11/07/2019

David Attenborough Takes Aim At Australia For Lack Of Climate Action

SBS - Maani Truu

Legendary natural historian, David Attenborough, has outlined a dire future for the world if climate change is not addressed immediately.

David Attenborough appearing as a witness during the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee meeting in London. UK Parliament
Legendary natural historian David Attenborough has slammed Australia for a lack of action on climate change, as he issued a stark warning to British politicians that mass migration and social unrest would occur if the issue is not addressed immediately.
The 93-year-old told members of the Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy committee that large areas of Africa would become "even less inhabitable" than they are now if "radical" climate action is not taken.
These actions, he said, would need to include lifestyle changes including raising the price of "extraordinarily cheap" airline tickets.



"We cannot be radical enough with dealing with these issues," he told politicians on Wednesday.
"If the world climate change goes on as it is we are going to be facing huge problems with immigration. Large parts of Africa will become even less inhabitable than they are now and there is going to be major upsets in the balance between our national boundaries."
Mr Attenborough, who has been making nature documentaries for almost 70 years, named Australia in his damning speech as one of the countries worst affected by climate change.
"I will never forget diving on the [Great Barrier] reef about 10 years ago and suddenly seeing that instead of this multitude of wonderful forms of life, that it was stark white, it had bleached white because of the rising temperatures and the increasing acidity of the sea," he said of his return since first diving there in the 1950s.
And in response to a question about climate change sceptics, he said the "voice of disbelief" should not be stamped out but that he hoped leaders in Australia and the US would come on board.
"Australia is already facing, having to deal with some of the most extreme manifestations of climate change," he said.
"But both Australia and America those voices are clearly heard."
Known for his nature documentaries, Mr Attenborough said he was hopeful that the world was on the cusp of great social change due to young people speaking out about the climate crisis, comparing the forthcoming attitude shift to how views changed regarding slavery.
"There was a time in the 19th century when it was perfectly acceptable for civilised human beings to think that it was morally acceptable to actually own another human being for a slave. And somehow or other, in the space of 20 or 30 years, the public perception of that totally transformed," he said.
"I suspect that we are right now at the beginning of a big change. Young people, in particular, are the stimulus that’s bringing it about."
Speaking about his shift from entertainer to climate advocate, Mr Attenborough said he didn't have a choice.
"If you become aware of what is happening, you don't have any alternative," he said.
"I feel an obligation. The only way you can get up in the morning is to believe that, actually, we can do something about it. And I suppose I think we can."

Links

Australia On Track To Become One Of The World’s Major Climate Polluters

ACF

A new report finds Australia is on track to be one of the worst climate change contributors because of its fossil fuel exports. 

If government and industry projections for fossil fuel expansions are realised, and if the rest of the world adopts policies consistent with the Paris Agreement, Australia could be responsible for up to 17 per cent of global emissions by 2030, according to new research.
When emissions from Australia’s current coal, oil and gas exports (3.6 per cent of global total) are added to domestic emissions (1.4 per cent of global total), Australia’s contribution to the global climate pollution footprint is already about 5 per cent, the research by Berlin-based science and policy institute Climate Analytics finds.
“This report confirms Australia is on track to become one of the world’s worst contributors to climate damage,” said the Australian Conservation Foundation’s Climate Change & Clean Energy program manager, Gavan McFadzean.
“Burning coal and gas is the number one cause of the climate crisis and Australia is now the number one exporter of both, with quantities projected to increase dramatically in coming years.
“When we add Australia’s exported emissions to our domestic emissions, Australia rockets to equal fifth on the list of major global climate polluters, alongside Russia and behind only India, the European Union, the USA and China.
“With planned coal and gas expansions, Australia could account for up to 17 per cent of global emissions by 2030, with Australian coal responsible for 12 per cent of global emissions by then.
Panorama of the Anglesea open cut coal mine in Victoria, Australia. Takver CC BY-SA 2.0
“If Adani’s mine and all the other coal mines proposed for the region reach full production by 2030, the Galilee Basin on its own could account for up to 5.45 per cent of global climate pollution in 2030.
“Liquified natural gas is also a large and growing pollution problem, with Australia on track to become the world’s biggest LNG exporter, producing around a fifth of the world’s LNG.
“Based on government and industry projections, Australia’s domestic and exported gas emissions could account for up to 3.4 per cent of global climate pollution by 2030.
“Australia’s planned fossil fuel expansions contradict global efforts to address climate change and are completely inconsistent with the global energy transition that is needed to meet the critical Paris Agreement goals of keeping global warming under a 2°C threshold and pursuing efforts to avoid passing a 1.5°C threshold.
“Instead of encouraging new fossil fuel projects, a responsible Federal Government would recognise that most of Australia’s fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground and would facilitate the necessary rapid transition to clean, renewable energy, while working actively to support communities that will be affected by this transition.”
Australia's domestic and exported gas emissions as share of global fossil fuel combustion emissions. Source: Climate Analytics’ calculations based on nationally reported quantities of gas consumed domestically and exported, national inventory emissions factors, and global CO2 estimates from the Global Carbon Project. Climate Analytics’ estimate of reservoir and fugitive CO2 emissions, and a share of CH4 emissions are also included.

