Net-Zero Carbon Emissions Won’t Be Sustainable If Social Inequalities Aren’t Addressed

The Conversation -  Simone Abram | Tom Pegram

Willy Barton/Shutterstock

Authors Simone Abram is Professor, Department of Anthropology and Co-Director of Durham Energy Institute, Durham University Tom Pegram is Associate Professor in Global Governance and Deputy Director of the Global Governance Institute, University College London

With COP26, the UN’s climate change conference, on the horizon next year in Glasgow, all eyes are on securing the decarbonisation of the global economy. What this will mean and how it will be achieved will be hotly debated before, during and after the conference.

Thanks to COVID-19, the world has experienced an extraordinary simulation of what abrupt decarbonisation might look like. At least in relation to transport, lockdown has revealed the enormous improvements in air quality and wildlife habitats, which result from curtailing fossil-fuelled transport.

But, at the same time, hastily implemented lockdown measures, including enforced confinement, have worsened inequalities that affect quality of life, access to food, education, work and mental health.

Growing public protests against pandemic restrictions, including road closures to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists, have also mirrored the febrile and often polarising public debate around carbon-mitigation policies.

While evidence indicates that some of these anti-lockdown protests are funded by shadowy conservative groups also pushing climate denial, other protests have been driven by legitimate grievances. Both highlight the importance of designing policies that are equitable and improve people’s lives – as well as explaining those policies to citizens.

Global and local inequalities

These recent events underscore how any transition to a net-zero society must take into account social conditions. Measures that worsen social inequalities and injustices are intolerable, causing serious harm, and are likely to provoke significant popular resistance – ultimately jeopardising any sustained climate action.

COP discussions have rightly focused on the difficult task of striking the right balance of duties between countries, especially between wealthy countries and emerging economies that did not benefit from the era of unrestricted industrialisation. But it is important to remember that the effects of climate change and mitigation are also unequal within countries. Intersecting differences, such as those related to gender, ethnicity, class, age, ability and more, affect the impact of policy interventions, as we have seen throughout the pandemic.

In the UK, research shows that those who lack access to affordable energy (living in poorly insulated housing, for example) are also more likely to live in areas with worse air pollution from traffic and industry.

In our COP26 briefing paper Just Transition: Pathways to Socially Inclusive Decarbonisation, we flag the important social justice concerns that a transition to a post-carbon economy must address.

Seven key messages

1. The transition to net-zero will not be sustainable or credible if it creates or worsens social inequalities. A social justice approach can facilitate the transition globally.

2. Costs and benefits of climate policies and the ability to shape such policy is not extended equally to those who suffer the greatest costs. Inclusion is vital to ensure that policy is socially equitable.

3. Job creation does not guarantee just outcomes. It must take into account what jobs are created, how secure they are, who has access to them and the skills and education required.

4. Just transitions will look very different in developing countries. They will need additional support to develop, plan and implement the necessary policies.

5. A backlash is likely if the transition is not perceived to be just. Policymakers need to encourage widespread public debate and involvement to ensure that everyone gets on board.

6. A range of policy tools exist to address just transition concerns. These include taking a holistic approach to policies; addressing social and environmental aspects of economic policy; making sure that interventions are adapted to local contexts and are responsive to change; building democratic engagement platforms, such as citizen assemblies; and open and transparent communication on the political and ethical choices involved in decarbonisation.

7. Governments should also incorporate just transition provisions into their nationally determined contributions (national targets to meeting the Paris Agreement goals) and include opportunities to review progress and learn from one another.

Key investors are now beginning to move out of fossil fuels, which sends an important message about reducing carbon emissions. Igor Hotinsky/Shutterstock

What needs to be done

Without a robust bedrock of public support, radical measures will prove difficult to implement. The early part of lockdown showed that collective responsibility is possible, and that solidarity can be generated as long as it is not undermined by those in charge.

Shoring up badly eroded trust in public authority at local, national and global levels is vital. Basic democratic principles suggest that including a range of voices in making policy means more diverse concerns are reflected.

Besides individuals making changes, it’s clear that business and investors have a key role to play in achieving net zero. Although painfully slow, there are signs that fossil fuel companies are changing their strategies. Key investors are beginning to move out of fossil fuels following a sea change among high-profile industry leaders such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Brunel pension fund, which both withdrew investments in fossil fuels.

There is a long way to go. But changes in the way that energy futures (financial instruments in which the underlying asset is based on energy products such as oil, natural gas, and electricity) are defined – according to speed of transformation to net zero rather than by rate of economic growth – show that major industrial narratives are changing.

It will also be vital that businesses account for their potential impact on social inclusion and inequalities, an agenda which is gaining ground in the influential voluntary environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards.

We know that only unprecedented levels of collective action will be enough to limit global warming to 2°C. Decarbonisation of the economy is daunting but essential. Emphasis on a fair transition to net-zero could rally public support for the dramatic changes to come, promote social solidarity and mobilise communities to take action.

