200 Stars Urge 'Serious' Action On Climate Change In Letter To Le Monde

France 24

This illustration picture taken in Paris on August 20, 2018 shows a figurine of a worker with a jackhammer on an earth globe. Joël Saget, AFP

Two hundred of the world’s most prominent artists and scientists signed an open letter in French daily Le Monde on Monday calling for urgent political action to address the “global catastrophe” facing mankind and other species.
The letter, penned by actress Juliette Binoche and astrophycist Aurélien Barrau, called on politicians to act “firmly and immediately” in tackling climate change and the “collapse of biodiversity”, described as the “greatest challenge in the history of mankind”.
“It is time to get serious,” the signatories said. “The sixth mass extinction is taking place at unprecedented speed. But it is not too late to avert the worst.”
The letter said it was up to politicians to take all necessary measures, however unpopular they may be.
Binoche was joined by fellow French actresses Isabelle Adjani, Marion Cotillard and Catherine Deneuve as well as artist Anish Kapoor; actors Bradley Cooper, Willem Defoe, Ethan Hawke, Ralph Fiennes, Jude Law, Charlotte Rampling and John Tuturro; directors David Cronenberg and Wim Wenders; and many others.
Prominent scientists who signed on included astrophysicist Françoise Combes, climatologist Jean Jouzel, mathematician Mikhaïl Gromov and physicist Carlo Rovelli.
The letter comes as French President Emmanuel Macron is under pressure to do more to deliver on his green promises after his high-profile ecology minister, Nicolas Hulot, suddenly resigned, citing his disappointment with progress on the environment.
A popular figure, Hulot resigned live on-air during a radio interview last week, saying he felt "all alone" in the government on environmental issues and blasting lobbies and big business for hindering the fight against climate change.