Links

The Health Impacts Of Climate Change And Why Calls For Action Are Growing Louder

ABC Health & Wellbeing - Olivia Willis

WHO estimates that climate change is already causing tens of thousands of deaths every year. (Getty Images: d3sign)
We tend to think about climate change as an environmental problem.
But it's the impending impacts on our health that have medical experts sounding the alarm.
Last November, planetary health professor Tony Capon co-authored the first national report to track Australia's progress on climate change and human health.
It coincided with the release of a global report from leading medical journal The Lancet, which warned climate change is "the biggest global health threat of the 21st century".
"When we understand the connections between climate change and human health, it makes it clear that this is urgent," Professor Capon said.
Since then, calls for climate action from health bodies and medical professionals have grown louder.
In November, the World Health Organisation director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned the world could no longer "sleepwalk through this health emergency".
In April, some of Australia's leading health bodies published an open letter calling on political parties to recognise "the significant and profound health impacts of climate change to Australian people".
And last week, more than 1,000 doctors in the UK and 70 public health bodies in the US called for "radical action".
But how exactly does a warming climate pose risks to our physical and mental health?

Rising temperatures and heatwaves


Australian cities are declaring a 'climate emergency'. What does that actually mean?
The City of Sydney has become the latest local government to declare a climate emergency. So does that carry any legal clout?

In Australia, heatwaves cost more lives than all other natural hazards combined.
They lead to an increase in heat-related illnesses, such as heat exhaustion and heat stroke, and drive up hospital admissions and death rates, particularly among older people and people with chronic illnesses.
At a global level, 157 million more people were exposed to heatwave events in 2017 compared with 2000, according to The Lancet report.
Executive director of the Climate and Health Alliance Fiona Armstrong said heatwaves were getting "longer, hotter, and more frequent".
"They don't just affect people's health. They impact our power supply, transport systems, and water supply," she said.

Infectious disease
Even small changes in temperature, rainfall, and humidity can create the right conditions for infectious disease to spread, according to Professor Capon.
"One of the pathways is the changing distribution and abundance of mosquitoes," he said.
"In certain parts of the world, mosquitoes that transmit malaria are now able to breed at a higher altitude."
In Australia, changes to the distribution and abundance of mosquitoes has meant people are contracting dengue fever and Ross River virus in areas where they weren't previously at risk.
"There is also potential in a warming climate for higher rates of food-borne diseases, which are very sensitive to air temperatures," Dr Capon added.
The same goes for water-borne diseases, such as cholera, which can arise as a result of water scarcity (during droughts) and water pollution (during floods).
Extreme weather events
If we already get droughts and floods, what's the big deal, you ask?
The latest IPCC report on climate change predicts that under warming of just 1.5 degrees Celsius, which is already a near certainty, both droughts and floods are likely to become more frequent and intense.
Extreme weather events can cause physical injuries, respiratory problems, psychological distress, and in some cases, death, Professor Capon said.
"The changing frequency, distribution, and intensity of extreme weather events has a range of health implications, both direct and indirect," he said.
Indirect consequences include food and water insecurity and the onset of mental illness, which can be exacerbated by the destruction of people's homes and livelihoods.
"With prolonged droughts and desertification, there's also concern about the availability of food, and prospects for famine," he said.
By some projections, climate change — if left unmitigated — is expected to result in a further 1.4 billion instances of people being exposed to drought per year, and 2 billion instances of people being exposed to floods by the end of the century.
Weather extremes can also lead to the displacement of millions of people. (Unsplash)
Air pollution
People in more than 90 per cent of cities around the world are currently breathing air that is "toxic" to their cardiovascular and respiratory health, according to The Lancet's global report.
"Between 2010 and 2016, air pollution concentrations worsened in almost 70 per cent of cities around the globe, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries," the authors wrote.
"In 2015 alone, fine particulate matter was responsible for 2.9 million premature deaths, with coal being responsible for more than 460,000 of these deaths."
Closer to home, it's not just people living near coal-fired power stations that are affected, Fiona Armstrong said.
"People in our cities are being exposed to dangerous air pollution every day."