As our COP briefing details, there already exists a broad set of policy tools and strategies to move us quickly in the direction of an integrated, whole-economy approach to an inclusive, just transition. Policymakers must prioritise measures that promote social and environmental justice, strengthening the political trust on which achieving our net-zero goal depends.

Links

• Just Transition: Pathways to Socially Inclusive Decarbonisation (pdf)
• Poor most exposed to air pollution caused by rich, study finds
• Implementing Just Transition After COP24 (pdf)
• Paris Agreement: essential elements
• 15% of global Covid deaths may be attributed to air pollution
• UK Future Energy Scenarios (pdf)
• Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Criteria

On Climate Change, We’re Entirely Out Of Margin

The New Yorker - Bill McKibben

The U.S. government and the world have done far too little on climate change, and so now we must move far faster than is comfortable or convenient. Photograph by Manan Vatsyayana / AFP / Getty

Author Bill McKibben is a founder of the grassroots climate campaign 350.org and a contributing writer to The New Yorker. He writes The Climate Crisis, The New Yorker's newsletter on the environment.

In 1959, when humans began measuring the carbon-dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, there was still some margin.

That first instrument, set up on the side of Hawaii’s Mauna Loa volcano, showed that the air contained about three hundred and fifteen parts per million of CO₂, up from two hundred and eighty p.p.m. before the Industrial Revolution. Worrisome, but not yet critical. 

In 1988, when the NASA scientist James Hansen first alerted the public to the climate crisis, that number had grown to three hundred and fifty p.p.m., which we’ve since learned is about the upper safe limit. Even then, though, we had a little margin, at least of time: the full effects of the heating had not yet begun to manifest in ways that altered our lives. If we’d acted swiftly, we could have limited the damage dramatically.

We didn’t, of course, and we have poured more carbon into the atmosphere since 1988 than in all the years before. The atmospheric concentration of CO₂ has topped four hundred and fifteen p.p.m.—that’s much too high, something that we know from a thousand indicators. Last week came the news that the Arctic is stubbornly refusing to refreeze at its normal rate as the long northern night descends. The second biggest fire in Colorado history has closed Rocky Mountain National Park. California is white-knuckling its way through yet another siege of high winds in a record fire season that refuses to end. Tropical Storm Zeta formed in the Gulf of Mexico—and the next big storm will take us deeper into the Greek alphabet than we’ve ever gone before. And that’s just in the one per cent of the planet’s surface that’s covered by the continental United States. 

It’s a lot worse in a lot of other places, because they lack the money that keeps us fairly resilient. In Vietnam this week, rainfall described as “extraordinarily out of the normal”—so heavy that “it far exceeded the government’s midrange predictions of how climate change might increase precipitation in central Vietnam by the end of this century”—has left more than a hundred people dead. “Everywhere we look, homes, roads, and infrastructure have been submerged,” the head of Vietnam’s Red Cross said.

We are out of space in the atmosphere, and we are out of time on the clock. The U.S. government, and the world, have done far too little on climate change, and so now we must move far faster than is comfortable or convenient. Plenty of pundits treated it as a “gaffe” when, in the last Presidential debate, Joe Biden said that we would need to “transition” away from oil. But that’s not a gaffe; it’s just the mildest sort of truth-telling. Because we’ve wasted so much time, that transition has to be sharp, and it has to be global. We are capable of doing it—the rapid fall in the price of renewable energy means that, if we wanted to go all out, we could make rapid progress. But this is not an offer that will last forever; indeed, it won’t last four more years.

In the famous story of the king who offered a reward to one of his advisers, the man asked for a single grain of wheat on the first square of a chessboard, and two on the next square, and four on the next, and, by the last doubling, he was due more wheat than would ever be grown on the planet. The climate is not changing exponentially—the accelerating linear growth in heating is bad enough—but the principle is the same. Long before you expect it, you run out of room. 

The entire climate debate has unfurled in real, living time—I was born the year after that first monitor went up on Mauna Loa. We think we always have time and space to change, but in this case we do not. If November 3rd doesn’t mark the start of a mighty effort at transformation, subsequent November Tuesdays will be less important, not more—our leverage will shrink, our chance at really affecting the outcome will diminish. This is it. Climate change “is the No. 1 issue facing humanity, and it’s the No. 1 issue for me,” Biden said in an interview on Saturday. With luck, we’ll get a chance to find out if the second half of that statement is true. The first half is already clear.

Passing the Mic

Moira Birss, with whom I’ve worked on many fights (and who just wrote a fascinating piece about one of her relatives, the Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett), is the climate and finance director at the N.G.O. Amazon Watch. She has dedicated her career to human-rights and climate-justice advocacy, with a focus on supporting social movements in Latin America.

