(AU) Net Zero, Saving Koalas And Forest Wars: The Crucial Environment Battles Looming In Australia

The Guardian -  Adam Morton | Lisa Cox

With the Morrison government looking increasingly isolated on climate policy and under pressure to fix conservation laws, will 2021 bring change?

Forest burned by bushfire in Wingello. Major government reports have outlined the extent to which Australia’s unique environment was in decline long before the fires hit. Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock

The trainwreck of 2020 was not limited to a global community hit by the worst pandemic in a century. The Australian environment fared no better.

The year started amid the continent’s most widespread bushfires on record. As the Guardian revealed, an estimated 3bn animals were killed or affected. Subsequent major government reports outlined the extent to which the country’s unique environment was in decline long before the fires hit.

The damage from the fires could not be divorced from the climate crisis, which also triggered a third mass bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef in five years.

But political debate on these pressing environmental issues – specifically, the need to transform conservation laws or introduce a climate plan to live up to the Paris climate agreement – remained stuck as the Morrison government resisted meaningful action on both fronts.

Will 2021 bring a change? Adam Morton and Lisa Cox look at some of the major climate and environmental questions the country will face this year.

Rising pressure to act on climate

Scott Morrison ended 2020 notably isolated on climate change, having been embarrassed when the British and French governments rejected his push to be given a speaking slot at a global leaders’ climate ambition summit.

The prime minister appeared surprised by the snub, which left him in climate pariah territory with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Brazil and Russia.

If he was surprised, he shouldn’t have been: the invitation to the summit made clear only leaders offering substantial new commitments would be given a slot, and Morrison had merely flagged that Australia may not follow through on a widely condemned plan to use a carbon accounting sleight of hand to meet national emissions targets.

A major political and diplomatic question will be how the government responds to what is certain to be escalating pressure. The US will be key. The Biden administration has no shortage of problems needing its attention, but has made clear climate is near the top of its priorities.

The new president has pledged to use “every tool of American foreign policy to push the rest of the world” to do more. His climate envoy, John Kerry, set out the scale of the challenge for business leaders at a G20 forum, including that coal needed to be phased out five times faster than it is now.

More than 120 countries, including the major powers of America, Asia and Europe, have mid-century net zero emissions or carbon neutrality goals, but Morrison – despite calls and rising action from business leaders, investors and state governments – continues to resist, and deny that Australia is out of step.

The expectation is this can only last so long, but the message from the incoming US leadership and the climate ambition summit is that moving on the 2050 target alone will not be enough.

The focus ahead of the November climate conference in Glasgow will increasingly be on what Australia – with no meaningful policies to reduce emissions from transport or major industry and which is still promising a “gas-led recovery” and approving new coal projects – will do before 2030 to live up to the commitment it made in Paris five years ago.

Relying on the states to increase support for renewable energy, as many did last year, will not be enough.

Fixing failing environmental protection

In the wake of the fires, last year’s official assessment of the state of Australia’s natural environment by Graeme Samuel, the former competition watchdog chief, could hardly have been more dire.

An interim report in July found Australia’s environment was in an unsustainable state of decline, and that the national conservation laws – the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act – were ineffective and needed substantial change.

Meanwhile, the auditor general’s office found the government and federal environment department were failing in their duty to protect nature.

Conservation groups were not surprised on either front. Australia has the world’s highest rate of mammal extinction due to what is widely agreed to be the failure of successive governments to protect the wildlife for which the country is renowned.

Funding for environment programs was cut by more than a third after the Coalition was elected in 2013. Some was restored last year, much of it directed to “congestion busting” – increasing the pace at which industry and business development proposals were assessed.

The government’s response was to try and fail to ram through legislation to transfer responsibility for approving major developments that affect the environment to the states and territories, barely giving lip service to the need to strengthen environmental protection.

It is still yet to release Samuel’s final report, which it has been sitting on since October. That will have to change when parliament returns next month if the government lives up to its legislative requirements. It is also expected to release the national environmental standards that Samuel said were needed to accompany the devolution in assessment powers to the states.

Several questions will follow. Will the standards be designed to not just maintain but improve the state of the Australian environment? Will they be specific enough that they can be meaningfully and legally tested?

And, given the government has rejected the push for an independent environment regulator, can the public be confident the new standards will be enforced?

Attention will also turn to whether the Senate crossbenchers will continue to oppose the government’s legislation if there are not steps to improve the monitoring and health of the country’s growing list of threatened species – at least 170 of which still have no plan for their recovery.

Will the Great Barrier Reef bleach again?

Australia’s most globally recognisable natural landmark suffered through its third major coral bleaching event since 2016 last year. Most of the damage was near the southern end around Mackay – an area that was mostly left untouched in 2016 and 2017. It means reefs along the full length of the 2,300km wonder have been severely affected over the past five years.

There are still healthy and vibrant areas and some damaged coral will recover, but a significant amount of shallow water coral died.

As recently as a few weeks ago, there were concerns this summer might be a fourth year of severe bleaching out of six. But Prof Terry Hughes, from James Cook University, says the risk has reduced since Christmas thanks to cooler, cloudier and wetter weather, in part due to the cooling La Nina over the Pacific.

An assessment by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration suggests the risk of bleaching is greatest north of Cairns, and a warmer than expected February could still change projections, but Hughes says the chance of a non-bleaching year is “pretty good”.

It is a less positive story in the west. The CSIRO has forecast a marine heatwave for the Western Australian coastline early this year, with temperatures expected to hit the highest level in a decade.

The Ningaloo Coast and Shark Bay, both world heritage listed areas, are threatened by warming ocean temperatures that could affect ecosystems and fisheries that have not recovered since a marine heatwave in 2011.