Mental health


Babies born today will be 22 when warming hits 1.5C. What will life be like?
Meet Casey X. The year is 2040, and she is 22 years old. The town where she lives is in the middle of a heatwave.

While the causes of food insecurity are complex, climate change has already been shown to affect Australia's (and the world's) agricultural production.
"The changes in our prevailing weather patterns, whether it's increasing heat waves or longer, unprecedented and unrelenting drought, is really impacting our ability to grow food," Ms Armstrong said.
In addition to the direct damage to crops, research suggests rising temperatures can affect their nutritional quality.
Subsequent reductions in farm yields can lead to increased food prices — especially of fresh, healthy food — which can compound issues of food affordability and accessibility, most notably in low-income communities.
"This has impacts right across the population, and really affects people who are already struggling to access healthy food," Ms Armstrong said.
Perhaps more urgently, the declines seen in farming productivity pose challenges to rural community morale and the mental health of farmers and their families, Professor Capon said.
"In relation to the very deep drought we're having in Australia at the moment, we're concerned about the mental health impacts on farmers and farming communities," he said.
Last year's Australian report identified for the first time an association between mean annual maximum temperatures (driven up by climate change) and suicide rates across states and territories.
"In Australia, hot days have a damaging effect on whole-population mental health equivalent to that of unemployment and predict hospitalisation for self-harm," the authors wrote.

Health benefits of climate action
The silver lining to all this, according to Professor Capon, is the many health benefits that come from combating climate change.
"If we transition to more sustainable ways of living … then as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there are health benefits from the reduction in toxic pollution from the burning of coal," he said.
Both the Lancet papers stressed the need for governments to focus on decarbonising economies, in order to reduce rates of cardiovascular and respiratory disease, and reduce risk factors linked to infectious disease and mental illness.
Professor Capon said policies focused on mitigating climate change were most urgent, as was a focus on vulnerable communities.
"The people who are least responsible for climate change — people living in low income countries and in poor communities — are the most vulnerable to these health impacts," he said.
"[Climate change] is affecting the health of Australians and people around the world.
"This is not a future issue. It's already happening."

Links

10/07/2019

How Taxpayers Are Funding A Huge Corporate Expansion In The Murray-Darling Basin

ABC Four CornersSean Rubinsztein-Dunlop | Mary Fallon | Lucy Carter | Michael Slezak

Webster has received $41 million in Commonwealth funds to grow its empire in the Murrumbidgee Valley.

