The federal government will be less able to delay the release of
embarrassing national carbon pollution figures after the Senate approved
rolling deadlines for the quarterly data.
The Greens secured
Labor and crossbench support of a so-called order of continuing effect
that requires the government to table the Greenhouse Gas Inventory
figures within five months of the end of each quarter, or provide an
explanation for any delay.
Regular emission updates in the winds: AGL's Bayswater black-coal-fired power station in the Hunter Valley. Credit: Glen McCurtayne
The
motion, passed by 33-27 votes, follows an erratic series of releases of
the key climate data since the Abbott government took office in
September 2013.
The average delay between the end of each quarter
and the publishing of the pollution figures went from about four to five
months under the Gillard government, to as long as seven months at the
start of the Abbott term. At least one case involved sitting on almost a year's worth of data.
The Morrison government stirred controversy by releasing its March 2018 quarterly pollution figures late on September 28, the eve of a busy weekend of football grand finals and a day dominated by the news of the interim banking royal commission report.
The report showed emissions jumped
to their highest level since 2010, spurred by increased LNG production.
Emissions have been rising for four years, placing them on a trajectory
at odds with Australia's Paris climate commitment to cut 2005-level
pollution by 26-28 per cent by 2030.
'Unacceptable'
Adam
Bandt, the Greens climate spokesman, said the data was some of the most
important collected by the government, and they shouldn't "get to hide
it from the public".
“We
wouldn’t let the Treasurer hide the unemployment figures because they
were going in the wrong direction, but that’s what the Environment
Minister [Melissa Price] is getting away with," Mr Bandt said.
“It’s
unacceptable that a document with significant public importance is
released whenever the government feels like no one will notice it."
Fairfax
Media sought comment from Ms Price. Ms Price on Wednesday told question
time in Parliament that Australia had met previous climate emissions
commitments and would meet the Paris one as well.
Mark
Butler, Labor's climate spokesman, said the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison
governments had "all deliberately delayed the release of damning figures
which highlight that under their leadership carbon pollution is
rising".
"We know the government sat on the latest emissions data
for seven weeks before trying to bury the figures by sneaking it out
late on a Friday evening on the weekend of the AFL and NRL grand
finals," he said, adding another tactic had been to release such data
during the week around Christmas.
The
Australian Conservation Foundation, which has used freedom of
information laws to prise out data, welcomed the move towards more
consistent information flows.
“Ultimately, ACF believes the
government should set a release schedule that specifies a time and date
for the public release of this data, as happens with the Australian
Bureau of Statistics’ release on the National Accounts," Kelly
O'Shanassy, the foundation's chief executive officer, said.
“One
of the well-equipped independent bodies working on climate change, like
the Clean Energy Regulator or the Climate Change Authority, should have
the responsibility of preparing and releasing this data."
Of the crossbenchers, Tim Storer, Derryn Hinch and the Centre Alliance senators supported the motion.
Museums, archaeological sites and historical buildings are rarely
included in conversations about climate change, which tend to focus on
the wider impact and global threats to our contemporary world. Yet these
threats impact everything, from local cultural practices to iconic
sites of outstanding universal value. In light of this, it’s worth
exploring the relationship between our heritage and the changing global
climate in more detail.
More powerful storms, flooding, desertification and even the melting
of permafrost are already destroying important sites at an alarming
rate. While we race to preserve or record these places before they are
lost forever, it is also the case that some sites – especially those
that are or have been highly adaptable and flexible – can also be assets
in understanding adaptation strategies more generally.
These questions are currently being explored by an expert working group,
which we are part of. Our aim is to unpack the intersection between our
changing climate and the world’s cultural heritage, specifically world
heritage sites. Building on the Paris Agreement,
which notes the importance of traditional and indigenous knowledge when
thinking about adaptation strategies, we are exploring how global
heritage can be used not only to stress urgency about the dangers and
risks of climate change, but also as an asset to enforce community
resilience and develop adaptation strategies for the future.
Melting permafrost
Take Russia’s Treasures of the Pazyryk Culture.
Located in the Altai mountains, this landscape of burial mounds
(kurgans) and rock carvings derive from the Scythian nomadic culture of
2,500 years ago. A few of the two- to four-metre tall stone mounds have
been excavated in the past. They reveal an incredible array of
artefacts, complex funerary practices, and (most famously) tattooed individuals – all preserved due to the sub-zero conditions.