A koala affected by 2019-20 bushfires is released back into native bushland following treatment at the Kangaroo Island Wildlife Park. Photograph: Lisa Maree Williams/Getty Images

Saving the Koala

The capriciousness of New South Wales politics was on full display last year when the deputy premier, John Barilaro, threatened, but failed to resign ostensibly over a policy designed to protect koalas, just months after the iconic species was devastated by the summer bushfires.

A compromise deal between the governing Liberal and National parties over the koala state environmental planning policy failed. Instead, NSW reverted to an old koala policy, from 1995, with a promise to develop a new one this year.

It meant that, despite a state inquiry finding the species was on track for extinction in NSW by 2050, nothing new has been done to improve its protection.

Whether that can be addressed will be a test for both state and federal governments. It is linked to the broader issue of ongoing habitat destruction, one of the main threats to not just the koala, but Australian wildlife generally.

Sussan Ley, the federal environment minister, has set an October deadline for the threatened species scientific committee to assess whether east coast koala populations have been affected enough to warrant a national endangered listing – a step that should trigger greater protection.

Meanwhile, the government continues to sanction clearing of the forests that koalas rely on. Late last year Ley approved a quarry proposal that would clear 50 hectares of koala habitat near Port Stephens in NSW.

It is a similar story at state level. The NSW environment minister, Matt Kean, has set a target to double the state’s koala population by 2050, but forestry operations and mining proposals in koala and other threatened species’ habitat continue, and the state government has continued to weaken land-clearing laws.

Stalling on electric vehicles

Analysts say the shift to EVs is inevitable, with new models forecast to match fossil fuel vehicles on price by as early as 2025, but Australia trails other countries in their uptake, with fewer affordable models available.

A long-delayed Morrison government electric vehicle policy – now rebadged as a broader “future fuels” strategy – was due late last year, but has yet to be released. A leaked draft suggests it will not include direct incentives for consumers to switch to battery-powered cars.

Other countries have seen a climate and economic advantage in moving now. Britain and Japan – major countries that, like Australia, use right-hand-side drive cars – announced late last year they would ban the sale of new petrol cars by 2030 and 2035 respectively and introduce incentives to drive the change.

Australia appears headed in the other direction with no significant incentives, and with some states planning to introduce road-user charges on EVs and hybrids. Victoria and South Australia are heading down this path, and NSW is considering it.

Academic analysis has suggested this would further deter uptake of the technology unless offset by other support. Meanwhile, national transport emissions continue to rise.

The forest wars (redux)

Court decisions loom large over native forest logging in two Australian states this year, and an industry that spent much of last year under siege.

A judgment is due next month in a case brought by the Bob Brown Foundation against Tasmania’s state-owned forestry agency, arguing its native forest logging is inconsistent with federal laws. Conservationists argue the forest agreement in the state is not valid as it lacks a legally enforceable requirement that the state protect threatened species.

It follows a similar case in Victoria last year, when a federal court judgment banned logging in 67 coupes in Victoria’s central highlands on the basis that the state’s agency, VicForests, had breached a regional forestry agreement between the state government and Canberra.

In basic terms, the ruling challenged a controversial effective exemption from environmental laws granted to logging under the agreement. The agency is appealing.

Major retailers are increasingly refusing to sell paper logged by agencies without forest stewardship council, or FSC, certification - and both the Tasmanian and the Victorian agencies have failed to get it.

It means the court decisions could have significant ramifications for plans to continue native forest logging at current levels until 2030, in Victoria’s case, or indefinitely in Tasmania. And they could have major ramifications for threatened species protection.

Links

• Spinning emissions: Australia's climate projections are not what they seem
• Morrison government should be 'doing more' with states driving 33% cut in emissions by 2030
• 'We'll be left behind': Australia's electric car inertia is getting it nowhere
• Native forests: why logging in Victoria and Tasmania is under pressure
• Net zero, saving koalas and forest wars: the crucial environment battles looming in Australia
• Coalition quietly adds fossil fuel industry leaders to emissions reduction panel
• Origin seeks fossil fuel leases in 'incredibly fragile' Queensland channel country
• Cape York station owner refused to accept land-clearing would affect threatened species
• WA coastline facing marine heatwave in early 2021, CSIRO predicts
• 'The platypuses were glowing': the secret light of Australia's marsupials
• Fighting for Fraser Island: how tourism and climate change put an ancient environment at risk

(AU) As Heatwaves Become More Extreme, Which Jobs Are Riskiest?

The Conversation - Thomas Longden | Matt Brearley | Simon Quilty

Shutterstock

Authors Thomas Longden is Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University Matt Brearley is Thermal Physiologist, National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre; University Fellow, Charles Darwin University Simon Quilty is Senior Staff Specialist, Alice Springs Hospital. Honorary, Australian National University

Heat is more dangerous than the cold in most Australian regions.

 About 2% of deaths in Australia between 2006 and 2017 were associated with the heat, and the estimate increases to more than 4% in the northern and central parts of the country.

In fact, Australian death records underestimate the association between heat and mortality at least 50-fold and chronic heat stress is also under-reported.

The risk is higher in some regions but where you live is not the only factor that matters. When it comes to heat, some jobs are much more dangerous, and put workers at higher risk of injury.

Who is most at risk?

One study compared workers’ compensation claims in Adelaide from 2003 to 2013. It found workers at higher risk during extremely hot temperatures included:

• animal and horticultural workers
• cleaners
• food service workers
• metal workers
• warehouse workers.

The authors noted hot weather “poses a greater problem than cold weather. This is of particular concern as the number of hot days is projected to increase”.

View this post on Instagram A post shared by The Conversation Australia (@theconversationau)

Another study involving many of the same researchers looked at the impact of heatwaves on work-related injuries and illnesses in Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane. It found vulnerable groups included:

• males
• workers aged under 34 years
• apprentice/trainee workers
• labour hire workers
• those employed in medium and heavy strength occupations, and
• workers from outdoor and indoor industrial sectors.
  
