the public $24 a tonne".
"Under the Liberals,
pollution is rising and taxpayers are paying $12 per tonne for forest
schemes that might go up in smoke," Mr Bandt said. "Real climate policy
shouldn't be reversible.
"We can plant all the trees in the world
but until we cut pollution from coal and petrol, we won't stop climate
change and the bushfires it will bring," he said.
The Defence Department has laid out what it sees as the national security consequences of human-induced climate change.
Man-made
climate change could increase competition for food, resources and
arable land, placing a greater burden on our defence forces who must
respond to an increased risk of conflict.
In
an official submission to a Senate inquiry, the Defence Department has
laid out what it sees as the national security consequences of
human-induced climate change, warning that dealing with the fallout
from global warming could increase the burden on Australia’s military.
It
paints an uncertain, yet bleak, picture: climate change intensifying
natural disasters and the mass movement of people across the region. It
features as a kind of wildcard that could tax the capabilities of
soldiers and imperil Australia’s energy markets, upon which defence
relies heavily. Defence
describes human-induced climate change as a “threat multiplier’’ which
will intersect with existing problems of population density, poor
governance, poverty and ethnic rivalry for food, water and
resources. It will also increase the frequency, and intensify the
effects, of natural disasters, potentially obliging Defence to devote
more of its resources to disaster relief among Australia’s neighbours.
“Many
of the states in Australia’s region face some or all of these
challenges, in addition to being vulnerable to climate change impacts
such as temperature and sea level rise,’’ Defence says. “Unmitigated,
climate change could exacerbate the potential for conflict and the
consequence of any climate change-related threats could lead to an
increase in the demand for a wide spectrum of Defence response.’’
It
is “too early” to say precisely what resource pressures will be placed
on Australia, but it warns “the current most likely forecast climate
changes may require higher levels of commitment that may create
concurrency pressure for Defence from as early as the middle of the next
decade, or earlier if climate change related impacts on security
threats accelerate”.
“Although
the full range of impacts are not yet able to be determined, there is
potential for climate change to exacerbate existing threats and future
governments may increase demands on the ADF to impose new commitments.
These impacts could include an increase in illegal, unreported, or
unregulated fishing or irregular maritime arrivals to Australia.”
Citing
conflicts in Syria and Africa, Defence argues climate change could
exacerbate ethnic or other social grievances in Australia’s region,
fostering terrorism or cross-border conflict.
“Climate
change may also contribute to greater irregular migration pressure in
vulnerable counties to Australia’s north, potentially becoming a
substantial security threat for Australia.”
Defence
says climate change “will exacerbate storms of increasing severity that
will continue to impact national electricity infrastructure”.
“A
more secure power system will be resilient to the integration of new
technologies and resistant to the threat of natural disasters and cyber
security attacks.”
It
says the transition from fossil fuels to renewables is likely to
“redefine national energy supply chains’’ and warns reliable energy
generation is essential for the military.
“As an end user of energy sources Defence must ensure that it retains undisrupted access to appropriate sources of energy.”
It
argues its training facilities could become less usable “due to work
health and safety factors such as extreme heat” and notes that rising
sea levels could make some defence facilities more expensive to maintain
or “unviable to operate’’.
When Cyclone Evan slammed into Samoa
five years ago next week, it triggered the near-complete loss of power
and water supplies in the capital, Apia, and forced villagers to
relocate to schools and the university for months.
The category-4
tempest was the strongest to hit the Pacific nation in a couple of
decades. For Samoan Brianna Fruean, one of the Pacific Climate Warriors, it was another sign - along with rising sea levels, and more intense floods and droughts - that action needed to be taken.
Water bills headed 'same way as energy' Rising population and climate change could translate into much higher water bills without action being taken now.
"Climate change is happening right in front of our eyes," Fruean said
this week on the sidelines of a meeting in Fiji of Civicus, a global
civil society group.
Helen Clark - the former New Zealand prime
minister and an ex-senior United Nations official - was also at the Suva
gathering. Clark says she is not surprised by its central topic.
An overhead view of Ejit, of the Marshall Islands, where rising sea levels are already an inescapable part of daily life. Photo: New York Times
"You can't come to a meeting in the Pacific and not have climate
change as the focus," Clark tells Fairfax Media. "Everybody talks about
it because it's an existential threat to the Pacific."