Key points
  • Billions of dollars in Commonwealth funds have been handed out to irrigators under a scheme designed to help the environment
  • Partly foreign-owned corporation Webster Limited received more than $40 million and has expanded its irrigation operations
  • Farmers say no-one is checking whether grants given under the scheme are delivering their promised water savings
Australian taxpayers have given a huge corporation more than $40 million, enabling it to expand irrigation in the Murray-Darling Basin under an environmental scheme that has been labelled a national disgrace. Four Corners can reveal that more than $4 billion in Commonwealth funds has been handed over to irrigators, which has allowed them to expand their operations and use more water under the $5.6 billion water infrastructure scheme — the centrepiece of Australia's $13 billion Murray-Darling Basin Plan
The scheme is intended to recover water for the rivers by giving farmers money to build water-saving infrastructure, in return for some of their water rights.
Some of the beneficiaries of the scheme are partly foreign-owned corporations that have used the money to transform vast tracts of land along the threatened river system, planting thirsty cotton and nut fields.
One of the biggest operators is Webster Limited, a publicly traded company that produces 90 per cent of Australia's walnuts and is 19.5 per cent owned by Canadian pension fund PSP.
Webster has received $41 million from the water infrastructure scheme to grow its empire in the Murrumbidgee Valley, in south-west New South Wales, where it has bought hundreds of square kilometres of land.
The funding covers more than half of an ambitious $78 million capital works program by Webster Limited to build dams to store more than 30 billion extra litres of water and irrigate an extra 81 square kilometres of land, developing much of it into prime, irrigated cotton country.
Maryanne Slattery, a former director at the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, says it is horrifying that a scheme designed to help the environment is allowing irrigators to use more water.
"That program was supposed to reduce the amount of water that was going to irrigation, when it's actually increased the opportunities for irrigation … all subsidised by taxpayers," she said.
"I think Australian taxpayers will be really shocked to find out that that money is actually going to foreign investors as well."
Maryanne Slattery was a director at the Murray-Darling Basin Authority before she quit in disgust, concluding the basin plan was a fraud on the taxpayer. (ABC News: Neil Maude)
Dams paid for by the Commonwealth

On the Hay Plains, one of the flattest places on earth, Webster is one of several agribusinesses building dams to store huge volumes of water to irrigate new cotton fields on the outer reaches of the Murrumbidgee River.
UNSW river ecologist Professor Richard Kingsford, who has been studying the area for more than 30 years, says the new dams are trapping water that would have otherwise flowed downstream into habitats and farming communities in the Murray-Darling Basin.
"I find that astounding. I mean, why are we building these large dams for private gain at public cost?" he said.
"Essentially it increases the take from the river system and ultimately decreases the amount of water in the river. That to me is where, in fact, we may be seeing more water taken out of the rivers than water savings."
Ms Slattery says the region, where temperatures regularly soar into the 40s, is unsuitable for dams because of the high rate of evaporation.
"You just see dam after dam after dam, these massive on-farm dams, in a place that is as flat as a table, that just should not have dams," said Ms Slattery, who is now a senior water researcher at the Australia Institute.
"And then when you realise they're being paid for by the Commonwealth, under a supposedly environmental program, that's just horrifying."

No checks or oversight on water scheme
The water infrastructure scheme was designed to recover water for rivers in the basin. (ABC News)
Former government officials have revealed to Four Corners that no-one in government monitors whether the work paid for by the water infrastructure scheme delivers on its promised water savings.
Farmers say that to get a grant, they give the Federal Government an estimate of how much water their proposed new infrastructure will save, but that figure is never checked or monitored, even after millions of dollars in Commonwealth funds are handed over.


What is the Murray-Darling Basin Plan?
The Murray-Darling Basin Plan has remained controversial ever since its introduction back in 2012. So, what is it again and why is it back on the agenda?

Ms Slattery says the scheme is a fraud on the taxpayer.
"There's no government checking in that process at all. There is no confidence that that process has been done independently and is able to be verified," she said.
"Governments are very motivated to get the savings on paper, and they've got deep pockets … you'd have to expect that some of the savings aren't real, and that money has gone to projects that haven't yielded what they were supposed to."
UNESCO chair in water economics Professor Quentin Grafton has been calling for measurements on the impacts of the scheme since it was introduced, but he says the Federal Government has ignored him and tried to discredit his work.
"It's been incredible to say this, that we can spend [$4 billion] to date yet we haven't done those basic measurements to allow us to know what in fact we've got, net, in terms of the impact for the environment," he said.
"In the best case scenario it's less than half of what the Government claims, and in the worst case scenario we've gone backwards, not forwards; that in fact the amount of water in the environment has actually declined as a result of these efficiency subsidies.
"We don't know because we need a water audit, a hydrological audit of what's going on in the basin."