  

When it comes to heat, some jobs are much more dangerous than others, and put workers at higher risk of injury. Shutterstock

A study of work-related injuries in Melbourne between 2002 and 2012 found:

Young workers, male workers and workers engaged in heavy physical work are at increased risk of injury on hot days, and a wider range of worker subgroups are vulnerable to injury following a warm night. In light of climate change projections, this information is important for informing injury prevention strategies.

A study using data for Adelaide between 2001 and 2010 concluded male workers and young workers aged under 24 were at high risk of work-related injuries in hot environments.

The link between temperature and daily injury claims was strong for labourers, tradespeople and intermediate production and transport workers (who do jobs such as operating plant, machinery, vehicles and other equipment to transport passengers and goods).

Industries with greater risk were agriculture, forestry and fishing, construction, as well as electricity, gas and water.

Animal and horticultural workers are at risk during heatwaves. Shutterstock

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 24 studies on the links between heat exposure and occupational injuries found:

Young workers (age < 35 years), male workers and workers in agriculture, forestry or fishing, construction and manufacturing industries were at high risk of occupational injuries during hot temperatures. Further young workers (age < 35 years), male workers and those working in electricity, gas and water and manufacturing industries were found to be at high risk of occupational injuries during heatwaves.

The fact that apprentices or trainees had greater heat-related injuries in the workplace may surprise many, as heat tolerance deteriorates with age.

Exposure to labour intensive work, less experience in managing heat stress, and a propensity to avoid acknowledging they’re affected by heat may contribute to the higher risk for younger workers.

Other factors that increase risk

A growing body of international research shows extreme heat can cause severe health issues.

Other factors that increase vulnerability to heat include age (especially being older or very young), low-socioeconomic status, and homelessness. Regions also matter; there are differences between climate zones and increased heat-related morbidity in rural settings.

Underlying health conditions increase the risk of heat-related illness and death. These health conditions include

• diabetes
• high blood pressure
• chronic kidney disease
• heart conditions and
• respiratory conditions.

Chronic heat exposure is dangerous and has been linked to serious health problems, including chronic and irreversible kidney injury.

A range of studies have linked higher temperatures with increases in suicide rates, emergency department visits for mental illness, and poor mental health.

Younger workers and apprentices may be at greater risk of heat-related injuries in the workplace. Shutterstock

We need to better understand the problem

Most of the studies mentioned here focused on worker’s compensation claims. That data includes only those injuries for which compensation claims were actually made. In reality, the problem is likely more widespread.

The Australian studies primarily focused on the milder climatic regions of Australia, but the rate of injuries and ill health is greater in hot and humid regions. And the dangers may be worse in regional and remote areas, particularly when and where workforces are transient.

We also need more research on the relationship between the length of exposure to higher temperatures (in hours or days) and worker health.

National studies or studies in other regions should assess whether rates of injury differ by occupation, climate zone and remoteness. Capturing data on all types and severity of workplace injuries (not just those that led to a compensation claim) is crucial to understanding the true extent of the problem.

As the climate changes and heatwaves become more frequent and severe, it’s vital we do more to understand who is most vulnerable and how we can reduce their risk.

Links

• Heat kills. We need consistency in the way we measure these deaths
• Caravan communities: older, underinsured and overexposed to cyclones, storms and disasters
• Hot and bothered: heat affects all of us, but older people face the highest health risks
• How rising temperatures affect our health
• Car accidents, drownings, violence: hotter temperatures will mean more deaths from injury
• The reality of living with 50℃ temperatures in our major cities 
• Exploring 167 years of vulnerability: An examination of extreme heat events in Australia 1844–2010

(AU) A Major Report Excoriated Australia’s Environment Laws. Sussan Ley’s Response Is Confused And Risky

The Conversation - Peter Burnett

Shutterstock

Author Peter Burnett is Honorary Associate Professor, ANU College of Law, Australian National University

It’s official: Australia’s natural environment and iconic places are in deep trouble. They can’t withstand current and future threats, including climate change. And the national laws protecting them are flawed and badly outdated.

You could hardly imagine a worse report on the state of Australia’s environment, and the law’s capacity to protect it, than that released yesterday.

The review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity (EPBC) Act, by former competition watchdog chair Professor Graeme Samuel, did not mince words. Without urgent changes, most of Australia’s threatened plants, animals and ecosystems will become extinct.

Federal environment minister Sussan Ley released the report yesterday after sitting on it for three months. And she showed little sign of being spurred into action by Samuel’s scathing assessment.

Her response was confusing and contradictory. And the Morrison government seems hellbent on pushing through its preferred reforms without safeguards that Samuel says are crucial.

Environment Minister Sussan Ley appears hellbent on pushing through the government’s agenda. Mick Tsikas/AAP

A bleak assessment

I was a federal environment official for 13 years, and from 2007 to 2012 was responsible for administering and reforming the EPBC Act. I believe Samuel’s report is a very good one.

Samuel has maintained the course laid out in his interim report last July. He found the state of Australia’s natural environment and iconic places is declining and under increasing threat.

Moreover, he says, the EPBC Act is outdated and requires fundamental reform. The current approach results in piecemeal decisions rather than holistic environmental management, which he sees as essential for success. He went on:

The resounding message that I heard throughout the review is that Australians do not trust that the EPBC Act is delivering for the environment, for business or for the community.

Australians feel the EPBC Act is failing the environment. Shutterstock

A proposed way forward

Samuel recommended a suite of reforms, many of which were foreshadowed in his interim report. They include:

• national environmental standards, legally binding on the states and others, to guide development decisions and provide the ability to measure outcomes
  
  
• applying the new standards to existing Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs). Such a move could open up the forest debate in a way not seen since the 1990s
  
  
• accrediting the regulatory processes and environmental policies of the states and territories, to ensure they can meet the new standards. Accredited regimes would be audited by an Environment Assurance Commissioner
  
  
• a “quantum shift” in the availability of environmental information, such as accurate mapping of habitat for threatened species
  
  
• an overhaul of environmental offsets, which compensate for environmental destruction by improving nature elsewhere. Offsets have become a routine development cost applied to proponents, rather than last-resort compensation invested in environmental restoration.