The melting of permafrost due to rising temperatures is expected to significantly impact frozen tombs at the site by the middle of this century.
The chemical and biological deterioration of the organic and inorganic
contents, previously inhibited by the freezing conditions, is likely to
accelerate rapidly, while associated ground movement could cause
structural damage to the tombs themselves.
The threat to these tombs from rising temperatures has been met with
efforts to survey and protect them. While many indigenous people and
heritage conservators aim to preserve the burials without disturbing
them, it is not yet clear if this can be achieved.
Archaeological excavations on the site of ancient Scythian burials of Pazyryk culture in the Altai mountains, Siberia, Russia. Alexander Demyanov/Shutterstock.com
Rising waters
Elsewhere, rising sea waters and erosion are having a similarly disastrous impact. The Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani
in Tanzania, for example, are at considerable risk from the impact of
increased surf, exacerbated by the loss of mangrove forestry on the
island.
This site was founded in the ninth century and became a major trading
centre by the 13th century. It was inscribed as a UNESCO world heritage
site in 1981 as an exceptional testimony to the expansion of Swahili
coastal culture, and to the spread of Islam in Africa in this period.
Ongoing efforts are being made here to strengthen the sea wall
protecting the site, and to encourage alternate land use strategies to
increase natural protection. The area’s iconic heritage is helping to
deliver important messages concerning climate change.
In Easter Island, meanwhile, rising sea levels and increasing storm surges are eroding the platforms (ahu) upon which famous statues
(moai) are stood. Almost all of these statues are on the coast. It is
very clear that climate change is having an adverse and worsening impact
on these sites. This damage will destroy parts of the archaeological
resource, including subsurface archaeological deposits that are
particularly under-researched. The loss of these statues could have a
significant negative impact on the tourism economy of Easter Island,
affecting the livelihoods and resilience of the islanders.
Lessons from heritage
But we can learn a lot from some communities’ response to threat at
such sites in the study of climate change resilience. While increased
flooding and extreme weather conditions represent a considerable
challenge globally, coastal and river communities have been living with
(and adapting to) similar events for centuries.
A good example of this localised adaptation can be found on the river island of Majuli
in the Brahmaputra River in Assam, India. Majuli is a landscape of both
natural and cultural significance. The island is also home to over 30
ancient monasteries, known as sattras, which are repositories of both
tangible and intangible culture.
Image of an example of a stilted building constructed using local materials on Majuli Island, Assam. Photo: Hidden Landscapes of Majuli Project 2018
Here, annual flooding has led to significant erosion of the river and
the displacement of communities, many of which live outside of the
protective levees constructed in recent years. Over hundreds of years,
communities on Majuli have developed modular and portable building
techniques using local materials including building on stilts. The river
and its annual flooding have become part of the everyday experience of
living on Majuli and is a part of the local worldview.
More permanent structures of the sattras are not immune to the
impacts of the river and some have been moved up to five times over the
last 300 years. These places and their associated cultural heritage have
evolved to be portable, a valuable skill in a landscape which changes
regularly.
It should be stressed that, even with these adaptations, the current
pace of climate change is unprecedented and its impact on river and
coastal communities will be disastrous. Yet, by better understanding places like Majuli, we will learn much about resilience and adaptation to the inevitable impacts of climate change.
We Aussies love our sport. And with our boundless sunny plains and
breezy hills, making us one of the sunniest and windiest places in the
world; we love our renewables, too. So, why not combine the two in a bit
of cheeky competition?
The Climate Council has released its fourth scorecard that measures state and territory progress on renewable energy.
States and territories are judged on a range of criteria, such as how
much renewable energy they generate, the proportion of houses with
solar, whether they have renewable energy targets, or plans to reduce
greenhouse gas pollution.
Federal climate and energy policy has made so many false starts this year that it’s out of the race altogether.
Instead, it’s Australia’s states and territories who have seized the baton and taken the lead in the national renewables relay.
Our new report provides a snapshot of renewables action happening all
across Australia’s states and territories, in spite of current federal
inaction:
The renewable energy boom is accelerating in Australia, and across the world. State and territory governments are leading Australia’s electricity transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy and storage. Powering Progress: States Renewable Energy Race rates states and territories based on their performance across a range of metrics. These include each state’s percentage of renewable electricity, the proportion of households with solar and policies that support renewable energy.