Signatories
Isabelle Adjani, actrice; Laure Adler, journaliste; Pedro Almodovar, cinéaste; Laurie Anderson, artiste; Charles Aznavour, chanteur; Santiago Amigorena, écrivain; Pierre Arditi, acteur; Niels Arestrup, acteur; Ariane Ascaride, actrice; Olivier Assayas, cinéaste; Yvan Attal, acteur, cinéaste; Josiane Balasko, actrice; Aurélien Barrau, astrophysicien (Institut universitaire de France); Nathalie Baye, actrice; Emmanuelle Béart, actrice; Xavier Beauvois, cinéaste; Alain Benoit, physicien (Académie des sciences); Jane Birkin, chanteuse, actrice; Juliette Binoche, actrice; Benjamin Biolay, chanteur; Dominique Blanc, actrice; Gilles Boeuf, biologiste; Mathieu Boogaerts, chanteur; John Boorman, cinéaste; Romane Bohringer, actrice; Carole Bouquet, actrice; Stéphane Braunschweig, metteur en scène; Zabou Breitman, actrice, metteuse en scène; Nicolas Briançon, acteur, metteur en scène; Irina Brook, metteuse en scène; Valeria Bruni Tedeschi, actrice, cinéaste; Florence Burgat, philosophe; Gabriel Byrne, acteur; Cali, chanteur; Sophie Calle, artiste; Jane Campion, cinéaste; Isabelle Carré, actrice; Emmanuel Carrère, écrivain; Anne Carson, auteure et professeure; Michel Cassé, astrophysicien; Laetitia Casta, actrice; Bernard Castaing, physicien (Académie des sciences); Antoine de Caunes, journaliste, cinéaste; Alain Chamfort, chanteur; Boris Charmatz, chorégraphe; Christiane Chauviré, philosophe; Jeanne Cherhal, chanteuse; François Civil, acteur; Hélène Cixous, écrivaine; Isabel Coixet, cinéaste; Françoise Combes, astrophysicienne (Collège de France); François Cluzet, acteur; Gregory Colbert, photographe, cinéaste; Bradley Cooper, acteur; Brady Corbet, acteur; Béatrice Copper-Royer, psychologue; Marion Cotillard, actrice; Denis Couvet, écologue; Camille Cottin, actrice; Clotilde Courau, actrice; Franck Courchamp, écologue (Académie européenne des sciences); Nicole Croisille, chanteuse; David Cronenberg, cinéaste; Alfonso Cuaro, cinéaste; Willem Dafoe, acteur; Philippe Decouflé, chorégraphe; Sébastien Delage, musicien; Vincent Delerm, chanteur; Alain Delon, acteur; Catherine Deneuve, actrice; Claire Denis, cinéaste; Philippe Descola, anthropologue (Collège de France); Alexandre Desplat, compositeur; Manu Dibango, musicien; Hervé Dole, astrophysicien (Institut universitaire de France); Valérie Dréville, actrice; Diane Dufresne, chanteuse; Sandrine Dumas, actrice, metteuse en scène; Romain Duris, acteur; Lars Eidinger, acteur; Marianne Faithfull, chanteuse; Pierre Fayet, physicien (Académie des sciences); Ralph Fiennes, acteur; Frah (Shaka Ponk), chanteur; Cécile de France, actrice; Stéphane Freiss, acteur; Thierry Frémaux, directeur de festival; Jean-Michel Frodon, critique, professeur; Marie-Agnès Gillot, danseuse étoile; Pierre-Henri Gouyon, biologiste; Julien Grain, astrophysicien; Anouk Grinberg, actrice;Mikhaïl Gromov, mathématicien (Académie des sciences); Sylvie Guillem, danseuse étoile; Arthur H, chanteur; Ethan Hawke, acteur; Christopher Hampton, scénariste; Nora Hamzawi, actrice; Ivo Van Hove, metteur en scène; Isabelle Huppert, actrice; Agnès Jaoui, actrice, cinéaste; Michel Jonasz, chanteur; Camelia Jordana, chanteuse; Jean Jouzel, climatologue (Académie des sciences); Juliette, chanteuse; Anish Kapoor, sculpteur, peintre; Mathieu Kassovitz, acteur; Angélique Kidjo, chanteuse; Cédric Klapisch, cinéaste; Thierry Klifa, cinéaste; Panos H. Koutras, cinéaste; Lou de Laâge, actrice; Ludovic Lagarde, metteur en scène; Laurent Lafitte, acteur; Laurent Lamarca, chanteur; Maxence Laperouse, comédien; Camille Laurens, écrivaine; Bernard Lavilliers, chanteur; Sandra Lavorel, écologue (Académie des sciences); Jude Law, acteur; Patrice Leconte, cinéaste; Roland Lehoucq, astrophysicien; Gérard Lefort, journaliste; Nolwenn Leroy, chanteuse; Peter Lindbergh, photographe; Louane, chanteuse; Luce, chanteuse; Ibrahim Maalouf, musicien; Vincent Macaigne, metteur en scène, acteur; Benoît Magimel, acteur; Yvon Le Maho, écologue (Académie des sciences); Andreï Makine, écrivain de l’Académie Française; Abd al Malik, rappeur; Sophie Marceau, actrice; Virginie Maris, philosophe; André Markowicz, traducteur; Nicolas Martin, journaliste; Vincent Message, écrivain; Wajdi Mouawad, metteur en scène; Nana Mouskouri, chanteuse; Jean-Luc Nancy, philosophe; Arthur Nauzyciel, metteur en scène; Safy Nebbou, cinéaste; Pierre Niney, acteur; Helena Noguerra, chanteuse; Claude Nuridsany, cinéaste; Michael Ondaatje, écrivain; Thomas Ostermeier, metteur en scène; Clive Owen, acteur; Corine Pelluchon, philosophe; Laurent Pelly, metteur en scène; Raphaël Personnaz, acteur; Dominique Pitoiset, metteur en scène; Denis Podalydès, acteur; Pomme, chanteuse; Martin Provost, cinéaste; Olivier Py, metteur en scène; Susheela Raman, chanteuse; Charlotte Rampling, actrice; Raphaël, chanteur; Régine, chanteuse; Cécile Renault, astrophysicienne; Robin Renucci, acteur; Jean-Michel Ribes, metteur en scène; Tim Robbins, acteur; Muriel Robin, actrice; Isabella Rossellini, actrice; Brigitte Roüan, actrice, cinéaste; Carlo Rovelli, physicien (Institut universitaire de France); Eric Ruf, directeur de la Comédie-Française; Céline Sallette, actrice; Rodrigo Santoro, acteur; Marjane Satrapi, cinéaste; Kristin Scott Thomas, actrice; Albin de la Simone, musicien; Abderrahmane Sissako, cinéaste; Marianne Slot, productrice; Patti Smith, chanteuse, écrivaine; Sabrina Speich, géoscientifique; Marion Stalens, réalisatrice; Kristen Stewart, actrice; Tom Stoppard, dramaturge; Peter Suschitzky, chef opérateur; Malgorzata Szumowska, cinéaste; Béla Tarr, cinéaste; Gilles Taurand, scénariste; Alexandre Tharaud, musicien; James Thierrée, danseur, chorégraphe; Mélanie Thierry, actrice; Danièle Thompson, cinéaste; Melita Toscan du Plantier, attachée de presse; Jean-Louis Trintignant, acteur; John Turturro, acteur; Hélène Tysman, pianiste; Pierre Vanhove, physicien; Karin Viard, actrice; Polydoros Vogiatzis, acteur; Rufus Wainwright, chanteur; Régis Wargnier, cinéaste; Jacques Weber, acteur; Wim Wenders, cinéaste; Sonia Wieder-Atherton, musicienne; Bob Wilson, metteur en scène; Lambert Wilson, acteur; Jia Zhang-ke, cinéaste; Elsa Zylberstein, actrice

Links

• Climate Change Is Real. We Must Not Offer Credibility To Those Who Deny It
• Macron's green credentials take a hit as environment minister resigns in frustration
• Earth could enter permanent 'hothouse' state, scientists warn
• Antarctic ice melting has nearly tripled in five years
• Trudeau urges nations to make Paris climate deal 'reality' in French parliament speech
• Trial of carbon tax 'fraud of the century' opens in Paris

Government Inaction Puts World On Track For 'Catastrophic' Climate Change, U.N. Warns

