NSW's Bullish Coal Export Plan Defies The Global Market Realities

Sydney Morning Herald - Simon Nicholas

Simon Nicholas is an energy analyst at the Institute of Energy, Economics and Financial Analysis, which advocates for a sustainable economy.

The NSW government’s new strategic statement on coal exploration and mining has been unveiled, just as COVID-19 accelerates the energy transition away from fossil fuels.

The statement optimistically maintains that global demand for thermal coal will only drop by one-tenth by 2050.

Furthermore, the government is expecting that Australian thermal coal exports will be protected from falling shipments to Japan, China and South Korea by rising demand from India.

The Berejiklian government sees a bright future for the coal export market.

This view contrasts strongly with that of India’s Central Electricity Authority and the Indian government. The CEA projects that renewable energy will make up 51 per cent of total generation capacity by 2030, by which time coal-fired power will have reduced to 33 per cent. And the Indian government clearly wants that fuelled by domestic coal, not imported.

Significantly reduced demand for coal amid the COVID-19 economic downturn has mobilised the Indian government to step up its efforts to reduce dependence on thermal coal imports.

This move to protect Indian coal mining workers has apparently come straight from the top – Prime Minister Narendra Modi – and does not appear to bode well for the future of Adani’s Carmichael mine here in Australia. State-owned Coal India, the world’s largest coal miner, has been mandated by the government to replace at least 100 million tonnes of coal imports in fiscal year 2020-21.

India has tried this before, but this time may well be different. As is happening globally, power demand in India has declined dramatically since the start of its COVID-19 lockdown and this drop has been worn by its coal-fired power stations. India is not a major destination for NSW thermal coal and it’s starting to look increasingly likely that it never will be.

And it’s not only nations that are beginning to turn away from seaborne thermal coal. In an unfortunate piece of timing for the NSW government, the unveiling of its statement on coal came the day after it was reported that major miner BHP has hired investment bank JP Morgan to sell its last Australian thermal coal mine in the Hunter Valley.

BHP doesn’t seem to see much of a future for thermal coal amid growing pressure on fossil fuel exposure from shareholders and regulators. Other major global mining companies are making their move. Anglo American has said it wants to divest its thermal coal mines in South Africa while South32 is in the process of selling its mines. Rio Tinto has already exited all coal mining already.

COVID-19 now appears to be accelerating the rate at which some companies transition from fossil fuels including coal. This has been evidenced most starkly by oil and gas producer BP’s decision to write off  $US17.5bn ($25.5 billion) of assets on the assumption that COVID-19 will accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels.

Similarly, Italy’s Enel – one of the largest operators of coal-fired power plants in Europe – is planning to accelerate the closure of its coal-generation assets in the expectation that the worsening economics of coal power will persist beyond the pandemic.

Companies that mine and consume coal are also having increasing difficulty caused by a reluctance by banks and insurers to finance the industry. Recent additions to the list of financiers leaving thermal coal behind include major Japanese banks such as Mizuho and Sumitomo-Mitsui. Japan is Australia’s largest thermal coal export destination and the moves by its major banks should come as a warning sign to Australian governments and coal exporters.

Meanwhile, in May the South Korean government unveiled a US$62 billion “New Deal” designed to refocus its post-coronavirus economy. The plan is based on two pillars – a “Digital New Deal” and a “Green New Deal” with the latter intended to move the nation away from coal-fired power and towards renewable energy.

South Korea was Australia’s third-largest thermal coal export destination in 2019 and its approach to post-coronavirus economic recovery is in stark contrast to the NSW government’s attitude that the coal industry will have a key role in any economic bounce-back after the pandemic.

The strategic statement on coal comes only one day after it was revealed that NSW’s first renewable energy zone has received a “phenomenal” response, attracting registrations of interest for 27 gigawatts of proposals valued at $A38 billion.