A whopping 69 wind and solar plants are under construction in
Australia right now, creating almost 10,000 jobs in the renewable energy
industry. All up, this will add almost seven times more energy capacity
than the now closed Hazelwood coal power station.
Not counting Western Australia, all states and territories have
now committed to renewable energy and/or net zero emissions targets.
And in Queensland, the aptly named ‘sunshine state’, 33% of all
households have rooftop solar, closely followed by South Australia, at
32%. SA is also on track for 73% renewable energy in just two short
years.
Federally, Australia still isn’t doing enough when it comes to tackling greenhouse gas pollution.Based on our current track record, it doesn’t even look like we’ll
meet our woefully low emissions reduction target of 26-28% below 2005
levels by 2030.
And as the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
special report has warned us, we need a tremendous global effort to keep
temperature rise below 1.5˚C, wind back worsening extreme weather
events aggravated by climate change, and protect lives and livelihoods
now, and tomorrow.
Which is why we have to keep our eyes on the prize. Focus on the victories to be had. And never settle for second best.
Here are a few more stats from the report:
Tasmania, ACT and SA are equal winners of this year’s renewables
race, across a range of renewable energy measures – based on each
state’s proportion of renewable energy, wind and solar capacity per
capita, proportion of households with solar, and renewable energy
targets and policies.
Western Australia, the Northern Territory and New South Wales are lagging behind the other states and territories.
Western Australia’s share of renewable energy is low, however the
state has the third highest proportion of households with rooftop solar.
The Northern Territory has a low share of renewable electricity and
solar households, but is set to implement its plan to reach 50%
renewable energy by 2030.
New South Wales does not have a renewable energy target and has no
plan to replace its ageing and unreliable coal power stations.
With the exception of Western Australia, all states and territories
have committed to renewable energy targets and/or net zero emissions
targets.
South Australia continues to have the largest amount of installed
wind and solar capacity (1,831MW), closely followed by New South Wales
(1,759MW) and Victoria (1,634MW). On a per capita basis, South
Australia, the ACT and Tasmania are the leaders.
Queensland and South Australia have the highest proportion of
households with rooftop solar, at 32.9% and 32.3% respectively. Western
Australia is in third place with 26.7% of households with rooftop solar.
Queensland has more renewable energy projects under construction than any other state.
Almost 10,000 jobs are being created in the renewable energy
industry across Australia with 69 wind and solar plants under
construction. Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales are home to the
vast majority of these projects.
South Australia has at least eight new projects under construction
and is on track for 73% renewable electricity in just two years.
More solar PV capacity was added around the world than coal, gas
and nuclear combined. Almost three-quarters of new energy generation
capacity added globally was renewable in 2017.
Electricity generation from coal and gas fell for the fifth consecutive year.
Approximately 17 countries generated more than 90% of their
electricity with renewable energy in 2017. Australia was not one of
them.
Far more must be invested in adapting to warming, says new global commission that aims to rebuild political will after US withdrawal from Paris agreement
Bill Gates and former UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon (right) are among the leaders of the new Global Commission on Adaptation.
Photograph: Evan Schneider/UN Photo
Far too little is being done to protect people from the heatwaves, storms and floods being supercharged by climate change,
according to a high-level international commission. It aims to rebuild
the political will to act that was damaged when US president, Donald
Trump, rejected the global Paris agreement.
The Global Commission on Adaptation
is being led by Ban Ki-Moon, Bill Gates and Kristalina Georgieva, CEO
of the World Bank. It involves 17 countries including China, India,
South Africa, Indonesia, Canada and the UK.
Much more money is being invested in cutting carbon emissions than
preparing for the climate change impacts that are already inevitable.
More than $380bn (£287bn) was spent on reducing CO2 in 2015-16, compared
with just $20bn boosting protection from extreme weather.
Former UN secretary general Ban said a step change in adaptation can
and must be achieved: “Climate change is happening much, much faster
than one may think. [But] where there is political will, anything can be
done.”
However, he said the international consensus to fight global warming had been damaged by Trump’s actions. On Sunday, Trump questioned whether global warming was caused by human activities, contradicting the long-established conclusions of the world’s scientists.
“We were very much united until December 2015 in Paris,” Ban told the
Guardian. “Now unfortunately the level of solidarity is being loosened,
especially by the Trump administration. Even though it is just one
country, it has caused big political damage.”