Samoa at
least has high ground where people can seek refuge. Tuvalu, Kiribati and
the Marshall Islands are nations barely three metres above sea level,
making them particularly vulnerable to storm surges and rising seas.
Such vulnerabilities are not lost on Australian authorities.
Despite the often tortured debate stoked by some conservative
politicians and commentators denying climate change is real, a range of
agencies are quietly assessing abilities to cope with threats from
a refugee influx, increased calls for aid, and impacts on the domestic
economy.
Kaitara Kautu, a net fisherman whose home flooded during a 2015 king tide in Betio, a town in Kiribati. Photo: New York Times
And as 2017 draws towards a close, Environment and Energy Minister
Josh Frydenberg is putting the final touches to a review of Australia's
climate policies due for release by month's end.
Frydenberg offers no
hint of any major surprise, repeating familiar lines that Australia's
pledge to the Paris climate accord - to cut 2005 level emissions 26-28
per cent by 2030 - "is one of the largest reductions on a per capita
basis and is a commitment we plan on honouring".
Brianna Fruean, a Pacific Climate Warrior and environmental activist from Samoa.
Scrutiny
While festive seasonal distractions may dim the chance of an
immediate and close scrutiny of his climate review, the challenges for
the Turnbull government will still be waiting when politicians reconvene
in the new year.
International attention will also remain, whether at this week's One Planet Summit in
France to assess the progress on the Paris climate deal two years on,
or late in 2018, when all nations will be pressed to increase their
ambition to curb the greenhouse gas emissions driving global warming.
Kianteata Bwaurerei lost his taro pits to inundation on Abaiang, an atoll in Kiribati. Photo: New York Times
On the emissions front, Frydenberg has already had his options significantly reduced.
The
government's signature National Energy Guarantee aimed at providing a
more reliable, affordable and sustainable electricity supply locks the
power sector into the same 26-28 per cent pollution reduction that the
whole economy is supposed to track.
Sailosi Ramatu looks over the sea at his old village Vunidogoloa in
Fiji. Each time the ocean surged through their coastal Fijian village,
residents would use rafts to move from house to house. Photo: AP
Even if Frydenberg can convince the states to sign up - a huge ask
unless there is a major power outage over the summer - such an approach
won't be the best.
"Electricity production in OECD countries is
always part of the cheapest options to decarbonise the economy, and it's
also a big source of emissions," said Yann Robiou du Pont, a researcher
at Melbourne University's Australian-German Climate & Energy
College.
"There are fewer assets to transform and they're usually closer related to governmental decision-making."
In
Australia's case, the electricity sector is the largest source of
emissions, accounting for about a third of the total, and home to many
ageing and relatively dirty coal-fired power plants.
Another big source, land clearing, is again on the increase in states such as Queensland and NSW.
"Energy
efficiency and productivity will play an important role as we
transition to a lower emissions future," Frydenberg said. "We already
have in place the National Energy Productivity Plan for a 40 per cent
improvement by 2030 and we are always looking at ways to improve in this
area while delivering an affordable and reliable energy system."
Mr Robiou du Pont notes the Climate Change Authority's own recommendation
that Australia's fair contribution to emission cuts would be much
higher than the Abbott-Turnbull government's offer, given the country's
high per capita pollution and also relative wealth - if not political
will - to transform its economy.
The authority - which the
Coalition government tried but failed to abolish - called for a 25 per
cent cut of 2005-level emissions by 2020, and 54 per cent by 2030.
That's roughly double the government's ambition.
'Not serious'
Mark Butler, Labor's climate spokesman, said his party is sticking
with a 45 per cent emissions reduction goal that "is consistent with the
Paris Accord goal of limiting global warming to below two degrees".
"It
is clear that the government's approach of a pro rata allocation of
abatement between sectors will ensure the costs of meeting any emission
reduction target will be higher than they need to be," Butler said.
"The
electricity sector has a lower cost of abatement than most other
sectors in the form of renewable energy, and renewable energy is already
the cheapest option to replace ageing coal-fired power stations that
will inevitably retire," he said.
(Energy giant AGL is expected to
announce details within days of what its plans are post-2022, when it
closes the ailing Liddell coal-fired power station in the Hunter
Valley.)
Sectors like manufacturing and livestock agriculture have
a much larger cost of abatement and few ready-to-deploy abatement
technologies.
"The government's insistence each sector meets
targets based on a pro rata division of the national emission reduction
target just confirms they do not take climate change seriously," Butler
said.