Under-resourcing is a major problem with the EPBC Act, and Samuel’s report reiterates this. For example, as I’ve noted previously, “bioregional plans” of land areas – intended to define the environmental values and objectives of a region – have never been funded.

The system of environmental offsets, which compensates for damage to nature, should be overhauled. Shutterstock

Respecting Indigenous knowledge

One long-overdue reform would require decision-makers to respectfully consider Indigenous views and knowledge. Samuel found the law was failing in this regard.

He recommended national standards for Indigenous engagement and participation in decision-making. This would be developed through an Indigenous-led process and complemented by a comprehensive review of national cultural heritage protections.

The recommendations follow an international outcry last year over mining giant Rio Tinto’s destruction of 46,000-year-old caves at Juukan Gorge in Western Australia. In Samuel’s words:

National-level protection of the cultural heritage of Indigenous Australians is a long way out of step with community expectations. As a nation, we must do better.

Indigenous knowledge should be heard and respected. Richard WainwrightT/AAP

Confusing signals

The government’s position on Samuel’s reforms is confusing. Ley yesterday welcomed the review and said the government was “committed to working through the full detail of the recommendations with stakeholders”.

But she last year ruled out Samuel’s call for an independent regulator to oversee federal environment laws. And her government is still prepared to devolve federal approvals to the states before Samuel’s new national standards are in place.

In July last year, Ley seized on interim reforms proposed by Samuel that suited her government’s agenda – streamlining the environmental approvals process – and started working towards them.

In September, the government pushed the change through parliament’s lower house, denying independent MP Zali Steggall the chance to move amendments to allow national environment standards.

Ley yesterday reiterated the government’s commitment to the standards – yet indicated the government would soon seek to progress the legislation through the Senate, then develop the new standards later.

Samuel did include devolution to the states in his first of three tranches of reform – the first to start by early 2021. But his first tranche also includes important safeguards. These include the new national environmental standards, the Environment Assurance Commissioner, various statutory committees, Indigenous reforms and more.

The government’s proposed unbundling of the reforms doesn’t pass the pub test. It would tempt the states to take accreditation under the existing, discredited rules and resist later attempts to hold them to higher standards. In this, they’d be supported by developers who don’t like the prospect of a higher approvals bar.

Australia’s iconic places and species are headed for extinction. Shutterstock

A big year ahead

Samuel noted “governments should avoid the temptation to cherry pick from a highly interconnected suite of recommendations”. But this is exactly what the Morrison government is doing.

I hope the Senate will force the government to work through the full detail of the recommendations with stakeholders, as Ley says she’d like to.

But at this stage there’s little sign the government plans to embrace the reforms in full, or indeed that it has any vision for Australia’s environment.

All this plays out against still-raw memories of last summer’s bushfires, and expected pressure from the United States, under President Joe Biden, for developed economies such as Australia to lift their climate game.

With the United Nations climate change conference in Glasgow in November, it seems certain the environment will be high on Australia’s national agenda in 2021.

Links

• Environment Minister Sussan Ley is in a tearing hurry to embrace nature law reform – and that's a worry
• Juukan Gorge: how could they not have known? (And how can we be sure they will in future?)
• Environment laws have failed to tackle the extinction emergency. Here's the proof
• (AU) Top Judge Urges Lawyers To Take Stand On Climate Change
• (AU) Companies, Directors, Governments Face Wave Of Climate Change Lawfare
• (AU) 2020 Climate Year in Review: Legal Insights
• (AU) Woodside Faces Challenge Over Burrup Hub LNG Plans Amid Pollution And Rock Art Fears
• Disappearing glaciers are threatening rare alpine plants with extinction
• Albanese throws a bone to Labor’s Right, but Joel Fitzgibbon remains off the leash
• Friday essay: masters of the future or heirs of the past? Mining, history and Indigenous ownership
• Why the EU’s proposed carbon border levy is an important test for global action on climate change

Prominent Climatologist Behind 'Hockey Stick' Graph Talks About The 'New Climate War'

CBC Radio Canada - Bob McDonald

Michael Mann said he's seen tactics shift from science denial to attempting to paralyze climate action

Michael Mann, professor of atmospheric science at the Pennsylvania State University, and author of 'The New Climate War' (Sydney Herdle)

Michael Mann Michael E. Mann is distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University. He is author of the upcoming book The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet.

Climate scientist Michael Mann is possibly best known for the iconic "hockey stick" graph published in 1998 that showed the steep rise in planetary temperatures. 

He was also one of the targets of a massive email hack dubbed "Climategate" aimed at discrediting climate scientists.

As a result of all this he gained an intimate knowledge of the strategies of those who are attempting to resist climate action — climate change deniers, and those trying to derail the political and social changes necessary to fight climate change.

Recently he's started seeing those strategies shift. In his new book, The New Climate War, he lays out what he's seeing, and what he thinks we need to do to preserve our planet.  He spoke with Bob McDonald about his new book.

Dr. Mann is a climate scientist and distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University. 

This interview has been edited for length and clarity

Q: You titled your book The New Climate War. How is it different from the old one?

A: The old climate war really was this basic attack on the foundational scientific evidence, an effort to discredit the very science underpinning human influence on our climate, and that is simply no longer credible. 

The forces of inaction haven't given up, but they've turned to a whole new array of tactics in their effort to prevent us from moving on, seeking to divide the climate advocacy community, getting us arguing and fighting with each other, deflecting attention away from the needed systemic changes, the needed policies towards individual behaviour, as if it's just a matter of individuals behaving better. 