We see satellite pictures of smoke over the Amazon. What’s actually going on down on the ground to set these fires in motion?

The Amazon burning season has, unfortunately, become an annual phenomenon now greatly exacerbated by the policies of the current Brazilian President. Loggers and land grabbers work in tandem to plunder ancient trees; then they torch vast forests for the benefit of a handful of powerful agribusiness interests. The number of Amazon fires set in 2020 has already exceeded those set last year, and, while 2019’s notorious blazes mostly burned previously deforested areas, 2020’s fires are encroaching on primary forests.

The flames threatening the Amazon are as political and financial as they are physical. Since taking power, the Bolsonaro regime has worked to erase a generation of socio-environmental protections by slashing budgets, gutting institutions, and openly targeting communities that defend the rain forest. Violence, land invasions, arson, and illegal logging and mining have spiked on indigenous lands and other protected forests, driven by mafias whose actions are explicitly encouraged by Bolsonaro.

The rationale that underpins this behavior is that global consumers and investors will buy the Amazon’s conflict commodities no matter what.

How are corporations like Cargill, or asset managers like BlackRock, tied in to Amazon destruction?

Typically, cattle ranches operate for a few years after the forest is cleared by fire, then soy producers move in. Sometimes soy is the first product grown; a Brazilian study showed that soy-silo facilities of major U.S.-based commodity traders Cargill and Bunge overlapped with the epicenters of the 2019 fires.

Amazon destruction is not just an issue of forest loss but is inextricably linked to indigenous-rights abuses. Our new report documents how Cargill appears to have purchased soy from producers occupying a traditional indigenous territory in the Brazilian Amazon for which the indigenous community has tried to secure a land title.

BlackRock is the world’s largest money manager and, as such, holds shares in almost every publicly traded company in the world, including agribusiness companies operating in the Amazon. Despite paying lip service to the importance of environmental sustainability, BlackRock continues to be a major financier of climate-destroying industries around the world; the Amazon is no exception. Recent reports from Amazon Watch show it’s a top investor in companies linked to deforestation, fossil-fuel production, and indigenous-rights abuses in the Amazon rain forest.

Do their execs know what’s happening? Can they be shamed into stopping?

At Amazon Watch, we’re making sure the execs know what’s happening, both by communicating directly with leadership at these firms and by collaborating with other organizations and alliances to hold them accountable.

And it’s beginning to work! Already, we’ve seen dozens of financial firms (albeit not yet behemoths like BlackRock) threaten to withdraw investments from agribusiness companies if deforestation continues, and companies like the beef producer J.B.S. make new (albeit not strong enough) commitments to clean up supply chains.

We’ve also seen the behemoths start to shift, though still in insufficient ways. That’s why Amazon Watch and our partners in the BlackRock’s Big Problem campaign and the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition have been turning up the heat on BlackRock all year, and we’re starting to see results. In mid-October, BlackRock reversed a decade-long pattern of voting against climate-friendly shareholder resolutions by insisting that Procter & Gamble step up transparency efforts to address deforestation and forest degradation in its supply chains. This comes after sustained public pressure from activists across the world, and shows that we can shame them into stopping.

Climate School

For academics: a big new drive is under way to convince the pension giant T.I.A.A. to divest from fossil fuels. Why would one fund one’s retirement by investing in companies that guarantee that there won’t be a planet worth retiring on?

I know that I’ve recommended more podcasts than one person can actually listen to, but: Debra Rienstra, a creative-writing and English professor at Michigan’s Calvin College, hosts “Refugia,” which explores the overlaps between Christianity and traditions ranging from indigenous spirituality to conservation biology—and looks for quiet spots where creatures, people included, might find some peace of mind.

Few members of the U.S. Senate have been more forthright in addressing the climate crisis than Oregon’s Jeff Merkley. Last week, he introduced two new bills that would stop banks from investing in new fossil-fuel infrastructure and that would use America’s powerful position in international financial institutions, such as the I.M.F., to insure that they did likewise. “Fossil-fuel investments play a key role in accelerating climate chaos,” Merkley said, in a statement. “It’s time to prioritize the interests of the American people and the planet above the wishes of fossil-fuel C.E.O.s who want to hold our economy hostage.”

Speaking of senators, the writer Kate Aronoff asks a very straightforward question: Why does Amazon set up a huge climate fund and then donate lots of money to the very politicians who will do what they can to make sure progress never happens?

An important piece in the Boston Globe, by the Oxford physics professor Raymond Pierrehumbert, explains why “geoengineering” the planet to reduce its heat—probably by pumping yet more chemicals into the atmosphere—is a lousy idea. “The real showstopper is that the carbon dioxide released by fossil fuel burning—the chief cause of the climate crisis—persists in the atmosphere for thousands of years,” he writes. “In contrast, the particles created by solar climate interventions fall out of the sky after just a year or so.”