Business shift
Companies, meanwhile, are beginning to look beyond the political cycle.
Sarah
Barker, a special counsel for Minter Ellison Lawyers, said there
had been "a noticeable shift in the approach of the business community
to climate risk in the past 18 months".
"Historically, the issue
was largely viewed as a singularly 'environmental', ethical,
non-financial issue - perhaps relevant to corporate social
responsibility, but nothing more," she said.
"Increasingly,
Australian businesses are realising that climate change presents
significant financial risks - and opportunities - and that they need to
strategise around this issue in the same way as they would any other
industry trend or economic risk factor."
"Business has far less
tolerance for climate change denialism than it did even a few years
ago," Barker added. "Their investors are concerned about it. Their
insurers are concerned about it. Their customers are concerned about
it."
'New denialism'
Submissions to recent and ongoing Senate inquiries also indicate that
whichever parties take government at the next election, many agencies
already have preparations underway to adapt to climate change.
Peter Whish-Wilson - the Greens' spokesperson for Healthy Oceans who led a Senate inquiry into the impact of climate change on the marine environment that last week released its report - said policy delay was "the new form of climate denialism".
"Whether
you stick your head under the water up on the Great Barrier Reef and
see the devastation first-hand or you talk to the defence force
personnel involved in planning for natural disasters in the Pacific, you
know that the effects of global warming are upon us and that without
action the future is looking grim," Whish-Wilson said.
"We now
need to think about the increase of marine heatwaves as part of the
range of climate impacts we need to prepare for, like we do with
bushfires and droughts," he said.
'Threat-multiplier'
For its part, the Defence Department's report to a separate Senate inquiry into the implications of climate change for Australia's national security detailed how it expects the "threat-multiplier" effect will hinder its "warfighting role".
"The
national security threats that may emerge include inter-group
rivalries, water, food and resource shortages and irregular migration,"
it said. "Many of the states in Australia's region face some or all of
these challenges, in addition to being vulnerable to climate change
impacts such as temperature and sea level rise."
Defence noted how it deployed 1000 staff to help Fiji recover from its $2.5 billion hit from Cyclone Winston,
a category-5 storm in 2016. The HMAS Canberra was part of the
deployment, along with planes that delivered 520 tonnes of humanitarian
aid.
In its submission, the Department of Immigration and Border
Protection said "climate change effects could permanently alter normal
business, including the accessibility of assets and capability".
Interestingly,
it noted that "there is no internationally agreed position on expanding
the current definition of a refugee or impetus to create a new
international protection obligation to encompass people displaced by
climate change".
Organisations such as the Kaldor Centre for
International Refugee Law at the Univerity of NSW downplay the threat of
a flood of refugees crossing borders because of climate change, saying
in its submission to the Senate that "there is scant evidence" so far.
"Internal
displacement may, however, generate low-level social tensions and
potential conflict over key resources such as land, housing, food, water
and employment, and increase the human insecurity of the poor," said
Jane McAdam, the centre's director.
'Climate debt'
Such a view of local disruption dovetails with those of both Helen Clark and Brianna Fruean.
Clark
said climate displacement is already affecting African subsistence
farmers forced off their land by rainfall patterns that are becoming
harder to predict: "If you plant and the rain doesn't come, you've blown
your credit and you're poverty stricken."
"We don't want our people to move," Fruean said. "We want to put that as the very, very last resort."
That
said, Pacific nations are watching with concern the Australian and
Queensland governments' efforts to promote the huge Adani-owned
Carmichael mine, which threatens to open up a massive new coal province.
"The execution of the Adani project will be a huge carbon bomb for us in the Pacific," Fruean said.
She
dismissed the characterisation of funds from rich nations to help her
people cope with worse weather extremes and rising sea levels.
"I
see it as climate debt," she said. "We wouldn't need that aid if it
weren't for these countries investing in fossil fuels, and really
creating the damage that we're seeing in our islands today."
London: Coral reefs – including Australia's Great
Barrier Reef – will be dead by 2100 due to human "maltreatment of the
oceans", David Attenborough's Blue Planet II has declared.
Attenborough's
follow-up documentary series, which took four years to film and
produce, finished airing in Britain on Sunday night (local
time). It ended with his grim warning about the state of our oceans,
which Attenborough said were "under threat now as never before."