The iconic hockey stick graph published by Dr. Mann and his colleagues in the journal Nature in 1998. (Nature)

Any effort that they can make to delay action on climate buys them billions of additional profits. And so this is what I call the new climate war. In some ways, it's more insidious because while they are not focusing on denying that climate change is real and human-caused, they are trying to convince us that that is not a problem or that the solutions don't involve getting off fossil fuels. 

Q: You have a four-point battle plan. Take me through that. 

A: First of all, don't waste all your time and effort debating climate change deniers. They're a fringe element. There are innocent bystanders, people who are caught sort of in the middle who are essentially victims of their efforts to deny the reality of climate change. And so we need to help those people out by providing them resources, by educating them about what the science has to say. I call them the persuadable middle.

The youth climate movement has been a game changer. Greta Thunberg and her fellow youth climate protesters, they've really centred this issue where it should have been all along. It's not just about the science or the economics or the politics and the policy issues. It's about ethics, our obligation not to degrade or destroy this planet for future generations.

We need a price on carbon, and Canada has that. The United States doesn't. We still lag behind. We need incentives, massive incentives, for renewable energy. We need all of these governmental policies that individuals like you and I can't pass on our own.

And, by the way, if they can make it about individual behaviour and lifestyle, well, all the better for them because then they can get us fighting with each other, finger-pointing and carbon-shaming each other because of our lifestyle choices when it comes to our food or our modes of transportation or whether we choose to have children. They would love nothing more than to have us fighting with each other about our individual lifestyle choices rather than representing a united front demanding action. 

Q: You call out misinformation as being one of the biggest battles we're fighting these days, and you were famously the victim of a massive disinformation campaign. How have misinformation and misdirection shaped the fight against climate change? 

A: You alluded earlier to the so-called "Climategate" affair, which was this massive disinformation campaign based on stolen emails of scientists. WikiLeaks played a role in promoting this. The fossil fuel industry played a role. State actors like Russia and Saudi Arabia played a role.

Mann is inspired by the youth climate movement, and young leaders like Greta Thunberg, pictured here at a climate strike in Vancouver. (Maggie MacPherson/CBC)

It may sound a bit familiar because, of course, that attack, which was 10 years ago, we could think of that as sort of a local cancer that ultimately metastasized as sort of this larger disease:  this cancer that infects our entire body politic here in the United States, where we've lost good faith in our public discourse, we've lost the willingness to accept common facts and recognize that we can debate the implications of the facts. 

There are powerful vested interests who have seen it as advantageous to their agenda, to discredit science and to discredit the message of science. 

Q: Take me through some of the false narratives that you're trying to debunk about climate change. 

A: So this is one important narrative: doom and gloom, despair mongering. There are climate advocates who, you know, of good intentions, of goodwill, who have come to believe that it's too late to do anything about the problem.
 
That's very dangerous because first of all, it's not true. The science indicates otherwise. The science indicates that if we reduce our carbon emissions dramatically, we can avert the worst impacts of climate change. For example, this idea that global warming is now unstoppable, that warming is going to release so much methane from the Arctic that it will warm the planet beyond habitable levels. There is no scientific support for that contention. 

A lot of the folks who fall victim to the doom and gloom are, again, of good intentions, of good will. But they're being weaponized. The inactivists love that narrative because they don't care about the path you take to inaction, whether it's outright denial of the science or denial that there's any possibility of doing anything about the problem. 

Q: Now, you are a scientist first. What science are you working on these days when you're not writing books? 

A: I do continue to do science. When it comes down to it, what I really enjoy doing most is doing science that is cranking out calculations, analyzing data sets, running models and comparing them with observations.

So some of the problems we're working on right now include understanding the relationship between climate change and the sorts of extreme weather events we've seen in recent summers in Canada and the United States and Europe and around the world: unprecedented heat waves and wildfires and floods and droughts. And it turns out that in researching the connections, we learned a couple of things. 

The New Climate War by Michael Mann

One of them is that even the state of the art climate models right now aren't capturing some of those connections. And so the climate models may be underestimating the impact climate change is having in producing these unprecedented, dangerous, extreme weather events.

To understand these connections, you end up using math, math and physics tools that were developed back in the early nineteen hundreds for problems in quantum mechanics. So it turns out to understand the impact that climate change is having on these extreme weather events at the planetary scale, we ended up turning to some of the math and physics that I studied decades ago to understand the behaviour of matter at the smallest scale. 

Q: You've been fighting this climate war for decades. Progress has been remarkably slow. Here we are in the 21st century. We're still on fossil fuels. Emissions are still rising. And yet you say that you're cautiously optimistic. Why is that? 

A: Yeah, I'm optimistic. Even the critics can no longer deny that climate change is real. It's happening because people can see it with their own two eyes.

Science denial is deadly and coronavirus has taught us that. We will get past this crisis. A year from now I think it will be largely in our rearview mirror. But still looming there will be, of course, the even greater crisis of climate change. And I'd like to think that the coronavirus crisis, the pandemic, has opened up an important conversation that will help us as we address this even larger crisis. 

Links

• The New Climate War Review: Reasons To Be Optimistic About The Future
• A World At War
• 12 New Books Explore Fresh Approaches To Act On Climate Change
• A Vision Of The World Acting On Climate Change – Imagine
• 6 Must-Read Climate Books That'll Inspire You To Take Action In 2021
• The Ministry For The Future: A Novel By Kim Stanley Robinson
• It’s Kids Vs. Parents In This Award-Nominated Climate Novel
• Welcome To The Feminist Climate Renaissance
• The 10 Hottest Climate Change Books Of Summer
• 13 Major Climate Change Reports Released So Far In 2020
• Why the way we talk about climate change makes some people stop listening

Carbon Conscious Media: The Publishers Ushering In A New Era Of Sustainability For Brands

The Drum - Rebecca Stewart

With our planet in the midst of a climate crisis, publishers are starting to realise that the way they source stories about our planet is just as crucial as the content itself. Enter a new generation of media that is bringing the carbon footprint of its journalism to the fore and attracting green advertisers in the process.