Adaptation measures to safeguard people’s homes, food, water and
energy are being implemented in some places, but at far too small a
scale, the commissioners said.
“Continued economic growth and reductions in global poverty are
possible despite these daunting challenges – but only if societies
invest much more in adaptation,” said Ban. “The costs of adapting are
less than the cost of doing business as usual and the benefits are many
times larger.”
“We are at a moment of high risk and great promise,” said Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. “If everyone does their part, we can reduce carbon emissions, increase access to affordable energy, and help farmers everywhere grow more productive crops.”
“Our climate has already changed. Dramatic weather events and
volatile seasons are the new normal,” said Georgieva. “We face a choice:
business as usual and hope for the best. Or we act now and build for a
resilient future.”
The new group is comprised of 28 commissioners, including two
national presidents, representing all regions of the globe and all
sectors of development and industry. The US administration is not
represented but Francis Suarez, the mayor of Miami, is a commissioner.
The commission will produce a major report on adapting to climate
change for the UN climate summit in September 2019, followed by a year
of action to implement its recommendations.
“Scientists and economists believe the cost of adaptation could rise
to $500bn per year by 2050 and, in the mid-term, $300bn by 2030,” said
Ban. This money is available, he said: “I don’t think it is a matter of
[getting the] money. The money can be mobilised. If there is political will, I think we can handle this matter.”
In particular, the trillions of dollars held by investment managers
and insurers should be put to work, Ban said: “We should not expect all
this money to come from governments. The private sector has to be fully
engaged.” He said 63% of the $380bn invested in cutting emissions in
2015-16 was from the private sector.
LEFT: Cedars grow sparsely in the mountains near Jaj, Lebanon. RIGHT: Children swim by moai statues off the coast of Easter Island. Photos Josh Haner/The New York Times
One of the cruelties of global warming is that it threatens humanity’s past as well as its future.
That was brought into sharp focus by a study issued Tuesday.
It says that some of the most important ancient sites in the
Mediterranean region — the Greek city of Ephesus, Istanbul’s historic
districts, Venice’s canals — might not survive the era of climate
change.
Those places joined a list
of others that we’ve covered extensively here at The Times. Our series
on cultural heritage has looked at the Cedars of Lebanon, the Stone Age villages of Scotland and the statues of Easter Island, all of which are threatened by climate change.
Rising
ocean levels are causing waves to break on the statues and platforms
built a thousand years ago.
The island risks losing its cultural
heritage. Again.
March 14, 2018
In the case of Scotland and Easter Island, the menace is from rising
seas. Many civilizations of the past, much like many present-day cities,
were centered on coastal areas. As sea levels rise — both because
warmer water takes up more space than cooler water, and because of
melting glaciers — these heritage sites face sharply increased risks
from both coastal erosion and flooding.The new study, published in the journal Nature Communications, analyzed
49 Unesco heritage sites in the Mediterranean region in terms of
end-of-century sea level rise projections that assume we don’t mitigate
climate change.
Saving Scotland’s Heritage From the Rising Seas Citizens and scientists on the Orkney Islands are racing to protect thousands of ancient structures threatened by climate change. Sept. 25, 2018
In Lebanon, the danger is shrinking habitat. The conditions the cedar
trees need to live are becoming more and more rare as the Middle East
heats up.
The researchers concluded that of the 49 sites, 46 will be threatened by
coastal erosion and 40 by flooding if greenhouse gas emissions continue
to rise.
If you haven’t seen our heritage series, or if you missed an article, this might be the occasion for a virtual journey to Lebanon, the Orkney Islands, or Easter Island. The images are stunning and the stories are gripping.
In the face of sustained government stupidity, many feel powerless. Voters in Wentworth can lead the way
Get Up protest in the seat of Wentworth at a byelection forum on Monday.
Photograph: Carly Earl for the Guardian
If
a bricklayer builds a wall that falls over 12 years later, killing
someone, the bricklayer can be sued and even jailed. If a doctor finds
some old packets of thalidomide in their surgery and, in spite of the
overwhelming scientific evidence of its horrific effects, dispenses it
to pregnant women, they would go to jail. The example can be multiplied
endlessly: the reality of our world is that we are responsible for our
acts.
Unless, that is, you are an Australian politician.