Great Barrier Reef's coral crisis The Great Barrier Reef is on track for another year of coral decline, this year affecting prime tourism areas.
He said climate change, plastic pollution and over-fishing were all contributing to the demise of coral reefs. Blue Planet II
has been Britain's most-watched show of 2017, with 14 million tuning
into the first episode of the wildlife series. Nine will air the
seven-part series on free-to-air television in Australia in 2018.
A major section of the program is devoted to the Great Barrier Reef, where filming began in 2016 on Lizard Island.
The
program charted the Great Barrier Reef's worst-ever bleaching event,
caused by a combination of a warming ocean and an El Nino, which turned
healthy corals into white rubble.
The following summer brought another big bleaching event, centred
more to the south, leaving about half the reef affected during the two
bouts.
Attenborough said more than two-thirds of the world's coral reefs
had suffered from rises in ocean temperatures over the last three years.
Sir David Attenborough at the Great Barrier Reef.
"Coral reefs could be gone by the end of this century," Chris
Langdon, professor of Marine Biology and Ecology at the University of
Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, told
Attenborough.
"And the cause of this? Carbon dioxide. The more
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the more acidic the ocean becomes,"
said Attenborough, raising the twin threat - acidification, along with
warmer oceans - that is being triggered by changing the chemistry of the
atmosphere.
Aerial surveys by the Australian Research Council's Centre of
Excellence for Coral Reef Studies has revealed only the southern third
of the Great Barrier Reef has escaped unscathed from coral bleaching. Photo: AAP
"Evidence points to the burning of fossil fuels as the primary cause for these increasing levels of carbon dioxide.
"And this is man-made beyond question?" Attenborough asked Langdon.
Healthy coral at the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef. Photo: Tory Chase
"Beyond question," replied Langdon. But he said the death of the
reefs could be averted by switching from fossil fuels to renewable
energy sources like solar and wind.
The coalition, under both
Malcolm Turnbull and his predecessor Tony Abbott, have launched
ideological attacks on the former Labor government's marine parks plan
and renewable energy target.
Dwarf minke whales on the Great Barrier Reef. Photo: Dean Miller
It has scaled back
the 2020 renewable energy target and is preparing to reduce the area of
Australia's marine parks by almost half. Some 1,200 scientists have called on the government to reconsider, saying the cuts to the parks are a "retrograde step."
Attenborough
said the creation of more marine parks, which currently cover just one
per cent of the ocean, were "vital" to protecting reefs from dying.
Yet despite the dire scenes depicted in his documentary, Attenborough remained hopeful.
"We can turn things around, we've done so once before," he said.
Attenborough
cited the 1986 agreement to end commercial whaling, which he said had
been instrumental in the recovery of whale species, despite some
countries – such as Japan – continuing to hunt the creatures.
Plastic pollution entering dolphin tissue
Attenborough devoted much of the program to the eight million tonnes of plastic that ends up in the world's oceans annually.
The Blue Planet II team said they found plastic in every single ocean they filmed, "even in the most remote locations".
The program
showed fish entangled in nets of plastic, a rice packet spewed up by an
albatross in Georgia, and another bird killed by a plastic toothpick
that had pierced its stomach.
"Once in the ocean plastics break down into tiny fragments – micro fragments," said Attenborough.
He
said these, combined with the industrial chemicals that end up in the
ocean, caused a "potentially toxic soup." Small organisms ingested the
micro plastics and sent the toxins right through the oceanic food chain,
he said.
"Dolphins are at the top of this food and it's now
thought that pollutants may be building up in their tissues to such a
degree that a mother's contaminated milk could kill her calf," he said.
He said scientific autopsies of dolphin calves found dead off the coast of the United States had been performed.
Attenborough said the problem "must be tackled for the sake of all life in the ocean."
The
program also showed how clown fish make noises to protect themselves
from predators. Clown fish which become separated from their families,
as famously depicted in the Pixar blockbuster animation film Finding Nemo, can use noises to find their way back to their anemones.
But those noises can be drowned out by fishing boat engines roaring overhead.
"We're only now beginning to realise what an impact our noise is having on the ocean," said Attenborough.
Australia's response
Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg defended the coalition's record
on the reef and said it was "rightly valued by the Australian and
international community as a place of intrinsic beauty and incredible
biodiversity."
But he did not address the coalition's plan to cut
back the marine parks and the amount of renewable energy, instead
attacking Labor's management of the reef when they were in power.