Newsweek - David Brennan

Firefighters battle flames near Yosemite National Park, California, U.S., on August 6, 2018. This year's extreme weather events are believed to be linked to global climate change. Courtesy USFS/Yosemite National Park/Handout via REUTERS 

A senior United Nations (U.N.) official has warned that government inaction has put the world on track to a catastrophic climate change situation, in which the global community fails to keep temperature rises below the vital 2 degree Celsius (3.6 degree Fahrenheit) cap.
The warning comes ahead of climate-change discussions in Bangkok, Thailand, this week. Patricia Espinosa, who is head of the Executive Secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said nations have been too slow to reach to the threats posed by global warming.
In an interview with Reuters on Sunday, Espinosa said this year’s extreme weather is just a taste of what is to come, and that she hopes the heat waves, floods and forest fires seen across the globe “will create a bigger sense of urgency.”



In 2015, the Paris climate deal agreed to limit global warming to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The pact also said signatories would continue “pursuing efforts” for the more challenging target of 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Espinosa explained, “1.5 is the goal that is needed for many islands and many countries that are particularly vulnerable to avoid catastrophic effects. In many cases it means the survival of those countries. With the pledges we have on the table now we are not on track to achieve those goals.”
The 2015 agreement, while a landmark achievement, was somewhat vague on the details of how such a cap would be achieved. Signatories will meet again in December in Poland to agree rules for how to achieve its the goal of ended the fossil fuel era this century.
Espinosa said she hopes the week-long talks in Bangkok will produce a draft text for negotiation on the deal’s rulebook. “This is a process that has been ongoing for some time. One of the reasons why this is so complex is because we are talking about... many different areas,” she explained. “One of those areas that countries need to take action on is to reduce their emissions.”
Both private and government financing is required, Espinosa said. While a pledge from rich nations to commit $100 billion each year is important, more will be needed. “There is a clear view that the $100 billion is only one part of the broad transformation of our societies that we are talking about,” she told Reuters.
The Paris agreement, signed by 195 countries and ratified by 180, faced opposition from the U.S. since President Donald Trump took office. In June 2017, Trump withdrew from the deal, claiming it would undermine the country’s economy and puts the U.S. at a “permanent disadvantage.”
Espinosa suggested such behavior demonstrates how some nations are not taking the threats of climate change seriously enough. But ignoring the problem does nothing to help. The vast majority of scientists and institutions agree that man-made global warming exists, and is getting worse.
This year, extreme weather events have been reported across the globe, and average temperatures have been significantly higher than previous years. “It really does make the evidence clear that climate change is having an impact on the daily lives of people,” Espinosa said.

Links

• Did climate change kill off our Neanderthal cousins?
• NASA Will Launch a Laser into Space to Measure the Ice Caps
• India’s Drought Is Killing Crops—And Pushing People to Suicide
• Highest Ever Water Temperature Recorded Off San Diego
• Largest King Penguin Population Has Declined by Nearly 90 Percent
• Climate Change Is Not A Key Cause Of Human Conflict Around The World: Study | Opinion
• Arnold Schwarzenegger Joins Increasing List Of Those Suing Big Oil For Climate Change

The Swedish 15-Year-Old Who's Cutting Class To Fight The Climate Crisis

The Guardian - David Crouch

Following Sweden’s hottest summer ever, Greta Thunberg decided to go on school strike at the parliament to get politicians to act

Greta Thunberg leads a school strike and sits outside of the Swedish Parliament, in an effort to force politicians to act on climate change. Photograph: Michael Campanella for the Guardian 

Why bother to learn anything in school if politicians won’t pay attention to the facts?
This simple realisation prompted Greta Thunberg, 15, to protest in the most effective way she knew. She is on strike, refusing to go to school until Sweden’s general election on 9 September to draw attention to the climate crisis.
Her protest has captured the imagination of a country that has been struck by heatwaves and wildfires in its hottest summer since records began 262 years ago.
Every day for two weeks, Thunberg has been sitting quietly on the cobblestones outside parliament in central Stockholm, handing out leaflets that declare: “I am doing this because you adults are shitting on my future.”
Thunberg herself is a diminutive girl with pigtails and a fleeting smile – not the stereotypical leader of a climate revolution.

“I am doing this because nobody else is doing anything. It is my moral responsibility to do what I can,” she says. “I want the politicians to prioritise the climate question, focus on the climate and treat it like a crisis.”
When people tell her she should be at school, she points to the textbooks in her satchel.
“I have my books here,” she says in flawless English. “But also I am thinking: what am I missing? What am I going to learn in school? Facts don’t matter any more, politicians aren’t listening to the scientists, so why should I learn?”
Thunberg’s protest might come as a surprise to anyone seduced by Sweden’s reputation as a climate pioneer and champion of the environment. This year the country enacted “the most ambitious climate law in the world”, aiming to become carbon neutral by 2045 and comfortably beating the 2015 Paris climate targets along the way.
“This is too little too late, it needs to come much faster,” Thunberg says. “Sweden is not a green paradise, it has one of the biggest carbon footprints.”
Her parents want her to give up her protest and go back to school. “My teachers are divided,” Thunberg says. “As people they think what I am doing is good, but as teachers they say I should stop.”
One teacher to have downed tools to join her protest is Benjamin Wagner, 26. He expects to lose three weeks’ wages – and his job – as a result of his strike.
“Our inability to stop climate change is like the efforts to stop world war one – we knew for years it was coming, they arranged all sorts of conferences, but still they didn’t prevent it,” Wagner says.