If that wasn’t enough to make the direction of global power markets clear, the NSW government doesn’t have to look much further afield. Last week the South Australian government announced a new energy plan to ensure the state reaches net 100 per cent renewable energy by 2030.

COVID-19 isn’t slowing the energy technology transition away from fossil fuels – if anything it is accelerating it. Acceptance of this inevitability in Australia will lead to appropriate post-coronavirus energy investment, which will both lower power prices and support jobs. A refusal to do so, and continued focus on industries of the past, cannot provide the recovery that Australian workers are going to need.

Links

• State government banking on coal exports as world chases Paris targets
• Government renewable energy investment program swamped by support
• Nation's top coal plant cuts output amid COVID-19, renewables pressure
• The surprising way renewables can help farmers cope
• Town in the Arctic Circle records temperature as hot as Florida

Climate Explained: What Earth Would Be Like If We Hadn’t Pumped Greenhouse Gases Into The Atmosphere

The Conversation - Laura Revell

OSORIOartist/Shutterstock

Laura Revell is Senior Lecturer in Environmental Physics, University of Canterbury

Earth’s atmosphere is a remarkably thin layer of gases that sustain life.

The diameter of Earth is 12,742km and the atmosphere is about 100km thick. If you took a model globe and wrapped it up, a single sheet of tissue paper would represent the thickness of the atmosphere.

The gases that make up Earth’s atmosphere are mostly nitrogen and oxygen, and small quantities of trace gases such as argon, neon, helium, the protective ozone layer and various greenhouse gases – so named because they trap heat emitted by Earth.

The most abundant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere is water vapour - and it is this gas that provides the natural greenhouse effect. Without this and the naturally occurring quantities of other greenhouse gases, Earth would be about 33℃ colder and uninhabitable to life as we know it.

Changing Earth’s atmosphere

Since pre-industrial times, human activities have led to the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen from about 280 parts per million (ppm) before the first industrial revolution some 250 years ago, to a new high since records began of just over 417ppm. As a result of continued increases, the global average temperature has climbed by just over 1℃ since pre-industrial times.

While these long-lived greenhouse gases have raised Earth’s average surface temperature, human activities have altered atmospheric composition in other ways as well. Particulate matter in the atmosphere, such as soot and dust, can cause health problems and degrades air quality in many industrialised and urban regions.

Particulate matter can partially offset greenhouse gas warming, but its climate effects depend on its composition and geographical distribution. Climate in the southern hemisphere has also been affected by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which led to the development of the Antarctic ozone hole.

If people had not altered the composition of the atmosphere at all through emitting greenhouse gases, particulate matter and ozone-destroying CFCs, we would expect the global average temperature today to be similar to the pre-industrial period – although some short-term variation associated with the Sun, volcanic eruptions and internal variability would still have occurred.

In a world that is about 1℃ warmer than during pre-industrial times, New Zealand is already facing the environmental and economic costs associated with climate change. The former head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Christiana Figueres, argues that with trillions of dollars being spent around the world in economic stimulus packages following the COVID-19 pandemic, we need strong commitments to a low-carbon future if the world is to limit warming to 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels.

What needs to happen

Greenhouse gases have long lifetimes – about a decade for methane and hundreds to thousands of years for carbon dioxide. We will need to reduce emissions aggressively over a sustained period, until their abundance in the atmosphere starts to decline.

When New Zealand entered the Level 4 coronavirus lockdown in March 2020, almost two weeks passed (the incubation period of the virus) before the number of new cases started to decline. Waiting for atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to decrease, even while we reduce emissions, will be similar, except we’ll be waiting for decades.

It is very unlikely that we could ever reduce greenhouse gas concentrations to the point that it becomes dangerous for life as we know it. Doing so would involve overcoming the natural greenhouse effect.

Recent research into greenhouse gas emission scenarios provides guidance on what will need to happen to stabilise Earth’s temperature at 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels. A rapid transition away from fossil fuels toward low-carbon energy is imperative; some form of carbon dioxide capture to remove it from the atmosphere may also be necessary.