Farmers say Government overpaid them for water
Glen Andreazza says as a taxpayer, he doesn't agree with the water infrastructure scheme. (ABC: Neil Maude)
Farmers have also told Four Corners that they believe the Government has overpaid them for water under the scheme, and in many cases they have been paid to build infrastructure they would have built anyway.
Julie Andreazza and her husband, Glen, received more than $100,000 for earthworks to reduce water runoff from their farm.
"Those works were things that we were going to always do anyway," Ms Andreazza told Four Corners.
"Obviously, cost was a problem, so we were going to do it down the track. But when this opportunity turned up for available funds to be used, well of course we jumped at it."

Why did SA decide to have a royal commission?
South Australians were outraged to discover NSW irrigators were taking billions of litres of water earmarked for the environment. Find out what happened next.

Glen Andreazza estimates the Government paid double what it should have on the water buy-back on his farm.
"I'm a taxpayer, I don't agree with the scheme. I think it's too expensive," he said.
The Andreazzas were later able to buy back the same amount of water they had surrendered for the grant, and they got it on the market for a lower price.
Professor Grafton says the scheme could have delivered huge benefit for the environment and communities along the Murray-Darling, but instead it has been squandered.
"We chose to put it into pipes, we chose to put it into concrete and we chose to deliver private benefits with public money, and that is a national scandal," he said.
The Hay Plains in western New South Wales is flat, hot, and, experts say, unsuitable for dams.
Webster Limited has also been expanding its nut business, planting vast new walnut and almond orchards, as part of a boom in the nut industry, which is placing the river system under increased strain.
Nut trees are extremely thirsty, requiring water throughout every year — unlike crops such as cotton, which can be planted only when there is enough water to sustain them.
Webster Limited's deals with the Australian Government are confidential, however the company has confirmed to Four Corners it received $41 million in water infrastructure subsidies in return for surrendering water licences it valued at $22 million.
Those licences were part of an enormous water portfolio the company most recently estimated to be worth $350 million.
Under the scheme, details of who receives the subsidies and how they are spent are not publicly available. The Government has not measured what effect Webster's huge irrigation expansion will have on the river system.
Webster declined to give Four Corners figures on how its taxpayer-backed expansion had changed its water usage, but said the funding had led to a decrease in water use per hectare and was intended to make the farms more productive and efficient.
According to its environmental impact statements, the works allowed Webster to pump and store huge volumes of what they call "opportunity water" — water from heavy rain events that would have otherwise flowed downstream.
The upgrade enabled Webster to activate a stockpile of unused licences for the cheaper water, known officially as "supplementary water".
Webster says its projects have been independently audited and reported in accordance with the Government's guidelines.
The $41 million was provided to Webster via companies that are contracted by the Federal Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to distribute water infrastructure funding and administer the program.
The department relies on the companies, known as "delivery partners", to submit independently validated evidence of changes to Webster's farming practices.

Links

Directors Are In The Crosshairs Of Corporate Climate Litigation

The Conversation

Melting glaciers threaten the village of Huaraz, Peru. Uwebart/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA
The directors of RWE, a German energy company, had probably never heard of the small village of Huaraz, Peru before 2015. But Saúl Lliuya, a mountain guide and farmer there, sued RWE for climate-related harms that year.
Lliuya’s lawyers, supported by Greenpeace, argued that RWE’s historic green house gas emissions have contributed to increased global temperatures, which have, in turn, caused the glaciers around Lake Palcacocha to melt. The lake sits above Huaraz, where more than 50,000 residents now face an increased risk of severe flooding.
The Higher Regional Court of Hamm, in Germany, agreed with Lliuya’s arguments and let the case proceed to the evidentiary stage. No matter what the outcome, the court’s statements that climate harms can, in principle, give rise to corporate liability, is historic — no other court has made this decision before.
The intersection between climate change, energy and corporate law is a fast-emerging area. This case is part of a second wave of litigation against corporations, and has implications for directors and their legal duties. Corporate fiduciary duties and corporate law have traditionally been insulated from environmental and climate concerns, but as the impacts of climate change escalate, this may no longer be true.

The second wave of climate litigation
The directors of RWE are not alone. There has been an explosion of climate litigation launched against fossil-fuel intensive, or “carbon major” corporations.
The cities of Oakland and San Francisco have sued, as have New York and Baltimore. So have counties in California, Washington and Colorado, the state of Rhode Island and fishermen in Oregon and California.
Most recently, non-governmental organizations in the Netherlands have launched suits, and others are being considered in Toronto and Victoria.
These cases have been dubbed the second wave of climate litigation against carbon majors. There has never been a successful case against corporations for climate-induced harm — yet.