A forest fire burns near Sarna in central Sweden on July 26, 2018. Photograph: Maja Suslin/TT News Agency/AFP/Getty Images

“Greta is a troublemaker, she is not listening to adults. But we are heading full speed for a catastrophe, and in this situation the only reasonable thing is to be unreasonable.”
There are signs that more Swedes are listening. The Green party, a partner in the centre-left coalition government, was languishing in the polls before the country was hit by more than 60 forest fires, which raged for weeks through a rural tinderbox created by the unprecedented drought. Now the party’s support is up by half to about 6%.
“I am very impressed by Greta’s courage and determination,” says Janine Alm Ericson, a Green member of parliament.
“But I am also sad that she feels she has to be there – the political parties in Sweden have not done enough. Thanks to the hot summer it has become easier for people to imagine what climate change can mean for us and others in Europe if we continue to ignore what is happening.”
Outside parliament, Stella d’Ailly, 45, an art director, has come to join Thunberg’s protest.
“I feel like I am dying inside if I don’t protest,” she says. “Sweden may be well organised to recycle our trash, for example, but we do nothing to cut the amount of plastic bottles and packaging in the first place. We need drastic change.”
Thunberg’s own awakening to the climate crisis a few years ago caused upheaval in her family. Her mother, the well known opera singer Malena Ernman, has given up her international career because of the climate effects of aviation.
“Greta forced us to change our lives,” says her father Svante. “I didn’t have a clue about the climate. We started looking into it, reading all the books – she has read them too.”

Greta Thunberg and friends outside the Swedish parliament. Photograph: Michael Campanella for the Guardian

Her teachers were telling her to turn off the lights and save paper, then flying off to New York for a holiday. For Greta, this was just not good enough: “Everyone believes that we can solve the crisis without effort, without sacrifice,” she wrote in an article widely circulated on social media and translated into English.
While on strike, she has done a lot of homework and read three books, her father says.
“She is supposed to be in school, we cannot support her action. But we respect that she wants to make a stand. She can either sit at home and be really unhappy, or protest and be happy.”
Greta has Asperger’s syndrome, which in the past has affected her health, he says. She sees her condition not as a disability but as a gift which has helped open her eyes to the climate crisis.
“The best thing about my protest has been to see how more and more people have been coming and getting involved,” Greta says.
“I don’t care if I get into trouble at school. I believe that one person can make a difference.”

Links

• Greta Thunberg: “Sweden is not a Role Model”
• To lead on climate, countries must commit to zero emissions
• The Swedish town on the frontline of the Arctic wildfires
• Wildfires rage in Arctic Circle as Sweden calls for help
• Sweden's reindeer at risk of starvation after summer drought

We Cannot Fight Climate Change With Capitalism, Says Report

Huffington Post - Laura Paddison

The world's economies are totally unprepared for rapid climate change, rising social inequality and the end of cheap energy.

Flames roll over a hill toward homes near Lakeport, California, on Aug. 2. The effects of rapid climate change are being felt across the world. Fred Greaves/Reuters

As access to cheap, plentiful energy dries up and the effects of climate change take hold, we are entering a new era of profound challenge ― and free market capitalism cannot dig us out. This is the conclusion of a report produced for the United Nations by Bios, an independent research institute based in Finland.
Signs of a world in turmoil are not hard to find. People are increasingly feeling the effects of rapid climate change. Cities boil in more than 120-degree heat, California burns and the Arctic thaws. Meanwhile, biodiversity loss is reaching terrifying levels, with animals going extinct at about 1,000 times the natural rate. In addition, as societies, we’re facing increased inequality, unemployment and soaring personal debt levels.

The New York Stock Exchange in New York City. Traditional ways of economic thinking aren't sufficient to deal with the coming challenges we face, according to a new report. Andrew Kelly/Reuters