Author Rebecca Stewart is The Drum's Trends Editor. She manages the title's UK reporting team, commissioning and writing features that shine a spotlight on the big issues affecting the media and marketing industry.

Have you ever considered the carbon footprint of the journalism you consume?

With global newspaper circulation in decline, we’re certainly not talking about how many trees had to perish to get your fingers inky here; instead, we’re referring to how the articles you read online – and the way in which they’re produced – are contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.

Each time you conduct a Google search, or send an email, the transmission of that data pollutes the planet just a tiny amount, underpinned by a process that requires millions of physical servers around the globe, each sapping their own energy as millions of other people do the same thing.

The same can be said for when you click on a news story (regardless of whether it’s about Boris Johnson or Kim and Kayne) and the content passes through a series of delivery networks, data hubs and web infrastructure, all before reaching the little blue-lit screen in your hand.

The carbon footprint of our gadgets, the internet and the systems supporting them account for around 3.7% of global greenhouse emissions, according to green French Think Tank The Shift Project. To put that in context, that is roughly the same amount produced by the global airline industry (in normal, non-Covid-19 times).

What’s more, the carbon impact of a news story will often be exacerbated by how an editor briefs it out. If a reporter is required to be on the ground for a global story, they’ll often have to take a flight to get there.

As consumers increasingly embrace social causes, they are seeking out products and businesses that align with their values, and this extends to media brands too.

Recent IBM data from over 18,000 consumers shows that nearly six in 10 respondents are willing to change their shopping habits to reduce environmental impact.

Eight in 10 indicate sustainability is important for them. And for those who say it is very or extremely important, over 70% would pay a premium of 35%, on average, for brands that are sustainable and environmentally responsible.

In line with this, a fresh cohort of publishers are leaning into the rise of the green consumer with fresh platforms that promise a more environmentally-friendly reader experience. What’s more, they’re already courting attention from brands.

A new generation of carbon-conscious publishers

Beyond the Blue Planet effect, the BBC is one media owner bringing the carbon impact of its journalism to the fore via its global commercial arm. Last year, it launched Future Planet, an editorial platform for in-depth, evidence-based stories on potential solutions to the climate crisis.

Focused in global reporting, its ethos is built around enlisting local reporters on the ground to tell the stories from their communities who are witnessing the impact of climate change first hand. As a result, travel is kept to a minimum and local voices are prioritised.

From exploring whether the dairy industry can adapt to the climate crisis to taking audiences on a tour around the desert run on hydrogen, Future Planet plays host to all sorts of relevant content.

However, there’s a crucial point of difference: each story published carries a figure estimating the carbon emissions associated with creating it, with the BBC claiming itself as the first major publisher to take this step using an independent calculator.

For Amanda Ruggeri, managing editor of the wider BBC Future vertical, which is devoted to science and evidence-based features, it's already making a big difference. Between the site's launch in February 2020 and September of the same year, its journalists have expended less than a tonne of carbon on travel.

"That's the equivalent of less than a single flight from Chicago to Los Angeles," she explains.

"If we'd sent a reporter from London to all of the destinations we covered in that time frame it would have amounted to over 26,340 kilograms of carbon. That's almost almost 26 tonnes of carbon saved or almost five round trips from London to Sydeny. It shows the impact this model can make."

In the same period the site has clocked up 15 million page views and reached 7 million browsers.

"People are engaging with the content at length, which is wonderful to see."

Brands are starting to take notice too. BBC Global News has just snagged Standard Chartered as flagship sponsor of Future Planet from March to May 2021 in markets including Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, UAE, Kenya, Germany and China along with major cities in the US.

In addition, BBC’s StoryWorks branded content team will produce branded material for the client on the theme of ‘a force for good’, including podcasts, audiograms and dynamic articles.

The objective of the partnership is to establish Standard Chartered as a leader in sustainable, climate-friendly finance and communicate its value proposition around decarbonisation and transition to net-zero carbon, which is why it chose to align with the editorial strand.

One Pebble to start an avalanche

It’s not just media’s big boys that are investing in more sustainable media platforms, though. New players have entered the fore in recent years too.

Among them is ethical living magazine Pebble which was set up in 2016 as an antidote to the mainstream media’s “reluctance in covering sustainable issues and lifestyle topics” such as ethical fashion, plastic free living, slow travel and permaculture.

Journalist Georgina Wilson-Powell knew even four years ago that these topics would grow in everyday consumers, who want to reduce our their own environmental impact and expect businesses to do the same. Her platform now has 1.4 million regular readers.

As well as placing provenance on projects and stories other publishers might give a “once a year nod,” Wilson-Powell explains that the pure digital magazine uses green hosted servers. In 2019, it gave 1% of its revenues to various sustainable charities including Feedback and Fashion Revolution.

“When we were running events, we don’t print any flyers, use any single use plastic in set up and ensure all our signage and promo is reusable and made from recycled materials as much as possible,” adds Wilson-Powell.

Digital sustainability magazine Pebble uses green hosted servers.

This philosophy is one that has caught the eye of advertisers too.

“We’ve seen huge growth over the last few years, and our conscious consumer audience are at the forefront of eco trends, so we can spot industry growth in particular areas such as eco-friendly cleaning brands or zero waste shampoo, before it becomes mainstream,” she says.

The magazine counts a range of lifestyle brands, that share its planet and people first ethos, across native content, email marketing and social campaigns, as clients.

“I believe in working on long-term relationships where our readers feel like they’re part of the story rather than one off posts,” adds Wilson-Powell. “We like to say Pebble is a family, readers and brands both become friends and we have supported many ethical brands on their journeys to reach an audience who cares.”