The first wave
The first wave of litigation against carbon majors is less than a decade old. It was characterized by several unsuccessful cases, including American Electric Petroleum vs. Connecticut in 2011, and Native Village of Kivalina vs. ExxonMobil in 2012.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case of the Alaskan village of Kivalina against oil companies. The village, seen here in 2006, is being washed into the ocean due to rising sea levels, sea ice loss and eroding permafrost. (AP Photo/Northwest Arctic Borough via The Anchorage Daily News)
These cases against carbon majors failed largely due to problems in proving causation under tort or public nuisance claims. That is, the plaintiffs had difficulties tracing climate harms to specific emissions made by particular corporations.
The judges in these cases were also reluctant adjudicators. They felt the systemic nature and complexity of climate change was a global issue best left to governments to manage. In the American Electric Petroleum case, for example, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a unanimous decision that the issue was governed by the federal Clean Air Act and that the court should not intervene further.
Scientific research has evolved dramatically since then. In a 2013 study, Richard Heede, from the Climate Accountability Institute, attributed 63 per cent of industrial carbon dioxide and methane emissions released from 1751-2010 to 90 carbon major entities. Heede’s work has been cited in almost all claims by plaintiffs in the second wave of corporate climate litigation.
Lliuya is claiming that RWE’s emissions contributed to the glacial melt that is endangering his community. Heede’s study established that RWE was responsible for 0.47 per cent of historic global emissions. Lliuya is asking of 0.47 per cent of the cost it will take for his community to adapt to climate change. The case may remain an outlier for some time, but it’s a historic legal development, with the court taking a broad view of causation.

Tobacco litigation
In 2018, two California cities were unsuccessful in their lawsuit against fossil fuel companies. Like Justice Ginsburg, Judge Alsup said the courts were not the place to address the issue. He also noted that the historic benefits of fossil fuels far outweighed the harm being caused by them.
Subsequent U.S. cases have been more strategic in their pleadings. Plaintiffs have tried to ground their cases more closely at the state level in order to avoid the federal barriers of the Clean Air Act. Instead, they have cited breaches of product liability statutes, failure to warn, design defect, as well as negligence and trespass.
They have patterned their pleadings more closely on tobacco litigation cases, as well as those against opioid and asbestos manufacturers.
Even if these corporate climate litigation cases are ultimately unsuccessful, they have implications for directors’ fiduciary duties.

Why these cases matter for directors
Fiduciary duties, as interpreted under Delaware law, where many of these carbon-majors are headquartered, require directors to pay attention to the risks faced by the corporation and to make informed decisions.
U.S. federal agencies such as the Department of Defense have identified climate change as a long-range, emerging threat that could adversely impact national security. Climate change is a threat to global fiscal stability, putting at risk one-third of global manageable assets.
Corporate climate litigation highlights the bidirectional risks of climate change: corporations emit greenhouse gases that increase climate impacts, but those impacts also directly affect corporations. Courts want to know that directors have considered all material information reasonably available to them, and the increasing impacts and risks of climate change to businesses mean climate risks and opportunities are now material.
Failing to monitor and manage climate risk and disclose these risks to shareholders could put directors in breach of their legal duties. Climate change poses tremendous risks to carbon major corporations whose assets and infrastructure are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
The impacts of wildfires, for example, have led PG&E to seek bankruptcy protection, and a recent case in the Supreme Court in Canada determined that a bankrupt oil company was still responsible for the costs of remediating its abandoned wells.
As the impacts of climate change escalate, bankruptcies and other corporate financial woes are likely to only increase.

Climate change, misrepresented
Corporate law and securities law are also being used by plaintiffs in this second wave of climate litigation, raising the stakes even further for directors of these carbon majors. New York claims ExxonMobil defrauded shareholders and a separate civil suit alleges ExxonMobil and its executives misrepresented the impacts of climate change on its business.
Directors must now consider and assess the risks of climate change to their businesses in order to comply with their fiduciary duties, particularly in corporations highly exposed to the risks of climate change. Investors will continue to be concerned about climate litigation as well as climate risks, and the issue will continue to raised by them at annual general meetings. It is likely that these are issues that RWE’s directors are now carefully considering.