Faced with these interconnected crises, says the report, our economies are woefully underprepared: “It can be safely said that no widely applicable economic models have been developed specifically for the upcoming era.”
The paper, commissioned by the U.N. to feed into its 2019 Global Sustainable Development Report, looks specifically at the next 20 to 30 years as a key transition period during which the world must radically cut emissions and consumption to have a hope of stopping climate change.
Traditional ways of economic thinking have been based on the assumption we will continue to have access to cheap and plentiful sources of energy and materials, says the report, but the “era of cheap energy is coming to an end.”
The thrust of the authors’ argument is that, for the first time, economies are moving to sources of energy that are much less efficient ― meaning more and more effort is needed to get smaller amounts of energy. There are plenty of fossil fuels that can still be pulled from the ground but doing so would shoot through climate commitments and accelerate global warming. In addition, we have used up the planet’s capacity to handle the waste generated through all our material and energy use.
In other words, we are at an ecological crunch point and we don’t have the economic tools to deal with it.
“Trusting that the free market capitalist dynamics will get us there, that of course is not going to happen,” report co-author Paavo Järvensivu, an academic who specializes in economics and culture at Bios, says in a phone call with HuffPost. Economies that rely on the power of markets, notes the report, don’t even recognize the problem as they’re too focused on short-term profits to take account of longer-term issues like climate change and environmental destruction.
But Järvensivu is also keen not to fuel an argument about whether capitalism is dead.
“I think it’s harmful to think of capitalism as this one big lump, or capitalism as this kind of ‘either, or’ question: that we either have capitalism or something totally different,” Järvensivu says.
“The social and material need for this transformation [away from cheap energy and mass consumption] is so acute and societies have to go through a very dramatic shift over 20 to 30 years to get their emissions dramatically lower,” he adds, “so we are past this discussion of should we have capitalism or should we have something else.”

People commuting by bike in Copenhagen, Denmark. Some cities are already well set up for cleaner transportation options such as cycling. william87 via Getty Images

Instead, he says, we need to find new ways of thinking about the economy to meet these challenges. It’s asking the question, he says, “Do we aim for more consumption or do we aim for liveable environments in the future?”
Around 80 percent of global energy comes from fossil fuels ― oil, coal and gas, which powered industrialization but have a heavy toll through their climate change impact. While we need to wean ourselves off these, renewables are not efficient enough yet compared to conventional energy and the infrastructure is not in place for it, the report says. “Meeting current or growing levels of energy need in the next few decades with low-carbon solutions will be extremely difficult, if not impossible,” it notes.
What’s needed, says the report, is to combine developing clean energy sources with lowering energy use. And it has some suggestions about how to achieve this without compromising people’s opportunity for a decent life.
The report calls for an overhaul of transportation away from a focus on car ownership. In cities, this would mean changes in city planning to focus on biking and walking, combined with an electric public transit system. This “could be beneficial for people in a larger sense,” says Järvensivu, as it “means less transport, less owning private cars, but not necessarily a less good quality life.”

President Donald Trump at a political rally in Charleston, West Virginia, on Aug. 21. His administration announced a plan to weaken environmental regulations on coal plants. MANDEL NGAN via Getty Images

International freight transportation and aviation would need to be slashed, says the report, as they “cannot continue to grow at current rates” because of the need to cut emissions as well as the lack of low carbon alternatives.
Food systems also need to be rethought. Both rich and poor countries should focus on self-sufficiency, advises the report, to produce a diverse selection of food for their own populations. As for diets, it advocates that dairy and meat, which have a big climate impact, be replaced by largely plant-based diets.
Housing is the third area slated for transformation. Construction using steel and concrete is hugely carbon intensive. The report authors suggest moving to wooden structures, which could provide carbon storage.
All these changes require concerted political action. “There must be a comprehensive vision and closely coordinated plans. Otherwise a rapid system level transformation towards global sustainability goals is inconceivable,” says the report.
Which is all well and good, but doesn’t exactly jibe with what’s been happening on the political scene. President Donald Trump is hellbent on cutting environmental regulation and has withdrawn from the Paris climate agreement. Even the countries that remain in the agreement are failing on their commitments to curb climate change.
There has been interest in introducing a carbon price, which means charging polluters for the carbon they emit ― a key pledge Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made in his campaign. But the report argues this measure is nowhere near good enough: “As a policy tool, carbon pricing lacks the crucial element of coordinating a diverse set of economic actors toward a common goal.”
Järvensivu believes the push for action will come from the fact that people are starting to genuinely worry about their future security and looking for collective action. “These kind of things might actually start to matter quite a bit more than caring about a new iPhone or a yearly trip to Thailand,” he says. “We are actually looking for a sense of security and not in a way that we would just aim for more consuming power in terms of money and so on.”
He cites Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) as an example of someone seeking transformational economic change, along with professor Stephanie Kelton, whose work argues sovereign governments cannot run out of money, thus debunking the argument that economies cannot afford to make the transformations needed to address climate change.
Järvensivu insists the report isn’t advocating for an economy that would be unrecognizable from what we have now, at least not in the short term. Rather, he says, it seeks to identify the material and energy crises approaching us and the kinds of economic tools and policies we need to meet them.
“After 20 to 30 years, we don’t know what this [economy] would look like, if we actually managed to achieve radically lower emissions and still secure possibilities for a good life ... are we then even concerned whether this was capitalism or not, or are we looking for other things,” he says. “Probably we are.”