"After
six years of Labor mismanagement, the Great Barrier Reef was on the
World Heritage Committee's watch list to be 'in-danger,' with five
massive dredge disposal projects in the marine park planned," he said.
"The
Coalition took unprecedented action to fix Labor's mess ending all five
dredge disposal plans as well as banning all future capital dredge
disposal projects in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
"We also
developed a comprehensive Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan
setting out our strategy to manage, protect and improve the Reef for
future generations."
"As a result of the Coalition's actions, the
World Heritage Committee removed Australia from the 'in-danger' watch
list, and praised Australia as a global role model for reef management.
"The
Coalition has a comprehensive set of policies to invest in, and
protect, the Reef having already invested $461 million in reef funding
as part of a broader $2 billion ten-year plan by Australian governments
focussed on water quality, reducing run off and eradicating
crown-of-thorns starfish."
"Just this week we announced a world
leading research project which will mix warmer surface water with cooler
waters from the deep in an effort to reduce the impacts of thermal
stress on the Great Barrier Reef to mitigate coral bleaching events.
"This
is on the back of announcement last week of a trial on the Great
Barrier to identify highly resilient reefs and pilot 're-seeding' to
restore coral."
British considering plastic tax
Like millions of Britons, the British Environment Secretary Michael Gove is a fan of the series.
Gove said he was "haunted" by episode four called Big Blue. He vowed the Conservative government would "work urgently to identify further action."
"The imperative to do more to tackle plastic in our oceans is clear," he said. "We must act."
The
British government said in its budget statement that it would
explore ways to use the tax system to curb the use of single-use
plastics like takeaway containers.
"The UK led the world on
climate change agreements and is a pioneer in protecting marine
environments," Chancellor Philip Hammond said. "Now I want us to become a
world leader in tackling the scourge of plastic, littering our planet
and our oceans."
The government has already introduced a 5p (9c) charge for all plastic bags in the UK.
Government
data shows Britain's seven main retailers have issued 83 per cent – or 6
billion – fewer bags in 2016-17 compared to 2014, prior to the charge.
Activist groups fill void as companies drop ALEC membership
Climate change, repeal of 17th amendment considered by group
Photographer: Matthew Staver/Bloomberg
A business-backed group that rose to prominence by prodding state
legislatures to cut taxes, environmental regulations and gun
restrictions, now finds itself at a crossroads amid declining membership
and a bitter dispute over climate change.
The battle at the American Legislative Exchange Council
erupted at the group’s winter meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, this
week as members scrapped a measure declaring that climate change is not a
risk after opposition from Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp.
"It was corporate blackmail," said Steve Milloy, a policy adviser for the Heartland Institute, a group critical of climate science. "They basically said, ‘We’re going to leave.’ "
The dispute over the climate provisions highlights the
internal discord for the Arlington, Virginia-based group, which gained
fame fighting President Barack Obama’s regulatory agenda. Over the past
five years, more than 100 businesses left the organization, illustrating
corporate concerns that the group may be going too far.
ALEC, which has been funded by companies like Koch Industries Inc. and coal giant Peabody Energy Corp.,
has 2,000 mostly Republican state legislator members, which it pairs
with representatives from corporations and free-market interest groups.
In recent years it debated model measures for state legislatures that
take aim at state renewable energy requirements, set stricter voter
identification requirements and would have U.S. senators appointed by
state legislatures, not elected.
Demonstrators costumed as U.S. President Donald Trump and polar bears protest against climate change in Germany.
BERND THISSEN
But
those debates have been contentious, and turned the group into a
bogeyman for consumer and environmental groups concerned about how
corporate priorities can be pushed into the agenda of states nationwide.
And that pressure has led to some internal woes.
Over the past five years ALEC has shed more than 100 members including Ford Motor Co. and Expedia Inc.,
largely over its position against climate rules, renewable energy and
other issues that don’t jive with corporations’ publicly stated
sustainability goals.
"Companies will come and go, and we’ve added companies too,"
Jason Saine, a North Carolina House member who is ALEC’s incoming
chairman, said in an interview. "We’re healthy and the organization is
growing. ALEC has matured over the years and learned how to have these
discussions in a mature way, so we can talk about them."