The Trump campaign is not alone in figuring out how to use Facebook as a tool for spreading disinformation. Christine MacDonald, writing in In These Times, shows that ExxonMobil has “spent more than any other major corporation on ​‘social issues, elections, or politics’ Facebook ads.” She details a particularly repugnant campaign to keep oil drilling alive in Santa Barbara, California, the site of the nineteen-sixties oil spill that helped inspire the first Earth Day.

From Ibrahim Abdul-Matin, one of the country’s leading Muslim environmental activists, a five-point plan for fighting climate change. Point 3: “save what’s left in the natural world.” Along those lines, Team Biden last week reiterated plans to conserve thirty per cent of America’s lands and waters by 2030, and Daniel Munczek Edelman, of Next100, explored the possibility for a climate equivalent of the thirties-era Civilian Conservation Corps. 

It would feature “a one- to two-year commitment, meaning that a Corps would be best positioned to deliver on short-term projects that don’t require significant upfront training. These might include native grassland and coastal ecosystem restoration; removal of invasive species and restoration of native species; improving wildlife corridors; building hiking trails and other recreational wilderness amenities; irrigation system repair; disaster preparedness work.”

Noam Chomsky, at the age of ninety-one, is reminding people to vote, and not for third parties. He points out that even a Trump Administration environmental assessment says that the world is heading for a four-degree Celsius rise in temperature. “What is that? Total cataclysm. No one can even estimate the effects. Organized human life as we know it will be over.”

Check out these entries for the Royal Meteorological Society’s 2020 weather photograph of the year. A gorgeous planet, now in violent flux.

Scoreboard

Everything’s relative. The usual response to plans like the Green New Deal is “too expensive,” but a new paper in Science shows that the amount of money that nations have spent to deal with this year’s crisis—COVID-19—dwarfs the amount they’d have to spend to start dealing with this millennium’s crisis of global heating.

A new report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis makes clear that financial institutions are accelerating their exit from fossil fuels: banks that were only willing to speak out against coal a few years ago are now taking pledges on tar sands and Arctic oil.

Warming Up

Youth Vs. Apocalypse is a Bay Area group of young climate activists who, among many other things, were momentarily the target of Senator Dianne Feinstein’s ire in 2019, when she told them, “You didn’t vote for me.” They’ve now released a truly bumping music video that will get you up on your feet, at which point you should, before sitting down, make sure that you’ve voted.

Links

• What Have We Learned in Thirty Years of Covering Climate Change?
• Three Scenarios for the Future of Climate Change
• There’s Nothing Sacred about Nine Justices; a Livable Planet, on the Other Hand . . .
• When it comes to solar geoengineering, we’re still very much in the dark
• Bill McKibben: What A Biden Administration Could Mean For Environmental Policy
• Three Scenarios for the Future of Climate Change
• As South Australia now knows, local jobs must be a priority in the clean energy transition

(AU) The Bushfire Royal Commission Has Made A Clarion Call For Change. Now We Need Politics To Follow

The Conversation - David Bowman

Shutterstock

Author David Bowman is Professor of Pyrogeography and Fire Science, University of Tasmania.

The bushfire royal commission today handed down its long-awaited final report. At almost 1,000 pages, it will take us all some time to digest. But it marks the start of Australia’s national disaster adaptation journey after a horrendous summer.

The report clearly signals the urgent need to improve disaster management capacity in Australia. Closer examination of the report will determine if other recommendations are needed. But overall, this seems a realistic report that incorporates a diverse and complex body of evidence. And it arrives at recommendations likely to enjoy broad political, institutional and community support.

As the report states, the 2019-2020 bushfires were the catalyst for, but not the sole focus of, the inquiry. It also looked at floods, bushfires, earthquakes, storms, cyclones, storm surges, landslides and tsunamis.

The recommendations demonstrate the Royal Commission is serious about shifting the status quo when it comes to managing Australia’s natural disasters – events that will become more frequent and severe under climate change. What’s needed now is political will for change.

Australia endured its own bushfire disaster just months ago. David Mariuz/AAP

A picture of devastation

The commission received evidence from more than 270 witnesses, almost 80,000 pages of tendered documents and more than 1,750 public submissions. It recaps the damage wrought, including:

• more than 24 million hectares burnt nationally
  
  
• 33 human deaths (and perhaps many more due to smoke haze over much of eastern Australia)
  
  
• more than 3,000 homes destroyed
  
  
• thousands of locals and holidaymakers trapped
  
  
• communities isolated without power, communications, and ready access to essential goods and services
  
  
• estimated national financial impacts over A$10 billion
  
  
• nearly three billion animals killed or displaced
  
  
• many threatened species and other ecological communities extensively harmed.
  
  

The report noted every state and territory suffered fire to some extent, adding “on some days, extreme conditions drove a fire behaviour that was impossible to control”.