Links

• Global Sustainable Development Report 2019
• Scientists calculated a 'point of no return' for dealing with climate change — and time is running out
• Fossil fuel energy consumption (% of total)
• Cement industry urged to reduce 'invisible' global emissions

This Government Is Not Even Pretending To Act On Climate Change Any More

The Guardian - Greg Jericho*

We have gone from at least trying to look like aiming to reduce emissions to apparently deciding to do nothing

Prime Minister Scott Morrison (right) and energy minister Angus Taylor at Government House in Canberra. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP 

With the appointment of Angus Taylor as minister for energy, Scott Morrison has clearly signalled that he has no care about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So utterly bereft of reason on the issue and so completely consumed by climate change denial the government is now at the point where even the pretence of doing something to reduce emissions is viewed with distrust.
Perhaps somewhat surprisingly I have a degree of sympathy for members of the public who are climate change deniers. I have this sympathy because I was once one of them.
I don’t mean I was a climate change denier in the sense of believing it all was some gigantic hoax perpetrated by the deep state and the UN. I mean denying in the sense of doing my level best to deny it was happening.
Because it scared the bejeezus out of me.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s when I was finishing high school and studying at university I was of course well aware of climate change. As a politically engaged, super-serious youth who listened to Midnight Oil and U2 and read every newspaper and news magazine I could afford, I was across all the news about the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions.
And it didn’t sound good.
So subconsciously I wanted to ignore it. I would read articles spelling out the dire future ahead and would spend the rest of the day in a depressed funk, because the problem with facing up to the reality of climate change is to face up to the fact that your life thus far has played a role. Your preference for driving a car, the aerosol sprays you used, the food you consumed, or heck, the generation of the electricity you depend upon had all contributed to producing greenhouse gases.

It is real, it is happening, it is getting worse and we need to act

It brought with it a level of guilt my 18-year-old self could do without, and even worse, a fear of having to change my lifestyle that I didn’t want to face.
And so I would hold on to anything that would suggest it was not so bad. I would cling to those who suggested that each individual couldn’t really make much of a difference (so I can keep those lights switched on). I would inwardly cheer when a friend would (wrongly) suggest he’d read that it was all due to natural factors and things would balance out; or when another would (wrongly) say he’d heard that ironically the hole in the ozone layer apparently cancelled out the impact of global warming, or yet another who would (also wrongly) assert that the changes would in reality be so small that we wouldn’t notice it.
And if all else failed I just sighed and thought, well, the impact was likely to happen only by around 2050 or so, and in 1990 to an 18-year-old that meant there was ample time and opportunity for something to get done. Surely a fix would occur – we always end up finding a fix.
And yet ... and yet. I knew I was burying my head in the sand. I was not so much denying the science as wanting to deny reality. The more I read the less able I was to do so. But even now I still get a faint glimmer of hope when I read some dumb article suggesting some research has found evidence that it’s all fine.
Because I don’t want climate change to be a real thing. I would love it to all be a hoax.
But it is not.
And so I understand why people choose to believe those who say climate change is not the issue, that the issue is power prices and thus we need to fire up the coal furnaces.
Denial is a very easy way out of guilt that your lifestyle is leaving your children and grandchildren an awful legacy. Denial is a good way to throw away concerns that you might have to actually wear a cost – either through lifestyle changes or monetary loss.
It is a scary thing to hear talk of the impacts of climate change and the suggestions that it might be too late to do anything. It is so much easier to live in denial, especially when you have charlatans in the media and politics who have seen this fear and have sought to profit from it.
So I have some sympathy for those who feel overwhelmed by it all.
But I have none for those in the media and politics who seek to profit from this fear.
There is no excuse for those trying to lull people into believing it is all a great scam, that there is nothing to worry about, or no need for concern, or that little can or should be done.
According to NASA, of the 1,663 months since January 1880, the top 100 for temperature anomaly have all occurred since 1990, and every month since December 2014 is in the top 100.
2018 is on track to be the third-hottest year behind 2016 and 2017; fourth is 2015.
It is real, it is happening, it is getting worse and we need to act.
And yet this week Taylor gave a speech that made zero mention of wind power – the main renewable energy in Australia – and in which he declared he wasn’t sceptical of climate change, just of subsidies for renewable energy, the Gillard government’s emissions trading scheme and of “excessive renewable energy targets.” This is despite that fact that renewable energy not only reduces our emissions, it also provides cheaper electricity.
It’s a bit like the health minister saying she is not an anti-vaxxer, she is just sceptical of the merits of the National Immunisation Program.
But don’t worry, it’s unlikely the Morrison government will withdraw from the Paris agreement, because, why bother? It just won’t do anything to actually ensure our emissions targets are achieved. Rather than risk offending those lunatics in his party who would rather destroy a prime ministership than have a policy with even a slight reference to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Morrison appears to have decided to do nothing.
The costs of responding to climate change increase, the longer it is put off by those whose wilful ignorance sees them continue to proffer policy based on the premise that climate change is fake.
We have gone from a government under Malcolm Turnbull that at least tried to look like it was aiming to reduce emissions (even if it wasn’t) to one under Scott Morrison that is making no pretence about the fact it is beholden to the charlatans in the party who want to scam votes by lying about the facts of climate change.
And a political party that refuses to act on climate change is not fit to govern.