Short-term and scattered climate policy will not be sufficient to support the transitions we need, and achieving 1.5℃ will not be possible as long as global inequalities remain high.

Links

• Climate explained: why carbon dioxide has such outsized influence on Earth's climate
• What is a pre-industrial climate and why does it matter?
• Climate explained: how the climate impact of beef compares with plant-based alternatives
• Climate explained: why higher carbon dioxide levels aren’t good news, even if some plants grow faster
• Climate explained: why switching to electric transport makes sense even if electricity is not fully renewable
• Climate explained: how white roofs help to reflect the sun’s heat
• Climate explained: which countries are likely to meet their Paris Agreement targets
• Climate explained: seven reasons to be wary of waste-to-energy proposals
• Climate explained: how climate change will affect food production and security
• Climate explained: how much does flying contribute to climate change?
• Climate explained: why coastal floods are becoming more frequent as seas rise
• Climate explained: how growth in population and consumption drives planetary change
• Climate explained: why Mars is cold despite an atmosphere of mostly carbon dioxide
• Climate explained: how volcanoes influence climate and how their emissions compare to what we produce
• Climate explained: the environmental footprint of electric versus fossil cars
• Climate explained: why some people still think climate change isn’t real
• Climate explained: what each of us can do to reduce our carbon footprint
• Climate explained: why don’t we have electric aircraft?
• Climate explained: Why are climate change skeptics often right-wing conservatives?
• Climate explained: how much of climate change is natural? How much is man-made?
• Climate explained: why we won’t be heading into an ice age any time soon
• Climate explained: how different crops or trees help strip carbon dioxide from the air
• Climate explained: why carbon dioxide has such outsized influence on Earth’s climate
• Climate explained: regenerative farming can help grow food with less impact
• Climate explained: why your backyard lawn doesn’t help reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
• Climate explained: how emissions trading schemes work and they can help us shift to a zero carbon future
• Climate explained: why we need to cut emissions as well as prepare for impacts
• Climate explained: why plants don’t simply grow faster with more carbon dioxide in air
• Climate explained: will we be less healthy because of climate change?

(AU) Australia’s Shifting Mood On Climate Change

The Lowy Institute - Bec Strating

This year’s intense bushfires seemed like the event that would finally move climate policy. Then came Covid-19.

A dust storm on a drought-stricken Australian sheep paddock (Klae Mcguinness/Getty Images)

At the beginning of 2020, Australia’s national conversation was dominated by the catastrophic bushfires raging throughout the country.

The fires killed at least 34 people, burned through more than 11 million hectares and destroyed nearly 6000 buildings.

In March, the first scientific assessment of the role of climate change found that global warming increased the risk of hot dry weather, raising the risk of bushfires by at least 30%.

Some analysts – myself included – wondered whether the particularly intense bushfire season might present the kind of national crisis that Australia needs to shake it from its climate malaise. The Liberal-National Coalition government found its credibility and authority under challenge as it struggled to craft a coherent and effective response to the fires.

Australians are more likely to view environmental threats as more critical than “traditional” security issues such as military conflict between great powers and foreign interference in Australian politics.

Then came the novel coronavirus. The federal government’s handling of the pandemic saw Prime Minister Scott Morrison regain his lead as preferred prime minister ahead of Labor leader Anthony Albanese, and the new national and global emergency turned Australia’s attention away from the bushfires.

The 2020 Lowy Poll, which was conducted just as states began going into lockdown, highlights the ways in which environmental issues have been hijacked by Covid-19 and its global economic implications, at least in the short term.

The poll results highlight that environmental threats continue to concern Australians. Three of the top five critical threats to Australia’s vital interests related to the environment, and – consistent with the past five years of Lowy polling – 9 out of 10 participants accepted the need for Australians to act on climate change. At the top of the list of perceived critical threats was drought and water shortages, with 3 of 4 people (77%).