Mallacoota residents and CFA firefighters were evacuated to Hastings on landing crafts to escape the bushfires. AAP Image/David Crosling

A new role for national government

The scope of the commission’s recommendations is vast. For government, it would mean changes across land-use planning, infrastructure, emergency management, social policy, agriculture, education, physical and mental health, community development, energy and the environment.

Broad areas of recommended change include a clearer leadership role for the federal government and establishing a national natural disaster management agency. The report notes while state and territory governments have primary responsibility for emergency management, during the bushfire crisis the public “expected greater Australian Government action”.

Other recommendations include:

• nationally consolidating aerial firefighting capacity
  
  
• more capacity in local government
  
  
• nationally consistent warnings including air pollution (especially bushfire smoke) forecasts
  
  
• acknowledgement of the role of Indigenous fire managers in mitigating bushfire risks.
  
  

The commission says preparing for natural disasters “is not the sole domain of governments and agencies”. Individuals and communities must also ensure they’re prepared. As the commission notes:

While we heard that some individuals and communities were well prepared for the 2019-2020 bushfire season, this was not always the case. For other individuals and communities, although they did prepare, the intensity of the bushfires meant that no level of preparation would have been sufficient. For others, they were seemingly unprepared for what confronted them.

The inquiry said governments have a critical role to play here, by providing information on disaster risks through community education and engagement programs.

Smoke haze shrouded Australia’s east coast. AAP Image/Lukas Coch

The climate question

During last summer’s bushfire crisis, Prime Minister Scott Morrison was reluctant to draw links to climate change. And before the inquiry commenced, there was much doubt over whether it would adequately probe how climate change is contributing to natural disasters.

Significantly, the commission’s final report explicitly recognises climate change increases the risk and impact of natural disasters. It says global warming beyond the next 20 to 30 years “is largely dependent on the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions”, but stops far short of calling for federal government action on emissions reduction.

The report says extreme weather “has already become more frequent and intense because of climate change; further global warming over the next 20 to 30 years is inevitable”. It goes on:

Globally, temperatures will continue to rise, and Australia will have more hot days and fewer cool days. Sea levels are also projected to continue to rise. Tropical cyclones are projected to decrease in number, but increase in intensity. Floods and bushfires are expected to become more frequent and more intense. Catastrophic fire conditions may render traditional bushfire prediction models and firefighting techniques less effective.

Among its recommendations, the report calls for improved national climate and weather intelligence to support governments to implement, assess and review their disaster management and climate adaptation strategies.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison was reluctant to draw links to climate change during the Black Summer bushfires. AAP Image/Lukas Coch

Now’s the time to act

The commission acknowledged most of its recommendations identify what needs to be done, rather than how it should be done.

The commission also says while governments and others have backed the notion of improving natural disaster resilience, “support is one thing – action is another”. And the time to act, the report says, is now.

This is a key point. As noted by the report, more than 240 inquiries about natural disasters have been held in Australia to date. Many would have been time-consuming and expensive. And while many recommendations have been implemented and have led to significant improvements, the report said, “others have not”.

So will this royal commission lead to substantive change? The inquiry suggests this will require that governments “commit to action and cooperate and hold each other to account”. Further, progress towards implementing the recommendations should be publicly monitored.

Fundamentally, political appetite will determine whether the royal commission’s recommendations ever become reality. There is much work to be done by governments and others to iron out the legal, administrative, social and practical complexities of changing the status quo. And the Morrison government has given next to no indication it’s willing to seriously tackle the problem of climate change.

Ultimately, these findings are small steps towards achieving natural disaster reliance. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, this report can be read not as the beginning of the end, but perhaps the end of the beginning of the long road to climate change adaptation.

Links

• The Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements
• New polling shows 79% of Aussies care about climate change. So why doesn't the government listen?
• Set up national air fleet to fight fires, says royal commission, warning of worsening weather
• Victims and frontline workers say bushfire findings don't go far enough 
• Morrison government urged to cut emissions to tackle root cause of worsening bushfires
• In 50 years of firefighting I had never seen fires like I did last summer. Australia must take climate change seriously
• Can Australia manage another devastating bushfire season? (audio)
• Centre-right thinktank warns Morrison government of 'grave future for coal exports
• Net zero: what if Australia misses the moment on climate action?
• When the taps run dry
• While the world races to net-zero carbon, Australia is a non-starter

(AU) Net Zero: What If Australia Misses The Moment On Climate Action?

The Guardian - Adam Morton

Three of Australia’s biggest trading partners have recently committed to go ‘carbon-neutral’. Experts say it’s the greatest shift in climate politics since the Paris agreement

China, Japan and South Korea have committed to net zero emissions, which will have huge economic ramifications for Australia. File photo of coal. Photograph: Kelly Barnes/AAP

Author Adam Morton is Guardian Australia's environment editor.