However, she believes that many marketers are missing a trick when it comes to putting their money where their mouths are, and supporting ethical, independent media.

“It’s not enough to run campaigns that support causes or fly the flag for your green credentials, marketing teams need to look at where their spend is going too - and use that to help support the titles that are also doing good and working in a more ethical way than many mainstream outlets.

“While everyone is working with limited resources and budgets at a time when the media landscape has never been so precarious, we don’t funnel profits back to faceless shareholders, we use them to invest in projects that benefit the planet and our community and fund new journalism.”

The tricky maths of carbon measurement

Owing to the complexity of both travel and the internet, Ruggeri admits BBC Future Planet cannot directly measure the exact carbon emissions from any specific story. Since trains and buses aren’t fitted with emissions measuring devices, for instance, the team can’t be sure quite how much a journalist emitted on his or her journey.

BBC works with Wholegrain Digital to get a bespoke carbon estimate for Future Planet stories, but this is tricky too as the technology cannot yet measure for a given click exactly how much carbon is released from the transfer of that data over the internet or which type of device a reader is using when they make that click.

"We didn't want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good on that on though, as long as we're using the best science and the best research, we're part of the solution instead of just reporting on the solution."

Looking ahead, the media industry is coming together to find ways to collectively manage its digital carbon footprint.

A collaboration between computer scientists at the University of Bristol and nine major media companies, including BBC, ITV, Sky and Dentsu Aegis Network, will help content providers understand and manage the significant carbon impacts of digital content.

The 12-month effort, facilitated by sustainability group Carnstone, will see University of Bristol researchers working with sustainability and technology teams across the industry to map their carbon hot spots.

The aim is to create an online carbon calculator (DIMPACT) which will be available to any company offering digital products and services, democratising the ability to for media owners to bake sustainability into their products.

In the meantime, Ruggeri says its up to advertisers to support the media owners already acting in this space.

"As the world emerges from the pandemic, the climate crisis will once more emerge as the biggest challenge the world is facing. So for brands that are interested in being a part of the solution there's no better message to send right now than to align with platforms like ours."

Links

• The Shift Project: Towards Digital Sobriety (pdf)
• Research Insights: Meet the 2020 consumers driving change (pdf)
• The Drum: Climate Change
• BBC Future Planet
• Pebble Magazine: Your guide to stylish, sustainable living
• University of Bristol: Pioneering tool to manage media industry’s digital carbon footprint
• David Attenborough has issued a comms challenge and we need to prove we’re up to it
• Award Winning Stories: how the United Nations gave the world a seat at its table
• The Guardian reinforces climate credentials with fossil fuel ad ban

(AU) As Biden Hits The Accelerator On Climate Action, Australia Remains Stuck In Policy Paralysis

ABC - David Speers

Both major political parties are treading nervously on climate policy. (ABC News: Jed Cooper, Matt Roberts)

Joe Biden hit the accelerator on climate action this week.

In an all-hands-on-deck approach, the US President declared Wednesday to be "climate day at the White House", as he unveiled plans to freeze oil and gas leases on public land and double offshore wind energy.

He's converting the vast government car fleet to electric vehicles (made in the USA) and plans to host a climate summit of world leaders in April. The climate crisis, he says, is an existential threat.


Joe Biden signs three executive orders to tackle climate change.

Australia, meanwhile, remains stuck in climate policy paralysis, with both major parties treading nervously.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison supports reaching net-zero carbon emissions, but he can't say when this should happen — a rather important part of the equation. He wants more gas in the energy mix, but it's unclear who will pay and whether a big new gas plant is even viable.

And even the idea of funding a new coal-fired power plant won't go away.

Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack, fending off the never-ending agitation from his National Party backbench, still flirts with the idea of taxpayer subsidies for coal. Treasurer Josh Frydenburg says it's not going to happen.

Labor's shift in emphasis

Labor, meanwhile, has been unable to capitalise on any of this Coalition confusion. Nearly two years on from its third consecutive election defeat, the ALP is still trying to work out where to land with its vexed climate policy.

Anthony Albanese made a smart political and strategic decision early last year to commit to the target of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. He read the room and was helped by the overwhelming support for the 2050 target amongst business groups and the international community.

Labor's Mark Butler has been shifted out of the climate portfolio. (ABC News: Matt Roberts)

Far more difficult, and still unresolved, is whether Labor will adopt any mid-term targets or a mechanism to get there.

Albanese's decision to replace Mark Butler from the Labor left with Chris Bowen from the Labor right in the climate portfolio is at the very least a symbolic shift.

Butler had promised Labor would adopt "medium-term targets consistent with the terms of the Paris climate agreement".

A more cautious Bowen only says Labor's policy will be "evidence based" and "economically focused". We're told this is about a shift in emphasis, not policy direction.

It's now all about the "jobs" potential of taking climate action, rather than just saving the planet.

How will climate policy deliver jobs?

The proof, though, will be in the pudding. It's one thing to talk about "framing" the debate around jobs, it's another to demonstrate how your policies will deliver those jobs.

Bowen is now tasked with achieving the elusive Labor goal of landing a suitably ambitious and credible climate policy that doesn't spook voters in regional Queensland.

Albanese's instinct is not to rush into announcing these policies. He wants to see how global events play out this year, referencing this year's climate summit in Glasgow in particular.

Scott Morrison supports reaching net-zero carbon emissions but can't say when this should happen. (ABC News: Pedro Ribeiro)

Morrison, meanwhile, is signalling he won't be taking any updated 2030 or 2035 targets to the summit. In other words, the Australian Government's approach is to "wait and see", rather than moving too far ahead of the pack.

And there's unlikely to be any pressure from the opposition for the Government to be more ambitious, with Albanese also waiting to see how Glasgow plays out.