A politician can destroy our future, a politician can ignore the best
evidence and be responsible for decisions that lead to deaths of many
and the suffering of all, and still be free until the end of their days
to milk the legal corruption that is Australian public life, picking up
highly paid sinecures as ambassadors, board directors and lobbyists for
the corporations they were once meant to regulate in our interest.
Last Monday there came the unbelievable news contained in the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. If large-scale
action is not taken now we will face a global warming catastrophe.
The report was a nightmarish scream heard through a spithood of
formal scientific language. Any rise above 1.5C is highly likely to be
disastrous, with millions of people displaced by rising seas, the
extinction of numerous species, and the loss of most coral reefs. At 2C
the rate of crop loss doubles, as does the decline in sea fisheries.
Almost all coral reefs will be dead. Diseases such as dengue and malaria
will be far more widespread, extreme droughts and floods far more
common, while security and economic growth will be imperilled.
One of the report’s lead authors, the geographer Adelle Thomas, said,
“The scientific consensus is really strong. It’s not just a political
slogan: ‘1.5 to stay alive.’ It’s true.”
The report was specific in how long we have to keep warming at 1.5C: until 2030.
Twelve years.
This Saturday the voters of Wentworth have the opportunity to turn
their byelection into a referendum on climate change. If you are a
Wentworth voter, consider the historic responsibility you have and how
in the past you have used it to good effect. Last year it was Wentworth,
after all, that voted 80.8% yes for marriage equality, the
fourth-highest yes vote in the nation.
Marriage equality, as many have since noted, was not given to us by
enlightened politicians. It was forced on a recalcitrant government by
the countless acts of individual courage shown by those who stood up in
their workplaces, families, in their kitchens, cafes, sporting clubs,
for their dignity and freedom; it was made possible by organisation and a
passion that transcended party loyalties, and could not finally be
refused. Marriage equality was won by the people, in other words, not
gifted by the politicians.
Our prime minister, a man with a wit that would make Kenny look like Oscar Wilde, once thought it funny to wave a lump of coal in parliament
during the middle of one of eastern Australia’s worst heatwaves.
Luckily he had Barnaby Joyce there to laugh. With a similar bro and brio
he dismissed the IPCC report while speaking to Alan Jones, saying he
wouldn’t be bound by its recommendations. His deputy, Michael McCormack,
declared the government would not change policy “just because somebody
might suggest that some sort of report is the way we need to follow”.
Scott Morrison Brings Lump of Coal Into House of Representatives
That “some sort of report” – the findings of 91 of the world’s most
eminent climate change scientists surveying more than 6,000 studies of
the most recent research – didn’t trouble McCormack because he hadn’t
read the report. Neither had our environment minister, Melissa Price,
who told ABC radio the IPCC report, whatever the shared judgment of its
global expertise, was “drawing a long bow” by calling for an end to coal
by 2050.
But then, of course, this is the same government that offers total
political support for the Adani coalmine at a time when the IPCC says
coal must be phased out. This is the same government that granted $440m to a foundation that never asked for the cash,
to deal with water runoff and the crown-of-thorns starfish on the Great
Barrier Reef when the science is clear that climate change is what will
kill the reef.
We have shown that we are large, that we care, and that we think
And this is the same government that has no policies to meet
Australia’s commitments to the Paris climate agreement. This is the same
government that hides shameful greenhouse emissions reports showing our
pollution increasing by releasing them in the days before Christmas, without publicity.
And its leader, our prime minister, is the man who says that
“we’re doing well” when the government’s own figures show that our
pollution is increasing.
The Liberal candidate Dave Sharma echoes the same smug complacency of the Liberal government he expects to join next Monday.
“I do think we are doing enough,” Sharma has said, “and I do think we
have had a good record on climate change. Emissions are at their lowest
levels in 28 years,” he said. The evidence is otherwise: absolute
emissions continue to rise and are among the highest in the OECD.
Like our prime minister, who claims we will meet our Paris agreement targets “in a canter”,
Sharma says: “We are on track to meet the Paris commitments and I
believe we will address the Paris commitments and we will be addressing
affordability and sustainable and coherent energy policy.”
Sharma’s diplomatic wording cloaks the truth: the Liberal government
is the Aleppo of energy policy. It has none, only the shell-shocked
ruins of a once great party. As for the Paris climate targets, according
to consultants, NDEVR Environmental, Australia is on a trajectory that will see it fail to reach them.