Yet, the coronavirus and other potential epidemics (76%) and a severe downturn in the global economy (71%) were ranked more highly as critical threats than environmental disasters such as bushfires and floods (67%). In the 2019 Lowy Poll, only 51% of respondents saw global economic downturn as a cause for concern, and pandemics did not even feature.

The results again shed light on one of the biggest conundrums for modern Australian governments: how to “act” on climate change without incurring significant costs. Importantly, Covid-19 appears to have played a role here, as the percentage of people who viewed global warming as a serious and pressing problem, and that steps should be taken even if it involves significant costs, fell five points from 2019 to 56% in 2020.

While this is still 20 points higher than it was in 2012, what was a favourable trend towards substantial climate action is now in retreat. The numbers of people who want global change addressed gradually increased from 28% to 34%, while people who argue that no economic costs should be born remained stagnant at 10%.



There is a gap between those worried about environmental security threats and those concerned about climate change specifically. Climate change only ranked the fifth highest (59%) critical threat to Australia’s vital interests, compared with 77% for drought and water shortages – a difference of nearly 20%. This suggests that a segment of the Australian community concerned about environmental security issues do not view climate change as a major contributor to drought, water shortages and environmental disasters such as bushfires and floods.

When next summer approaches, bushfires will be back on the minds of people, particularly those who live in susceptible landscapes – although the poll finds only 50% of Australia’s regional and remote population saw global warming as a serious and pressing problem, reflecting a rural/urban divide in political attitudes.

There were also some surprising results regarding climate change action and international reputation. While only 19% of respondents approved of the Trump administration withdrawing the US from international climate change agreements, less than half of respondents saw Australia’s lacklustre climate policies as having an adverse effect on its global reputation. Curiously, a decent proportion considered Australia’s reputation to be positively enhanced by its responses to climate change, despite considerable evidence to the contrary.



The prioritisation of Covid-19 as a pressing security issue may be temporary. In mid-April, an Essential Report poll found 45% of surveyed respondents were “very concerned” about Covid-19, which two months later had dropped to only 28%.

The silver lining is that Australians are more likely to view environmental threats as more critical than “traditional” security issues such as military conflict between great powers and foreign interference in Australian politics.

These public attitudes are not adequately reflected in dominant debates and discussions about Australian security among elite government and defence circles. For example, despite public narratives over the past year highlighting deepening suspicions of the influence of People’s Republic of China in Australia, this has not necessarily resonated with the electorate.

The numbers of surveyed participants who viewed “foreign interference in Australian politics” as a critical threat dropped seven points from last year to 42%, considerably lower than “non-traditional” environmental security threats.

Links

• Why should anyone trust Australia when it comes to climate change?
• Climate change boosted Australia bushfire risk by at least 30%
• PM accused of 'trashing' Australia's reputation by spruiking coal ahead of UN summit
• Australian bushfires: how the Morrison government failed to heed warnings of catastrophe
• (AU) Australia’s Devotion To Coal Has Come At A Huge Cost. We Need The Government To Change Course, Urgently
• Study: Climate Change Crisis Requires Less Growth-Oriented Global Economy
• (AU) We've Been Talking Climate Change Action For 30 Years. Will Covid-19 Finally Jolt Us Into Gear?
• Climate Worst-Case Scenarios May Not Go Far Enough, Cloud Data Shows

(NSW) State Government Banking On Coal Exports As World Chases Paris Targets

Sydney Morning Herald - Nick O'Malley | Peter Hannam

The (NSW) state government is banking on global coal demand defying the Paris climate goals of slashing carbon emissions, predicting instead only a marginal cut in consumption of the fossil fuel by mid-century.

According to the government's new Strategic Statement on Coal Exploration and Mining, to be released on Wednesday, the appetite for thermal coal burnt in power stations will only ease about one-tenth from just over 1 billion tonnes a year to about 900 million by 2050.