*Greg Jericho is a Guardian Australia columnist

Links

• Renewables forecast to halve wholesale energy prices over four years
• Power companies hit back at minister, saying policy vacuum led to steep bills
• If you’re talking about drought but not climate change, you’re not doing your job, PM
• Options On Energy Policy Leave Coalition In A Sticky Situation
• 'Mad' And 'Morally Irresponsible': Liberal Moderates Roast New Emissions Stance
• Issue Has Proved Too Big For Run Of Australian Leaders
• Angus Taylor Signals Further Taxpayer Investment In Existing Coal And Gas
• Climate Change Making Drought Worse, Farmers' Federation Chief Says
• Climate Change Brought Down Another Prime Minister In Australia. Here’s What Happened.
• The Global Rightward Shift On Climate Change
• 'No Real Appetite': Former Farmers Chief Lashes Ministers Over Climate Link To Drought

Climate Change Is Real. We Must Not Offer Credibility To Those Who Deny It

The Guardian - Letters

If ‘balance’ means giving voice to those who deny the reality of human-triggered climate change, we will not take part in the debate, say Jonathan Porritt, Caroline Lucas, Clive Lewis and 57 other writers, politicians and academics

A dry cornfield in Ahlen, Germany, where harvests have suffered as a result of this year’s extreme drought. Photograph: Martin Meissner/AP

We are no longer willing to lend our credibility to debates over whether or not climate change is real. It is real. We need to act now or the consequences will be catastrophic. In the interests of “balance”, the media often feels the need to include those who outright deny the reality of human-triggered climate change.
Balance implies equal weight. But this then creates a false equivalence between an overwhelming scientific consensus and a lobby, heavily funded by vested interests, that exists simply to sow doubt to serve those interests. Yes, of course scientific consensus should be open to challenge – but with better science, not with spin and nonsense. We urgently need to move the debate on to how we address the causes and effects of dangerous climate change – because that’s where common sense demands our attention and efforts should be.
Fringe voices will protest about “free speech”. No one should prevent them from expressing their views, whether held cynically or misguidedly. However, no one is obliged to provide them with a platform, much less to appear alongside them to give the misleading impression that there is something substantive to debate. When there is an article on smoking, newspapers and broadcasters no longer include lobbyists claiming there are no links to cancer. When there’s a round-the-world yacht race we don’t hear flat-earthers given airtime: “This is madness; they’ll sail off the edge!”
There’s a workable model for covering fringe views – which is to treat them as such. They don’t need to be ridiculed, just expected to challenge the evidence with better evidence, and otherwise ignored. As campaigners and thinkers who are led by science and the precautionary principle, and who wish to debate the real and vital issues arising from human-triggered climate change, we will not assist in creating the impression that climate denial should be taken seriously by lending credence to its proponents, by entertaining ideas that lack any basis in fact. Therefore we will no longer debate those who deny that human-caused climate change is real. There are plenty of vital debates to be had around climate chaos and what to do about it; this is simply no longer one of them. We urge broadcasters to move on, as we are doing.

Jonathon Porritt Chair 2000-11 Sustainable Development Commission	John Sauven Executive director Greenpeace
Prof Richard Murphy Director Tax Research UK	Jeremy Leggett Founder Solar Century
Prof Andrea Sella Michael Faraday prize winner	Prof Robert Ayres Author
Dr Rupert Read Chair Green House thinktank	Dr Doug Parr Chief scientist Greenpeace
Chris Rose Former programme director Greenpeace	Mayer Hillman Senior fellow Policy Studies Institute
Ed Gillespie Co-founder Futerra	Prof Hugh Montgomery Co-founder UK Climate and Health Council
Mark Lynas Author	Dr James Garvey Author
Oliver Tickell Author	Chris Goodall Author
Prof Clive Spash Author	Prof Mark Maslin Author
Prof Anthony Ryan Director Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures	David Wasdell Director Apollo-Gaia Project
Dr Sian Foch-Gatrell Green Ocean Project	Dr Erik Buitenhuis Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Prof Paul Ekins UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources	Carne Ross Former UK and UN diplomat
Dr Nick Brooks Climatic Research Unit UEA	Dr Simon Boxley Centre for Climate Change Education University of Winchester
Prof Jem Bendell Sustainability Leadership Institute University of Cumbria	Cllr Jonathan Bartley Co-Leader Green party
Dr Ian Gibson Former chair House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee	Peter Tatchell
	Caroline Lucas MP
	Clive Lewis MP
Neal Lawson Director Compass	Ben Chacko Editor Morning Star
Deepak Rughani Co-director Biofuelwatch	Prof Molly Scott Cato MEP
	Bea Campbell
Patrick Barkham Author	George Monbiot Author
Prof Gary Francione	Prof Sarah Churchwell
Dr Christine Cornea	Dr Richard House
Dr Abby Innes	Dr Pierre Bocquillon
Prof Del Loewenthal	Prof Andrew Samuels
Dr Jo Veltman	Prof Peter Belton
Dr Andrew Boswell	Dr Katherine Kite
Mark Crutchley	Karen Whiterod
Anne Dismorr	Jonathan Kent

'Is This A Red Line For Us?' $15b European Trade Deal Doomed If Australia Dodges Paris Pledge

Fairfax - Nicole Hasham

The Coalition's internal climate war risks damaging the economy after Europe declared it would reject a $15 billion trade deal with Australia unless the Morrison government keeps its pledge to cut pollution under the Paris accord.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison this week reset his government’s course on energy policy, declaring a focus on lowering electricity bills and increasing reliability, while relegating efforts to cut dangerous greenhouse gas emissions.