For a national leader who had just been told up to $80bn in fossil fuel export industries were on the chopping block, Scott Morrison seemed remarkably sanguine.

“I am not concerned about our future exports,” the prime minister said at a press conference on Wednesday. “I’m very aware of the many views that are held around the world but I tell you what – our policies will be set here in Australia.”

Morrison’s dismissive response was to a question about what observers say is the biggest shift in international climate politics since the signing of the Paris agreement five years ago. In the space of five weeks, three of Australia’s biggest trading partners – first China and then over the past week Japan and South Korea – promised to go “carbon-neutral” by 2050 or shortly after.

Long-time observers of climate change diplomacy said the scale of what is happening should not be underestimated.

“It’s really significant. It shows there is potential for hope – that we can really achieve what the Paris agreement is aiming for and limit warming to 1.5C,” says Ursula Fuentes, a former head of the German government unit responsible for climate policy and strategy.

“It’s hard to achieve, but it shows if we have leadership in some countries how fast others can come on board. It also shows Australia needs to start talking about an economic transformation, and introducing policies that will support that transformation, or it will be left behind.”

‘The tide is turning’

While the three countries are yet to spell out in detail how they will reach their targets, the economic ramifications for Australia are vast. Together, the trio buys 75% of Australia’s shipped thermal coal used in power generation, 50% of the coking coal used in steel production, and 87% of its liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Analysts say it raises at least two significant questions for the Morrison government. Will it become a pariah on climate change, increasingly diplomatically isolated and seen as unwilling to pull its weight?

Perhaps even more importantly, will it plan for an inevitable economic transition before fossil fuel industries, and the national economy, are mugged by reality?

The Morrison government’s position until now has been that climate change is a serious global problem that needs a global solution and that – despite significant evidence to the contrary – Australia was playing its part. But rather than applaud it, its response to the news that some of the world’s biggest emitters were promising to do more was to assert its sovereignty: it would not bow to pressure to live up to the commitments it made in Paris.

The pushback was both public and private. In a call on Tuesday night, Morrison turned down his British counterpart, Boris Johnson, when asked to sign up to a 2050 net zero commitment.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found in 2018, in a report commissioned as part of the Paris agreement, that reaching net zero emissions by about this date was a necessary part of responding to the climate emergency. But Morrison told Johnson Australia would not agree to that goal for itself.

Sources familiar with the call said he instead asked the British leader to back Australia’s approach of setting goals to lower the cost for clean technology, which is tied to neither a timeframe or an emissions reduction plan. Johnson said he would consider it, but the press release his office issued after the meeting emphasised the importance of setting ambitious emissions targets and reaching net zero.

In the Senate estimates hearings that have dominated parliament over the past fortnight, the foreign minister, Marise Payne, repeatedly declined to say Australia welcomed Japan and South Korea signing up to net zero despite ostensibly wanting the world to reach that goal. Like many of the government’s claims on climate, the inconsistency went unexplained.

‘I am not concerned about our future exports,’ Scott Morrison said after Japan joined China in committing to net zero emissions by 2050. Photograph: David Mariuz/AAP

The gap between Australia and its major trading partners was emphasised in a report by a centre-right thinktank, the Blueprint Institute, linked to former Liberal ministers Robert Hill and Christopher Pyne, which warned not committing to net zero emissions by 2050 would hurt the country’s international standing and economic competitiveness. It said if ambition on climate was not increased soon “the decision may be forced upon us”.

“For a time, we’ve been able to trail behind our peers with little consequence for us or global temperatures,” the report said. “But the tide is turning.”

Britain has been urging countries to ramp up commitments since it was announced it would host the next major climate conference in Glasgow, now delayed until late next year. It has been pushing countries on two issues – a mid-century net zero target and to stop financing coal plants in the developing world.

Along with the UN, France, Chile and Italy, it will host an online climate summit in December to mark the fifth anniversary celebration of the Paris deal and push for greater action. Only countries that come armed with increased commitments will be invited to speak. That is expected to include China, which officials hope will use it to flesh out the ambitious short-term goals scientists advise are needed, but not Australia.

Economic opportunity beckons

The announcement by the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, at the UN general assembly in September that the country’s carbon dioxide emissions would peak before 2030 and it would reach carbon neutrality before 2060 took many by surprise.

China is by far the world’s biggest annual emitter – responsible for about half global coal use – and turning around its economy will be a massive task. But it has been working up to this moment, having modelled what a plan to limit warming to 1.5C would like last year. Observers believe it is a serious show of intent from Xi, motivated in part by a desire to move ahead of a possible Joe Biden US presidency, rather than risk pressure from a joint US-Europe push on climate in 2021.

Just as important a driver, though, is the economic opportunity presented by the inevitable low-emissions transition. Ben Caldecott, the director of the Oxford Sustainable Finance Programme and a leading voice in the British push for greater global action, says it is “completely in China’s interest to go down this path”.