The Glasgow summit isn't being held until November, which could well be after the Australian election, depending on when the Prime Minister decides to send voters to the polls.

That doesn't mean nothing will happen in the climate debate before Glasgow; other countries will be making commitments throughout the year, with the Biden Administration likely to be leading the charge.

It's hard to imagine either the Government or opposition will be able to avoid telling the world — or indeed Australian voters — before November what their respective plans are for Australian emissions.

Climate policy may not be just about targets, but nor can targets be ignored. 

Links

• US President Joe Biden pauses oil and gas leases, cuts subsidies in 'bold' climate steps
• (AU) ‘Breathtaking’: What Joe Biden’s Sweeping Climate Plan Means For Scott Morrison
• (AU) The Verdict On Australia’s Emissions Targets: Catastrophic
• (AU) Politics Of Carbon Has Ended, Scott Morrison Declares
• Australia, The Climate Laggard, Could Lead The World: Over To You, PM
• (AU) Albanese Is Running Out Of Time To Solve Labor’s Climate Crisis. He Needs A Plan That Works For Two Australias
• (AU) Cowardice: What Morrison And Albanese Have In Common On Climate
• (AU) Anthony Albanese Says Coal Mining Could Continue In Australia In A Net Zero Emissions World
• (AU) Australia’s Democracy Has Faceplanted And Labor Is Staring Down Some Disturbing Truths
• (AU) What Albanese Could Have Said: We Lied – Australian Coalmines Have No Future

Climate Crisis: World Is At Its Hottest For At Least 12,000 Years – Study

The Guardian - Damian Carrington

Scientists say temperatures globally at highest level since start of human civilisation
   

The world’s continuously warming climate is revealed also in contemporary ice melt at glaciers, such as with this one in the Kenai mountains, Alaska (seen September 2019). Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The planet is hotter now than it has been for at least 12,000 years, a period spanning the entire development of human civilisation, according to research.

Analysis of ocean surface temperatures shows human-driven climate change has put the world in “uncharted territory”, the scientists say. The planet may even be at its warmest for 125,000 years, although data on that far back is less certain.

The research, published in the journal Nature, reached these conclusions by solving a longstanding puzzle known as the “Holocene temperature conundrum”. Climate models have indicated continuous warming since the last ice age ended 12,000 years ago and the Holocene period began.

But temperature estimates derived from fossil shells showed a peak of warming 6,000 years ago and then a cooling, until the industrial revolution sent carbon emissions soaring.

This conflict undermined confidence in the climate models and the shell data. But it was found that the shell data reflected only hotter summers and missed colder winters, and so was giving misleadingly high annual temperatures.

“We demonstrate that global average annual temperature has been rising over the last 12,000 years, contrary to previous results,” said Samantha Bova, at Rutgers University–New Brunswick in the US, who led the research.

“This means that the modern, human-caused global warming period is accelerating a long-term increase in global temperatures, making today completely uncharted territory. It changes the baseline and emphasises just how critical it is to take our situation seriously.”

The world may be hotter now than any time since about 125,000 years ago, which was the last warm period between ice ages. However, scientists cannot be certain as there is less data relating to that time.

One study, published in 2017, suggested that global temperatures were last as high as today 115,000 years ago, but that was based on less data.

The new research examined temperature measurements derived from the chemistry of tiny shells and algal compounds found in cores of ocean sediments, and solved the conundrum by taking account of two factors.

First, the shells and organic materials had been assumed to represent the entire year but in fact were most likely to have formed during summer when the organisms bloomed. Second, there are well-known predictable natural cycles in the heating of the Earth caused by eccentricities in the orbit of the planet.

Changes in these cycles can lead to summers becoming hotter and winters colder while average annual temperatures change only a little.

Combining these insights showed that the apparent cooling after the warm peak 6,000 years ago, revealed by shell data, was misleading. The shells were in fact only recording a decline in summer temperatures, but the average annual temperatures were still rising slowly, as indicated by the models.

“Now they actually match incredibly well and it gives us a lot of confidence that our climate models are doing a really good job,” said Bova.

1.0C Difference in temperature compared with the last 1,000 years

Guardian graphic. Source: Bova et al, Nature, 2021

The study looked only at ocean temperature records, but Bova said: “The temperature of the sea surface has a really controlling impact on the climate of the Earth. If we know that, it is the best indicator of what global climate is doing.”

She led a research voyage off the coast of Chile in 2020 to take more ocean sediment cores and add to the available data.

Jennifer Hertzberg, of Texas A&M University in the US, said: “By solving a conundrum that has puzzled climate scientists for years, Bova and colleagues’ study is a major step forward. Understanding past climate change is crucial for putting modern global warming in context.”

Lijing Cheng, at the International Centre for Climate and Environment Sciences in Beijing, China, recently led a study that showed that in 2020 the world’s oceans reached their hottest level yet in instrumental records dating back to the 1940s. More than 90% of global heating is taken up by the seas.

Cheng said the new research was useful and intriguing. It provided a method to correct temperature data from shells and could also enable scientists to work out how much heat the ocean absorbed before the industrial revolution, a factor little understood.

The level of carbon dioxide today is at its highest for about 4m years and is rising at the fastest rate for 66m years. Further rises in temperature and sea level are inevitable until greenhouse gas emissions are cut to net zero.

Links

• Nature: Seasonal origin of the thermal maxima at the Holocene and the last interglacial
• Climate crisis: record ocean heat in 2020 supercharged extreme weather
• Climate crisis making autumn leaves fall earlier, study finds
• World's beaches disappearing due to climate crisis – study
• Climate emergency: 2019 was second hottest year on record 
• Tackling degraded oceans could mitigate climate crisis - report 
• Climate change made European heatwave at least five times likelier
• Warming oceans likely to raise sea levels 30cm by end of century – study
• Past four years hottest on record, data shows