John Barilaro, at a solar farm near Dubbo on Tuesday, will be in the Hunter Valley on Wednesday to unveil the state's coal strategy. Credit: Janie Barrett

The modest decline is well short of the Paris goal of developed nations reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 and also out of line with NSW's own net-zero target by then.

Even so, the government forecasts "significant disruptions" for NSW communities reliant on thermal coal exports, the report states.

It plans to release maps clearly outlining where coal exploration and expansion will be allowed to continue and where it will be banned in order to give more certainty to communities and mining interests.

Deputy Premier and resources minister John Barilaro said the resilience of the coal industry has "never been more important" given the state's need to bounce back from drought, bushfires and now the COVID-19 crisis.

"We are determined to set a clear and consistent policy framework that supports investment certainty in NSW as the coal sector responds to global demand," he said.

To reduce emissions from coal mining and "support responsible coal production", the government would spend $50 million on new infrastructure projects and community programs to mining-affected towns under the Resources for Regions program, he said.

The Mount Piper power plant, near Lithgow, could be among the last coal plants in eastern Australia. It is scheduled to close in 2043. Credit: Janie Barrett

Coal was the single-largest export for NSW last year, amounting to $23.1 billion, or about 3 per cent of global coal consumption. Of NSW's exports, more than 80 per cent was thermal and the rest coking coal used to make steel.

Projections set out in the report indicate that demand for seaborne coal exports in 2050 will be slightly less than today, though demand will remain significant.

A rise in demand for coal from India in particular would counter expected falls in shipments to major markets such as China, Japan and South Korea. South-east Asian imports are predicted to rise and then plateau.

According to the strategy document, use of thermal coal in NSW itself will decline over coming decades as ageing coal-fired power plants are closed and replaced with cleaner power technologies.

The NSW government forecasts no early sunset for coal exports. Credit: Nic Walker

The release of the coal report comes a day after Mr Barilaro joined Energy and Environment Minister Matt Kean to trumpet the success of the state's first renewable energy zone. The region around Dubbo attracted investment funds the equivalent of nine times the target of 3000 megawatts, prompting Mr Kean to consider expanding the pilot scheme's size.

Over the medium term the government plans to support the mining industry to shift its focus from thermal coal to mining for metals used in high-tech industries such as copper, cobalt and rare earths, the report says.

But it acknowledges that as these metals and minerals tend to be found in the state's central and far west regions rather than in existing coal-mining heartlands, there will be "significant disruption for coal-reliant communities."

In a foreword to the plan Mr Barilaro writes that the government expects a shift away from coal in the medium term, but "during the transition, the NSW Government will continue to support the responsible development of our abundant, high-quality coal resources for the benefit of the state".

Global coal demand won't fall fast enough to meet mid-century zero-emissions goals for NSW, if the government's forecasts are correct. Credit: Louie Douvis

The NSW government prediction of coal demand is broadly in line with that of the International Energy Agency, but it is at odds with the cuts in coal use that scientists say the world will need to adopt if we are to achieve the goal of keeping global warming beneath 1.5 degrees.

In its most recent global energy analysis the IEA warned that though coal demand had decreased due to COVID-19 and climate action by some governments, new plants under construction around the world "risks increasing the locked-in emissions from coal-fired power plants that already threaten to put a sustainable energy pathway out of reach".

In recent months major institutional investors have begun abandoning their stakes in thermal coal companies due to the impact coal has on the climate, compounding pressure on businesses already facing a slump in global thermal coal prices.