Despite
the high-profile company departures, ALEC says that it has about 300
corporations and other private members, such as trade groups and
lobbyists, that are part of the group. It’s overall revenues have
increased in recent years, from $8.4 million in 2012 to $8.9 million in
2015, the most recent year available, according to its tax returns.
Nick Surgey, director of Documented,
a watchdog group that investigates the link between corporations and
public policy, says the corporate defections have led to free-market
activist groups with harder-edged views moving in to fill the void at
ALEC.
"That vacuum is being filled by a radical agenda and these really extreme ideas are coming to the forefront," Surgey said.
As
1,000 attendees munched on beef short ribs and deviled eggs with okra
at the Omni Hotel Nashville, a top topic of discussion was the climate measure, meant to encourage states to prod the Environmental Protection Agency
to rescind its determination under Obama that climate change is a risk
to human health and welfare and therefore requires regulation.
Exxon, Chevron and Honeywell International Inc. objected, telling the group it would lead to protracted litigation and create business uncertainty.
David Koch, along with brother Charles, backs ALEC.
AP
Indiana State Representative Dave Frizzell, a former national
chairman of ALEC, said he told those assembled in the closed-door
session that if the measure was approved it would result in a corporate
exodus similar to what occurred after the group was linked to "stand
your ground" gun legislation following the shooting of the unarmed black
teenager Trayvon Martin in Florida in 2012. A score of companies,
including McDonald’s Corp., The Coca-Cola Co. and Kraft Foods Group Inc., cut ties with the organization after that.
Since
then ALEC has tried to "narrow our focus to main issues and policy,"
Frizzell said after joining the ballroom in prayer before a breakfast of
scrambled eggs and biscuits. "We felt that’s something we don’t need to
be dealing with."
The climate measure was backed by the Heartland Institute, an Illinois-based global warming skepticism group that has linked global warming to the beliefs of unabomber Ted Kaczynski, as well as groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the right-wing advocacy organization the James Madison Institute.
Lose Funding
"ALEC’s
primary allegiance, and the allegiance of its public sector members,
must be to consumers and not to the producers of particular goods and
services," they wrote in a letter to members of ALEC’s Energy,
Environment, and Agriculture Task Force.
Myron Ebell, a director
for the Competitive Enterprise Institute and long-time critic of climate
science, said he canceled his flight to the meeting after he got word
the endangerment resolution had been withdrawn.
"I believe that an
overwhelming number of the legislative members of the task force were
going to vote for it during the full task force meeting, but ALEC got
some board members to show up and say this is divisive and we will lose
funding," he said in a phone interview from Washington. "Losing funding
is a rather sensitive issue at ALEC."
Internal Debate
In addition to model legislation mirroring Trump’s executive order requiring two regulations be repealed for every new one, ALEC also is considering a resolution
recommending that Congress repeal the 17th amendment, adopted over 100
years ago to allow citizens to directly elect their U.S. senators
instead of state legislators.
"The 17th Amendment has had many
unintended consequences including runaway federal deficits, unfunded
mandates, overreach by federal agencies and excessive and burdensome
impositions by the federal government upon the States," the model bill
states.
ALEC declined to identify which member was backing the resolution.
"It’s
a new radically reactionary proposal that came up in this new period of
Trump-dom," said Lisa Graves, a former Justice Department attorney who
launched the Center for Media and Democracy’s "ALEC Exposed" program in
2011. "This certainly seems to be evidence of them feeling emboldened to
embrace an extreme counter-democratic measure."
In the internal debate over the climate measure, a representative for Pfizer Inc. stood up and said the pharmaceutical company was based on science, and United Parcel Service Inc.’s
representative weighed in, saying global warming was real, Milloy said.
Ken Freeman, Exxon’s U.S. government relations manager simply said, "I
am opposed to this," and walked away, Milloy said.
"UPS, and many
others, made it clear that we do not support the resolution and that it
conflicted with our corporate vision of responsible environmental
actions," Kara Ross, a company spokeswoman, said in an email. "We worked
to defeat the proposal and demonstrated how expressing corporate
members’ views were key in leading to the withdraw of the resolution."
"What’s
so interesting to me about this endangerment vote particularly is that
its so reflective of this bigger conflict," said David Pomerantz,
executive director of the Energy and Policy Institute. "You have these
ideologues, these Heartland Institute types who aren’t really marching
to the beat of the same drum, who are really zealots."
"My feeling is this is being driven by the fact they need to stay relevant in the Trump era," he said.