He points out that the International Energy Agency, often criticised for its conservatism in forecasting the development of renewable energy, recently described solar power as the cheapest form of energy in human history. China is expected to include a climate focus, possibly including targets to cap coal use and lifting renewables, in its five-year economic plan due before the end of the year.

“These countries are all vying to shape their own and the world’s economic future,” Caldecott says. “The technology is becoming cheaper and cheaper and cheaper, and change is happening and not going to stop. The question is just: ‘what’s the plan?’”

Japan’s new prime minister Yoshihide Suga used his first parliamentary policy speech to declare the climate crisis is an opportunity to be seized. Photograph: Kazuhiro Nogi/AFP/Getty Images

The announcement by Japan, the world’s fifth biggest emitter, was just as surprising, and heavily influenced by the Chinese commitment. The new prime minister, Yoshihide Suga, used his first parliamentary policy speech since taking office to declare the climate crisis was no longer a constraint on economic growth, but an opportunity to be seized.

Japan is heavily reliant on energy imports – it is Australia’s biggest market for both thermal coal and LNG – and under Suga’s predecessor, Shinzo Abe, was seen as a recalcitrant player on climate. It continued to support new coal power as other developed countries stopped.

But the country is also investing heavily in large offshore wind farms and trialling the use of green ammonia, created with renewable energy, as a replacement fuel in a coal plant.

Llewelyn Hughes, an associate dean at the Australian National University’s College of Asia and the Pacific and an expert on Japan, says the 2050 goal is significant as it sets the direction for government agencies and businesses as they consider future policies and viable investments. Already, a number of planned coal plants in Japan have been cancelled, and it will become much harder for others to win finance. It is expected a new three-yearly energy plan, to be released in the middle of next year, will back a greater share of renewables compared with coal and gas.

Both Japan and South Korea, which this week confirmed it would take steps to end its coal dependence and back a multibillion-dollar green new deal, are eyeing a future that includes green hydrogen – an industry the Morrison government hopes to develop, though it is also potentially backing hydrogen made with fossil fuels, a step some countries are bypassing.

The rush of major Asian powers to sign up to net zero follows similar commitments from other countries and particularly the EU, which is weighing a target of up to a 60% cut by 2030 compared with 1990 levels, and will consider a proposal on carbon border tariffs – which would add a cost at the border to carbon-intensive goods – next year.

The sense of momentum will kick into overdrive if Biden, who has promised to sign up to net zero, invest $2tn in clean solutions over four years and take an active role in global climate leadership, defeats Donald Trump in the US presidential election. One diplomatic source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Australia would “be supremely isolated” on climate and come under significant pressure to change its stance if Biden wins.

Hare agrees, saying if Australia continues on its current path it risks being left sitting with nations that openly refuse to act, such as Brazil and Saudi Arabia. But he says the country should be particularly concerned about the economic fallout.

“The reality is the transition away from coal and then gas is going to happen much faster than Scott Morrison of the Labor party thinks, and it’s going to be extremely disruptive,” he says. “The workforce will be stranded. That’s why what is going on in Australia is so irresponsible.”

Links

• Japan's net zero by 2050 pledge another warning to Australia on fossil fuels, analysts say
• Is a just transition from coal to renewables possible?‘
• Green hydrogen’ from renewables could become cheapest ‘transformative fuel’ within a decade
• Coalition's $100m scheme to fund recycled products has spent no money
• Bush and koalas found to be threatened by 'gratuitous' NSW land-clearing plan 
• Coalition accused of 'ideological wishlisting' after BHP pulls out of multibillion-dollar project
• ‘Green hydrogen’ from renewables could become cheapest ‘transformative fuel’ within a decade
• Letter reveals Rio Tinto urged transfer of powers to WA ahead of environment law review 

(AU) ANZ's Climate Policy Reveals Steps Away From Coal To Support Net Zero Emission By 2050

ABC News - Rachel Clayton

ANZ's new climate policy will change how the bank finances thermal coal companies. (ABC News: Brendan Esposito)

Key Points ANZ now joins a list of private companies ahead of the Federal Government in long-term climate policy The plan will include putting pressure on companies to build offices with five-star energy ratings However, the plan has been criticised as not going far enough

ANZ has released its new climate change policy that will see the bank take steps away from financing thermal coal and towards supporting the transition to a net zero emissions economy by 2050.

The policy, which comes as the bank also reported an unaudited full-year net profit drop of 40 per cent, commits the bank to exit thermal coal by 2030.

Under the 10-year strategy, ANZ has committed to stop directly financing any new coal-fired power plans or thermal coal mines including expansions by 2030.

It will also "wind down" existing direct lending to coal-fired plants and thermal coal, and help existing customers with more than 50 per cent exposure to thermal coal create diversification strategies by 2025.