Links

• Strategic statement on coal exploration and mining in NSW
• NSW Government backs coal to lead the state into post COVID-19 recovery, but excludes some areas
• Map of areas in NSW coal regions available and excluded from future coal exploration and mining
• Wambo mine temporarily closed as demand for thermal coal wanes
• Producers hit as thermal coal spot price tumbles 25 per cent
• World's biggest investment firm ditches coal in 'fundamental reshaping of finance'
• Europe's biggest economy is quitting coal, so far without sacking a single worker
• The future of coal has already been decided in boardrooms around the globe
• 'Exponential growth' in business climate action as more investors abandon coal

Arctic Circle Sees 'Highest-Ever' Recorded Temperatures

BBC

Wildfires have been made more severe by high temperatures and strong winds in the Arctic. Yevgeny Sofroneyev

Temperatures in the Arctic Circle are likely to have hit an all-time record on Saturday, reaching a scorching 38C (100F) in Verkhoyansk, a Siberian town.

The record still needs to be verified, but it appears to have been 18C higher than the average maximum daily temperature in June.

Hot summer weather is not uncommon in the Arctic Circle, but recent months have seen abnormally high temperatures.

The Arctic is believed to be warming twice as fast as the global average.

Verkhoyansk, home to about 1,300 people, sits just inside the Arctic Circle, in remote Siberia. It has an extreme climate with temperatures plunging in January to an average maximum of -42C and then surging in June to 20C.

But a persistent heatwave this year in the Arctic Circle has worried meteorologists. In March, April and May, the Copernicus Climate Change service reported that the average temperature was around 10C above normal.

Temperatures in the Arctic Circle hit record levels

Source: BBC Weather

Earlier in June, parts of Siberia recorded 30C, while in May, Khatanga in Russia - situated in the Arctic Circle at 72 degrees north - set a new May temperature record of 25.4C.

"Year-on-year temperature records are being broken around the world, but the Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else on Earth," said Dr Dann Mitchell, associate professor in atmospheric science at the University of Bristol. "So it is unsurprising to see records being broken in this region. We will see more of this in the near future."

---

Is this evidence of climate change?
Analysis by Simon King, BBC Weather meteorologist

Heatwaves in the Arctic aren't unusual. Weather patterns around the world can align in such a way that hot air is transported quite far northward and colder air from the poles southward.

Over the last few months a large area of high pressure in eastern Russia has been dominant. This has led to southerly winds bringing warmer air from near the tropics, leading to higher than average temperatures.

However, the persistence of this weather pattern has led to a longevity and scale of heat that is worrying. This is consistent with what climatologists believe will happen in the Arctic with climate change.

Most scientists agree that over the past 30 years, the Arctic has warmed at a rate of twice the global average.

The graphic below shows that across the globe, through the period 1960-2019, average air temperature has generally increased by around 1C.

However, as you head closer to the North Pole - latitude 90° - the reds become darker. This shows how the temperature has increased here more than anywhere else - by around 4C.

Why should we be worried about warming in the Arctic?

Warming in the Arctic is leading to the thawing of once permanently frozen permafrost below ground.

This is alarming scientists because as permafrost thaws, carbon dioxide and methane previously locked up below ground is released.

These greenhouse gases can cause further warming, and further thawing of the permafrost, in a vicious cycle known as positive feedback.

The higher temperatures also cause land ice in the Arctic to melt at a faster rate, leading to greater run-off into the ocean where it contributes to sea-level rise.

The BBC's Steve Rosenberg travels to the forest to see how Russians are tackling the wildfires

There is also an element of positive feedback here, says BBC Weather, because the loss of highly reflective white ice means that the ground and sea absorb more heat. This leads to more warming.

The impact of wildfires are also a consideration. Last summer, they ravaged parts of the Arctic. Although they are common in summer, high temperatures and strong winds made them unusually severe.

They typically start in early May before peaking in July and August but by late April this year they were already ten times bigger in the Krasnoyarsk region of Siberia compared to the same time last year, Russia's emergencies minister said.

---

Hottest year ever?

Analysis by Justin Rowlatt, Chief Environment Correspondent

Well, 2020 is certainly shaping up to be a contender.

The Met Office, the UK's national weather service, reckons there's a 50:50 chance it'll be the hottest year ever recorded.

Much of northern Europe and Asia has had an exceptionally mild spring and early summer with temperatures 10C higher than normal in some areas.