In the face of such sustained stupidity by our leaders many Australians have felt an overwhelming sense of powerlessness.
But we should not.
If you are a Liberal voter, consider the voices of true conservatism and business
As the marriage equality vote showed, as the Sydney Opera House
controversy revealed, if we choose to exercise our power we discover
that we are not as we have so often been told, small and mean and
self-serving, cast in the shrivelled image of our politicians. To the
contrary, we have shown that we are large, that we care, and that we
think – and that when we dare to exercise it, that the power is ours.
In
evading their responsibilities on climate change, our politicians have
been irresponsible to the point of what would be, in any other sphere of
life, criminality.
If you are a Liberal voter, consider the voices of true conservatism and business.
Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, recently warned “of
the catastrophic impacts that climate change could have for the world
financial system”.
“We accept the IPPC assessment of climate change and that human
influence is clear and that the physical impacts are unavoidable,” Jac
Nasser, the former chairman of BHP, the world’s biggest resource
company, declared, while Eric Schmidt, the former chairman of Google,
said: “The facts of climate change are not in question. People who
oppose it are hurting our children and making the world a worse place.
They’re just simply lying.” Listen to Fiona Simson, the president of the
National Farmers’ Federation, who has stated “We’ve turned a corner on
climate change … overwhelmingly, I think it’s got to a point where the
science is very acceptable.”
These are hardly the lunatic voices of the far left. It is clear that
the traditional constituencies of the Coalition, business and farmers,
support major action on climate change – as do the majority of
Australians according to all published research, as do the majority of
people in Wentworth.
Yet the government, from the prime minister down, dismisses the
issue. Indeed, both the government and Sharma, state that they are
“doing enough” on climate change.
The very phrase drips with the contempt of our political class for
Australian citizens who they take for passive fools, easily manipulated.
As with marriage equality we see a polity determined to do nothing.
Since 2013, the Coalition government in its various incarnations has
lied, laughed and destroyed when it comes to this most fundamental
matter: that of our future. Their record is one of deceit, obfuscation
and craven capitulation to the fossil fuel industry. It is a party that
has evaded its most fundamental responsibility to our land and our
people, and the time for a reckoning has arrived.
This Saturday, voters of Wentworth can lead Australia as they did in
the marriage equality survey. They can make the byelection a referendum
on climate change by voting the candidate they believe has the best
climate policy number 1, any who might have a reasonable policy from 2
to 15, and put Dave Sharma at 16.
“We
have presented governments with pretty hard choices,” Prof Jim Skea,
co-chairman of the IPCC panel has been quoted as saying. “We show it can
be done within laws of physics and chemistry. Then the final tick box
is political will.”
The most important thing a voter can do on election day is
demonstrate that this threat to our future must be our politicians’
number one priority, and give our politicians the political will to act
now.
There is so much beauty in this world. Sometimes it is hard to
believe this life that is given us. Sometimes it is hard to believe that
it is possible to change it for the better, or save it from the worst.
But from today we must, and we can.
If we take our compass from power we will know only despair. But if
we take our compass from those around us and their actions we discover
hope. It is time we rediscovered not partisan division but a common
humanity ready to take on our gravest crisis. It is time we acted, and
the Wentworth byelection is the first chance Australians have. Our tomorrows are running out. We have only today.
Australia's climate wars: a decade of dithering
*Richard Flanagan is the Man Booker prize winning Australian author *Businessman Geoff Cousins is a former Howard government adviser Links
NUALA MCGOVERN: The report contained particularly bad news for Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, predicting that if the planet hits 2 degrees of warming instead, more than 99 per cent of the world’s coral will be wiped out. - Outside Source, BBC World News, 9 October, 2018
Hello, I’m Paul Barry, welcome to Media Watch.
And last week’s dramatic report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change really sounded the alarm on the future of our planet, with scientists predicting the Great Barrier Reef could be wiped out by 2050 if we don’t act to slow down global warming.
And you would have thought that would make big headlines in Australia, given the reef is on the World Heritage list, our largest tourist attraction and gives jobs to 60,000 people.
So what was front-page news in the local papers?
On Tuesday and Wednesday, News Corp’s Cairns Post had this. VIEW VIDEO
News Corp’s Townsville Bulletin had this. VIEW VIDEO
And News Corp’s Daily Mercury in Mackay had this. VIEW VIDEO
Inside the paper they all had something on climate, but typically only a few paragraphs and the reef barely got a mention.