Links

Australia's Emissions Reach The Highest On Record, Driven By Electricity Sector

The Guardian

Fugitive emissions from LNG are also fuelling rising national emissions, Ndever Environmental figures show
Australia’s emissions for the year to March 2019 increased to 561 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, Ndever Environmental figures show. Photograph: Dave Hunt/AAP 
Australia’s emissions are again the highest on record, driven this time by an increase in emissions from the electricity sector, which rose to their highest levels in two years, according to new figures.
Fugitive emissions from Australia’s LNG industry also continue to fuel rising national emissions.
Ndevr Environmental, an emissions-tracking organisation that publishes quarterly greenhouse gas emissions data months ahead of the federal government, says its latest research shows emissions for the year to March 2019 increased to 561 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.
That was up from 554.5 million tonnes the previous year and 551.2 million tonnes in 2017.
Ndevr’s figures exclude unreliable data from the land-use sector, but the organisation said that even when it was included emissions had still increased for four consecutive years over the same period.


The trend line for the Government's Paris emissions reduction targets assumes a linear rate of reduction to reach the final target. | Source: NGGI, NDEVR Environmental 

According to Ndevr’s research, there was an 8.2% increase in emissions from the electricity sector between the December and March quarters.
It follows three consecutive quarters of declines in electricity emissions and is the highest increase in emissions from that sector since March 2017.
However, rising emissions from electricity generation between the December and March quarters is not unusual due to higher energy use in the warmer months.

LULUCF emissions are negative from September 2011 onwards, and not represented here. Guardian graphic | Source: NGGI, NDEVR Environmental.

Ndevr’s managing director, Matt Drum, said there was less renewable generation in March 2019 than there was in the March quarter the previous year, with Ndevr’s data showing falls in both wind and hydro power.
Drum said the continued rise in fugitive emissions as a result of Australia’s LNG industry showed there was “a lot of work to be done around offsetting and reducing emissions from the LNG sector”.
“That’s offsetting particularly through land-use projects, but also energy efficiency,” he said. “And whether the carbon capture and storage nut can be cracked for that sector is going to be really important.”
Drum dismissed recent comments by Australia’s energy and emissions reduction minister, Angus Taylor, that LNG exports were contributing to emissions reductions overseas.
“I don’t think you can prosecute that argument unless you also take into account our coal exports, which have a counter effect,” Drum said.
There is no evidence to support Taylor’s claim and the biggest consumer of Australia’s LNG – Japan – is using it in place of emissions-free nuclear power.
“There’s still work to be done on policy. I sound like a broken record,” Drum said. “At the end of the day, participation in the emissions reduction fund is decreasing. Fewer projects, fewer contracts, less abatement.
“Unless something happens, something significant, this government will just be presiding over quarter after quarter, year after year, of increasing emissions. It’s as simple as that.”

Links

09/07/2019

A ‘Climate Emergency’ Was Declared In New York City. Will That Change Anything?

New York TimesAnne Barnard

The city is now the largest on earth to pass such a measure.
Credit Stephanie Keith/Getty Images
New York City, the world capital of ambition, has never been shy about grandiose declarations. The City Council has passed or proposed resolutions demanding world peace, banning a racist slur and condemning all manner of federal policies where city government has no actual say.
But for a growing global network of activists seeking to change the way the world talks about climate, the city’s sweeping resolution in late June declaring a “climate emergency” is a major victory.
Saying that the heating climate is a crisis of imminent danger, they argue that getting people and governments to describe it in far more urgent language is the only way to produce the level of global mobilization required to stop it.
New York is now the largest city on earth to pass such a measure, calling last week for “an immediate emergency mobilization to restore a safe climate.” It joined London, Sydney and a total of 722 localities in 15 countries, according to the Climate Mobilization, a Brooklyn-based nonprofit group pushing the declarations.
And on Wednesday, Los Angeles’s City Council went further. It passed a measure that will formalize its own emergency declaration, calling climate change one of the most important issues facing the city. It also established a Climate Emergency Mobilization Department and laid out steps to make city agencies and the public take newly vigorous and coordinated action against planet-warming emissions.
Margaret Klein Salamon, a founder of the Climate Mobilization, an environmental advocacy group, said emergency declarations build political pressure to take stronger actions, like New York’s recent sweeping state and city laws to curb emissions.
“Because what are elected leaders supposed to do if not protect us from emergencies?” she said.