The hottest year to date is 2016. It is still a nose ahead, but the margins are "very close".

Of course, this should come as no surprise.

"We've upset the energy balance of the entire planet," cautions Prof Chris Rapley of University College London. Year after year we see temperature records being broken, the eminent climate scientist says.

"This is a warning message from the Earth itself," he tells me. "We ignore it at our peril."

Links

• The Arctic is on fire - how bad is it?
• Temperatures in an Arctic Siberian town hit 100 degrees, a new high
• How the Arctic Circle just eclipsed 100 degrees'
• Off-the-charts warm': Siberian town hits 100 degrees
• Temperature in One of the World’s Coldest Towns Registers at 100 Degrees
• The other new normal: A record 38C and forest fires in the Arctic

Climate Change: Sport Heading For A Fall As Temperatures Rise

BBC News - Matt McGrath

Football in England at all levels is expected to experience more flooding in the future. Getty Images

Global sport faces major disruption from climate change in coming decades, according to a new analysis.

By 2050, it's estimated that almost one in four English football league grounds can expect flooding every year.

But tennis, rugby, athletics and winter sports will also face serious challenges from the impacts of rising temperatures, the author says.

The study finds that sports leaders are, in the main, failing to address the issue seriously.

While the Covid-19 pandemic has disrupted sports as much as any other aspect of social life, many experts believe that this is just a dress rehearsal for the long-term impacts on sport of a world that's way too hot.

Extreme weather events, related to rising temperatures, have already disrupted some of the world's most high-profile sports in recent years.

Storm Desmond flooded Carlisle's ground in 2015, with the club forced from the stadium for seven weeks. Getty Images

A typhoon, which wreaked havoc in Japan last year, also affected fixtures at the Rugby Union World being held there.

Smoke from bush fires stopped play at the Australian Tennis Open at the start of this year.

These and many other instances are a foretaste of the future, according to this new study compiled by academic and author David Goldblatt.

As football slowly recovers from the coronavirus crisis, his analysis shows that 23 of 92 English football league clubs will face partial or total annual flooding of their stadiums by 2050.

In the current Premier League, the home grounds of Southampton, Norwich, Chelsea and West Ham face a similar threat.

Rugby was disrupted by extreme weather during the world cup in Japan. Getty Images

Cricket faces huge challenges globally as temperatures rise in places like India, Australia and the West Indies.

Venues in Adelaide and Perth will see a 60% increase in days with temperatures over 40C over the next decade.

In golf, one in three British Open courses will be damaged by rising sea-levels, the report says.

Winter sports also face an uncertain future.

Researchers say that of the 19 venues that have already hosted the Winter Olympics, just 10 will be able to hold them by 2050

Players were affected by smoke from bush fires in this year's Australian Open tennis. Getty Images

But as well as showing the likely impacts of climate change on sports, the new study also looks at the contribution that the sporting industry makes to carbon emissions.

The author says that the scale of CO2 is equivalent to a country like Bolivia at the low end but as large as a country like Spain on the high end.

The estimations are likely an underestimate as they exclude the global sportswear and sports broadcasting industries, who have impacts on carbon that are difficult to calculate.

Whatever the size of its carbon footprint, the cultural significance of sport gives it a tremendous platform to effect change, says the author.

"Sport may be just big enough to register, in terms of carbon emissions, as a small nation state, or a single megacity, but its own efforts are just a fraction of a percentage point of the world total," said David Goldblatt.

"Making a carbon zero world the common sense priority of the sports world would make a huge contribution to making it the common sense priority of all politics," he said.

While some organisations including the International Olympic Committee and FIFA have signed up to a UN action plan to make sport carbon neutral by 2050, the majority of sports authorities have not.

The International Cricket Council is one of those who have not signed up.

The Winter Olympics have already experienced snow shortages. Getty Images

Among winter sports, only the ice hockey and skiing federations have joined, "which makes one wonder what the people in charge of luge and bobsleigh think they are going to be sliding on in the future," the report waspishly notes.