Remarkable, eh?
But in News Corp’s tabloids around the country the story was the same.
Tuesday’s Daily Telegraph had a horse on its front page:
Get off ya high horse - The Daily Telegraph, 9 October, 2018
And, its only climate story was six paragraphs inside the paper about going nuclear. VIEW VIDEO
The Courier-Mail had this on the front, and the same small piece on nuclear power. VIEW VIDEO
And Melbourne’s Herald Sun had this on the front and nothing at all in its news pages about climate or the reef. VIEW VIDEO
So how could those News Corp papers all but ignore this huge story, which The Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan and ex-Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger reckon is the media’s absolute duty to report?
The planet is on a fast path to destruction. The media must cover this like it’s the only story that matters - The Washington Post, 8 October, 2018
If voters are kept in the dark about global warming by newspapers then urgent action by democratic politicians becomes a hundred times harder - Twitter, @arusbridger, 2018
Back in Australia, News Corp’s columnists did think the IPCC warnings were worth noting, but only to ridicule the threat and the idea of doing anything about it, with Miranda Devine writing scornfully:
This week’s hysterical missive from the United Nation’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is just the latest case of the boy who cried wolf. - The Daily Telegraph, 10 October, 2018
So, is Miranda a scientist? No.
Nor is the Herald Sun’s Terry McCrann, who went off even harder, branding the threat to the Reef:
… emotional — and utterly dishonest — blackmail deployed by the IPCC climate hysterics of the grubby coalition of theological climate extremists and greedy money-chasing renewable energy rent-seekers; carpetbaggers and mainchancers all. - Herald Sun, 8 October, 2018
Quite a broadside.
To its credit, The Australian did give the IPCC front-page treatment, with Environment Editor Graham Lloyd running a couple of stories.
But within hours the paper’s columnists had switched to all-out attack, with Chris Kenny deriding the scientists’ warnings as “alarmism”, “virtue-signalling”, “sanctimony” and “crying wolf”.
And Judith Sloan joined the chorus of derision, by claiming that the IPCC report – written by 91 climate experts and citing 6000 peer-reviewed papers – was not science and all old hat.
More people being inundated, more floods/droughts … You know, the normal catastrophic stuff. - The Australian, 9 October, 2018
Meanwhile, Environment Editor Graham Lloyd – who should know better – had two swipes, declaring the scientists to be living in a parallel universe, and attempting to discredit the data on which the warnings were based:
Claims of 70 problems found with key temperature dataset used by climate models “The primary conclusion of the audit is the dataset shows exaggerated warming …” - The Australian, 8 October, 2018
Lloyd’s story mirrored identical attacks from leading climate sceptics the day before.
Led by James Delingpole, another non-scientist who says global warming is a scam, on the notorious alt-right website Breitbart:
Climate Bombshell: Global Warming Scare Is Based on ‘Careless and Amateur’ Data, Finds Audit - Breitbart, 7 October, 2018
And by Joanne Nova – who is a scientist, but says the world should thank Australia for its CO2 emissions – who claimed:
The IPCC demands for cash rest on freak data, empty fields, Fahrenheit temps recorded as Celsius, mistakes in longitude and latitude, brutal adjustments and even spelling errors. - JoanneNova.com, 7 October, 2018
All three attempted demolition jobs relied on data analyst Dr John McLean, whose work they all claimed showed the IPCC had got it hopelessly wrong.
So, who is McLean?
Well, let’s get another of his fans, One Nation’s climate expert, to introduce him:
MALCOLM ROBERTS: Hi, I’m Malcolm Roberts and I’m with Dr John McLean from Melbourne and he’s on Skype with us and he is 13 years in climate science … And he’s just conducted the first audit of the temperature database known as HadCRUT 4. - Facebook, Malcolm Roberts, 11 October, 2018
McLean’s audit of the data earned him a PhD from James Cook University in Townsville, where his supervisor was Peter Ridd, another well-known climate sceptic who was recently sacked.
So how good is McLean’s track record?
Well, seven years ago, he famously predicted:
It is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956, or even earlier - Climate Realists, 9 March, 2011
That was 100% wrong. According to NASA:
… the year was the 9th hottest in the past 130 years. - NASA, 20 January, 2012
A previous academic paper of McLean’s in 2009, claiming El Nino was responsible for most of the rise in global temperatures, was ripped apart by climate experts who accused him of cherry-picking the data.