He has reaffirmed his government’s commitment to the Paris accord despite persistent calls by conservative Coalition MPs, led by Tony Abbott, to quit the agreement.
However there is deep uncertainty over how Australia will meet the Paris goal of reducing Australia’s carbon emissions by 26 per cent by 2030 given the government does not have a national strategy to meet the target.
The policy ructions did not go unnoticed at a meeting of the European Parliament's Committee on International Trade in Brussels, where the EU’s chief negotiator on the deal, Helena König, faced angry questions from the floor over Australia’s commitment to climate action.
Australia and the EU will in November enter a second round of negotiations over the deal that would end restrictions on Australian exports and collectively add $15 billion to both economies.
In a video of this week's proceedings, Ms König told the committee that “it’s the [European] Commission’s position ... that we are talking about respect and full implementation of the Paris agreement [as part of the trade deal]”.
“No doubt we will see what comes out in the text [of the deal agreement] but that I expect to be the minimum in the text, for sure.”
Her assertion is a clear signal that any failure by Australia to meet its international climate obligations would have serious economic consequences.

Energy Minister Angus Taylor says he is not "skeptical about climate science ... but I am and have been for many years deeply skeptical of the economics of so many of the emissions reduction programs dreamed up by politicians.

Ms König fired off the warning after a question by Klaus Buchner, a German Greens member of the Parliament who said “the intention of the new Australian regime to withdraw from the Paris Agreement unsettles not only Australians”.
“Australia is by far the biggest exporter of coal in the world ... what will the commission do when Australia does indeed withdraw from the Paris agreement? Is this a red line for us in these discussions or do we just accept it?
“I believe as the largest trading block in the world we have a responsibility to go beyond pure profits.”
Australia’s ambassador to the EU, Justin Brown, hosed down suggestions the Morrison government would exit the Paris deal.
“Australia is a country that stands by its international commitments. We’ve made commitments in the Paris agreement context. We are committed to those as we are committed to global action to address this global challenge,” he said at the meeting.
Committee chair Bernd Lange pointed to a resolution adopted by the European Parliament in July to never conclude a trade agreement "without a reference to the Paris climate agreement and the implementation [of emissions reduction].”
The EU bloc is Australia's second largest trading partner, third largest export destination and second largest services market. The EU was also Australia's largest source of foreign investment in 2017.
The government says a free trade deal would benefit Australian consumers and businesses through better access to goods and services at lower prices, while enabling Australian producers to tap a market of half a billion people and a GDP of US$17.3 trillion.
Mr Morrison, who is in Jakarta for trade talks, declined to comment on the European Parliament's position.
Environment Minister Melissa Price said Australia "stands by the international commitments it makes" and has a strong track record of meeting emissions reduction targets.
"Australia is on track to beat our 2020 Kyoto target by 294 million tonnes and we are confident Australia will also meet its 2030 target," she said.
The Paris climate accord is deeply unpopular with conservative MPs, including Nationals MPs whose electorates would benefit from an EU trade deal. Keith Pitt resigned as an assistant minister last week in protest at the Paris treaty.
"I will always put reducing power prices before Paris," he said.
A 2017 report by the United Nations environment program that found Australia’s emissions were set to far exceed its Paris pledge and government data released in January showed Australia's annual emissions had risen for the fourth year running.
Labor’s climate change and energy spokesman Mark Butler said the government had no emissions reduction plan and would fail to meet its Paris goal.
“The Prime Minister might think he can get away with [failing to cut emissions] domestically, but it is clear it will not be accepted by our international trading partners, who rightly have an expectation the Australian government will act to deliver on our international obligations,” he said.
European Australian Business Council chief executive Jason Collins, whose organisation has lobbied for the trade deal, said Europe’s commitment to the Paris agreement was "fundamental".
"The fact that Australia and Europe share similar values and have made joint commitments to trade liberalisation, combating terror, and addressing climate change, among other things, has been the starting point for launching these negotiations," he said.
Australian Conservation Foundation chief executive Kelly O’Shanassy said the European Union's stance on the trade deal showed the Coalition's climate policy division "has real-world consequences for our country”.

Links

• The EU pursues $15b free trade talks with Australia, but there's a catch
• A trade deal with Europe carries real political risk
• Josh Frydenberg concedes Australia's carbon emissions rose in 2017
• Pacific nations push Morrison government to pledge support for Paris climate accord
• 'I am not sceptical about climate science': Energy Minister Angus Taylor hits back in new price pledge
• Issue has proved too big for run of Australian leaders
• Scott Morrison faces test on Paris climate deal
• What matters for business in the climate policy debate
• What next now the NEG has collapsed in a festering heap?
• Liberal leadership 'shockwaves' put pressure on Malcolm Turnbull
• NEG won't give certainty to climate policy
• The energy dispute that counts most
• It's about time super funds came clean on climate