The report was commissioned by the Rapid Transition Alliance, a international group of academics and campaigners who argue for a faster response to climate change.

"A first step would be to bring an end to sponsorship from fossil fuel companies and products promoting fossil fuel intensive lifestyles," said Andrew Simms from the group.

"If players also speak out and say they believe clean air and a stable climate matter, millions more will see the possibilities for change. It will not only send a message of hope for the wider world, but it will help to guarantee a planet that is safe for sport."

Links

• Report: Playing Against The Clock: Global sport, the climate emergency and the case for rapid change
• Sport & Climate Impacts:How much heat can sport handle? (pdf)
• Just not cricket – how climate change will make sport more risky
• The sporting opponent that could beat every single athlete
• Open venues could disappear - new report
• How green are Premier League clubs?
• Formula 1 aims to become carbon neutral
• Rapid Transition Alliance

Bangladesh Coal Plants Threaten World’s Largest Mangrove Forest

Human Rights Watch - Meenakshi Ganguly

Important Coastal Barrier at Risk from Increased Pollution

The Bangladesh government threatens to destroy life-saving forests by building coal-fired power plants. Coal fired plants are a major contributor to the greenhouse gas emissions that fuel climate change. © Sultan Mahmud Mukut / SOPA Images/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images)

Cyclone Amphan, the most powerful to strike in the Bay of Bengal in 20 years, made landfall on the India-Bangladesh coast last month. Amphan ripped off roofs, washed away homes, and flooded farms.

Crucially, Bangladesh was able to mitigate impact and save lives because of its robust emergency response system with early warnings and mass-evacuations.

But coastal communities were also protected by Bangladesh’s natural storm shield: the Sundarbans. A protected World Heritage site, this mangrove forest holds land together with its roots as the tides rise. As climate change increases the intensity of extreme weather events like Amphan, the Sundarbans are at risk when they’re needed most.

But the Bangladesh government threatens to destroy these life-saving forests by building coal-fired power plants that could subject them, and the nearly 2.5 million people who depend on them for their livelihoods, to harmful pollution.

And while the mangroves slow climate change by soaking up carbon, coal-fired plants contribute greenhouse gas emissions that fuel global warming.

Of particular concern is the proposed Rampal Thermal Power Plant, just north of the Sundarbans.

Scientists and activists have repeatedly voiced concerns that the plant could spell disaster for the world’s largest mangrove forest. But the government has fought calls to cancel or relocate the project, using tear gas and rubber bullets against protestors and insisting, contrary to scientific evidence, that the plant will do no harm.

Meanwhile, international efforts to protect the Sundarbans have been stymied. A recommendation by the International Union for Conservation of Nature to add the Sundarbans to the list of World Heritage Sites in Danger was rejected by UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee, which is chaired by China.

The Chinese, Bosnian, and Cuban delegations even passed an amendment erasing mention of the Rampal power plant and two joint Bangladesh-China coal-fired power plants from the decision.

Climate change is a very real, immediate threat to the nearly 165 million people in Bangladesh where a one-meter sea level rise could submerge almost 20 percent of the country and displace millions.

Implementing rights-respecting climate policies that are consistent with the best available science is part of the government’s duty to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights.

Bangladesh has been a global leader in climate change adaptation and accordingly should act swiftly to protect the mangroves. If not, it risks making the climate crisis worse while facing even more powerful cyclones without the country’s natural defense system.

Links

• Cyclone Amphan makes landfall across Sundarbans World Heritage properties
• Bangladesh sticks with coal power plant project despite major backlash
• Environmental impact of coal based power plant of Rampal on the Sundarbans (world largest mangrove forest) and surrounding areas
• UNESCO: The Sundarbans mangrove forest
• Rampal power plant: A project of deception and mass destruction
• New study finds mangroves may store way more carbon than we thought