His co-author then was yet another famous climate sceptic, the late Bob Carter, who liked to tell his admirer Alan Jones that man-made global warming was rubbish:
BOB CARTER: Well, there's only two words you can use to describe it - it's a farce and it's a circus. ALAN JONES: It is. BOB CARTER: And the sad thing about it is ... ALAN JONES: It's a lie. It's a lie. BOB CARTER: Yes, and because of the way it is pushed as you say, in the education system and in the news media, so many well-intentioned people have been sucked in. - The Alan Jones Breakfast Show, 2GB, 10 December, 2012
The work that backs up McLean’s new data audit is dedicated to Bob Carter.
So, is McLean to be believed ahead of 91 leading climate experts and 6000 peer-reviewed scientific papers when he claims the IPCC’s work is worthless?
The Australian, Breitbart, Joanne Nova and Miranda Devine clearly reckon he is.
And so does Alan Jones, who cited McLean last week in telling his listeners:
ALAN JONES: Don’t believe the global warming science is settled. It is corrupt. - The Alan Jones Breakfast Show, 2GB, 12 October, 2018
One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts is also convinced by McLean’s argument:
MALCOLM ROBERTS: So this is what is underpinning the UN’s climate scare, which is underpinning government policies in this country. What we need to do then John is pull out of Paris. JOHN MCLEAN: Yes, we certainly should be stepping right back and saying, hey, this data is crazy. Come back to us when we’ve got some, when you’ve got some decent data and a convincing argument. - Facebook, Malcolm Roberts, 11 October, 2018
But how convincing is John McLean? We asked a number of climate experts to review his audit.
Professor Steven Sherwood at NSW University’s Climate Change Research Centre told us it:
… turns up little if anything new … seems specifically motivated to discredit global warming ... - Professor Steven Sherwood, Email, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW, 12 October, 2018
And he added:
Its naive claims of alternative causes of global warming do not consider the relevant laws of physics and do not make sense. - Professor Steven Sherwood, Email, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW, 12 October, 2018
The ANU’s Nerilie Abram, lead author of a coming IPCC report on the oceans, told Media Watch:
Regardless of whether the PhD thesis work has any merit or not, the claim that this falsifies IPCC findings is wrong. - Associate Professor Nerilie Abram, Email, ANU, 12 October, 2018
And the UK Met Office was just as emphatic, putting McLean’s, quote, “70 problems” into context by pointing out that the HadCRUT dataset which it looks after:
… contains over 7 million points of data from in excess of 7500 observation stations on land around the globe, together with millions of measurements of sea-surface temperature. The small number of specific errors highlighted represent a tiny fraction of the data and as such are likely to have a negligible impact on the overall results. The long-term increase in global temperature is unequivocal. This is backed up by other globally recognised datasets, all of which are run independently, and find very similar warming.- Met Office, Email, 13 October, 2018
And that takes us back to the bigger picture, where the concern is that so much of News Corp treats climate science, and the threat to our planet, with such contempt.
Why is that so? Presumably, because Rupert Murdoch is a non-believer.
But sadly, it’s not new, and not just in Australia. Back in 2012, America’s Union of Concerned Scientists audited News Corp’s coverage in the US and concluded:
Representations of climate science on Fox News Channel and in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages are overwhelmingly misleading - Is News Corp Failing Science?, Union of Concerned Scientists, September, 2012
And it then gave examples of what that coverage contained:
… broad dismissals of human-caused climate change, rejections of climate science as a body of knowledge, and disparaging comments about individual scientists. Furthermore, much of this coverage denigrated climate science by either promoting distrust in scientists and scientific institutions or placing acceptance of climate change in an ideological, rather than fact-based, context.- Is News Corp Failing Science?, Union of Concerned Scientists, September, 2012
Six years later, the same determination to deny and denigrate climate science is flourishing in Australia.
And what makes it even more serious is that in Australia News Corp controls around 60 per cent of our daily newspaper circulation.
Not to mention a whole bunch of websites and of course Sky News which, for once, we have not even bothered to audit because we know too well what we’ll find.
And we should add we put a series of questions to John McLean. He declined to answer them. You can read the emails on our website.