ANZ group executive Mark Whelan told investors via its blog Bluenotes that the new approach committed the bank to "taking strong action to support the Paris Agreement".

The big four bank has pledged to no longer provide services to any new business that makes more than 10 per cent of its revenue from thermal coal.

The bank also made changes to how it would finance the construction of large-scale office buildings, saying loans would only be provided if the buildings were highly energy efficient and had a 5-star energy rating.

The carbon emitted by Australians is far above the global sustainable average. (Reuters: Jason Lee)

ANZ climate policy criticised as giving companies a 'five-year free pass'

Activist group Market Forces said in a statement ANZ's plan to tackle climate change meant "no major Australian bank or insurer is willing to back thermal coal beyond 2030, except for NAB".

"However, the bank's policies remain woefully inconsistent with the Paris Agreement, allowing it to fund companies which continue to expand the fossil fuel industry, such as those exploring and exploiting new oil or gas fields," the statement said.

Market Forces criticised ANZ's plan for coming five years after the Paris Climate Agreement: "ANZ has given coal companies a further five year window to plan business diversification."

Research coordinator for Market Forces, Jack Bertolus, said the policy was "underwhelming".

He said ANZ allowing customers with more than 50 per cent of operations linked to thermal coal another five years to diversify gave "highly polluting companies another five-year free pass to continue with business as usual".

"It barely even brings ANZ into line with announcements made by the other big four banks on thermal coal," he said.

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) also said ANZ had taken "baby steps on climate".

The group acknowledged the bank's "positive steps away from financing thermal coal" but said the withdrawal from coal was "too slow".

"The crippling drought and bushfires Australians endured over the last 12 months are a stark reminder that global heating is hitting our nation and economy hard, and the clock is ticking on climate action," said ACF's chief executive Kelly O'Shanassy.

"Financing coal, gas and oil is fuelling climate disasters; Australia's banks are responsible and must be accountable."

Mr O'Shanassy criticised the bank for remaining "firmly invested in companies that it acknowledges have material exposures to thermal coal".

Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack released a statement on Thursday condemning ANZ's policy for being "sheer virtue-signalling".

Mr McCormack said banks should be focused on "supporting our agricultural producers, not adding an extra layer of administration".

"Imposing largely Euro-centric standards to satisfy shareholder activists while our nation recovers from a global pandemic is grossly unfair," he said.

ANZ chief executive Shayne Elliott told investors via Bluenotes on Thursday afternoon the bank was not shifting support away from farmers.

"ANZ's climate change statement is focused on the top 100 carbon emitters, and will have no impact on the bank's farmgate lending practices," Mr Elliott said.

He said the policy was about the bank's "major agribusiness customers" becoming more energy efficient and was "not about family farms".

ANZ another company ahead of Australian Government on climate change

The new policy adds ANZ to a growing number of businesses that are ahead of the Australian Government when it comes to commitments to stop the effects of climate change.

ANZ's policy was released after a number of other countries announced moves towards carbon neutrality.

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, who took office in September, said earlier this week the country would become carbon neutral by 2050.

"Responding to climate change is no longer a constraint on economic growth," Mr Suga said.

South Korea's President Moon Jae-in quickly followed suit, declaring on Wednesday that the country would achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

China said in September it would be carbon neutral by 2060.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has told Prime Minister Scott Morrison to increase action on climate change.(Reuters: Toby Melville)

Prime Minister Scott Morrison was urged by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson to take "bold action" on climate change in a phone call on Tuesday night.

The UK has a policy of achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050, but Australia has only set targets until 2030.

On Wednesday, Mr Morrison rejected the input from the British PM and said Australia would set its own policies.

"We'll set them. Our policies won't be set in the United Kingdom, they won't be set in Brussels, they won't be set in any part of the world other than here," Mr Morrison said.

"I'm very aware of the many views that are held around the world, but I tell you what, our policies will be set here in Australia."

Mr Morrison said any decisions on climate change were "sovereign decisions".

"One thing the British Prime Minister and I agree on is that achieving emissions reductions shouldn't come at the cost of jobs in Australia or the UK. It shouldn't come at the cost of higher prices for the daily things that our citizens depend on."

Links

• Nationals call for ANZ boycott after bank's push for net zero emissions
• Overwhelming majority believe Australia is already experiencing climate change
• Federal ministers urge boycott of major bank proposing climate risk in lending decisions
• Financial system faces 'considerable' risk if climate change not tackled: RBA
• It’s Been A Landmark Year For Investor Action On Climate Change
• Deutsche Bank Says It Will No Longer Invest In Fracking Or Arctic Oil As Banks Turn Away From Fossil Fuels
• (AU) Australian Banks ‘Undermining Paris Agreement’ With $7bn In Fossil Fuel Loans
• Threat From Climate Change To Financial Stability Bigger Than Covid-19