Do these words even mean anything?
By themselves, emergency declarations have no more force than other political proclamations. And just as no individual country can stop climate change within its borders, cities and states’ toolboxes are limited without the support of federal law and international agreements.
That hasn’t stopped states and smaller jurisdictions. New York City recently mandated that the owners of its largest buildings slash their emissions impact, and new legislation requires New York State to eliminate nearly all greenhouse gas output by 2050.
But questions remain about whether even these measures — with far more teeth than a council declaration — will achieve their goals.
Government agencies need to “start making things happen — and fast,” including acting against the interests of real estate, energy and other lobbies that traditionally wield political clout, said Pete Sikora, climate justice director for New York Communities for Change. His group supported the state and city laws but contends they do not go far enough.
Groups like Extinction Rebellion are calling for nonviolent civil disobedience to spur climate action. Credit Stephanie Keith/Getty Images
Declarations have increased as public alarm has grown
The first local climate emergency was declared in Darebin, Australia, in 2016. The following year, Hoboken, N.J., became the first American city to follow suit. Groups like the Sunrise Movement and Extinction Rebellion, which calls for nonviolent civil disobedience to spur climate action, have made the declarations a centerpiece of their campaigns.
The movement has grown with extreme climate events that have been impossible to ignore: wildfires, storms and droughts, plus heat waves that set record temperatures in Europe last week and made June the world’s hottest month on record.
Last fall, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected that keeping global warming at the minimum level to avert catastrophe would, as New York’s resolution put it, “require an unprecedented transformation of every sector of the global economy over the next 12 years.”
Six in ten Americans are either “alarmed” or “concerned” about global warming, according to a recent study by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, and the share of those choosing “alarmed” more than doubled from 2013 to 2018.

Young advocates drive the push to use words like ‘crisis’
“Climate change sounds gradual,” said Olivia Sommers, 19, one of dozens of climate activists in an overflow crowd at a City Council hearing on the measure, part of the public pressure that swayed the body to approve the resolution sooner than planned. “But to me it doesn’t feel like ‘change’. It feels like a crisis.”
Jilly Edgar, 20, a New York University student and member of the Sunrise Movement, which advocates for Green New Deal policies, said she struggled to think of the future. That should be a time, she said, when “the world is becoming my own, and moving forward in it” toward “marriage, graduate degrees, children.”
“But actually,” she said, “the world is dying. There’s just, like, a cutoff point. That does a lot to destroy the idealism of young people that usually pushes them to act.”

The ‘fear of fear' is an obstacle to action, activists say
“The idea that ‘you can’t scare people, fear paralyzes people,’ has been a guiding principle of the gradualist climate movement for decades, and it’s horribly wrong and misguided,” said Ms. Klein Salamon, 33, who trained as a clinical psychologist.
“The basic tenet of therapy is that facing hard truths is how you create transformative change,” she said. “You cannot skip the step of facing reality. It’s only when we have a national consensus that we are all personally in danger, when we feel enough fear, that we are willing to make drastic changes. Fear is literally how we translate perception of danger into action.”
The mobilization to fight World War II, she said, is the closest parallel in recent history to the scale and urgency of effort needed, she said: “Pull every lever, have all hands on deck, spend without limit to save as much life as possible.”
The young activists at City Hall said they had all been through a phase of “climate despair,” but that what gave them hope was, as Ms. Edgar put it, “deciding to push for change, and urge people with power to make that same decision.”

News media, too, are being pushed to use urgent language
Ms. Sommers, a Middlebury College student, was one of 70 people arrested outside The New York Times last month in a protest calling for the newspaper to use the phrases “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” rather than “climate change.”
The Guardian recently announced that it would adopt those terms. A Times spokeswoman said the paper devotes more resources to covering climate than any national publication.
“We should call it an emergency because that’s what it is,” Ms. Sommers said. “Tell the truth.”

Links

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative