(AU) Angus Taylor Has Never Asked Climate Change Authority To Model Zero Carbon Pathway

RenewEconomy - Michael Mazengarb

Federal Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor

A key government climate advisory body has revealed that it has not been asked to prepare a plan for Australia to reach zero net emissions, raising fresh questions over the sincerity of the Morrison government claims to be committed to a zero emissions target.

The Climate Change Authority revealed on Wednesday that it had not received a request to develop a zero emissions plan by federal energy and emissions reduction minister Angus Taylor.

The admission came when it appeared before a committee inquiry examining a Climate Change Bill proposed by independent MP Zali Steggall. That legislation would set into law a zero net emissions target for 2050, and would establish an independent commission, much like the CCA itself, to provide advice to the federal government on how to achieve it.

The CCA was established by the Gillard government as a source of expert advice, but since the election of the Coalition government in 2013, it has been largely stripped of its resources and staffing, although it is still required to undertake periodic reviews into a range of government climate change initiatives, and can be tasked with investigating special topics as directed by the government.

When asked by Steggall whether Taylor had asked the CCA to develop a pathway for Australia to reach zero net emissions, the authority’s CEO Brad Archer said that it had not.

“So, the minister has not requested of the Climate Change Authority to review or plan a net zero pathway?” Steggall queried.

“That’s correct,” Archer responded.

The CCA has previously undertaken reviews of the Emissions Reduction Fund and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme and is currently undertaking a review into a trade and investment strategy in a low emissions economy.

Its new revelation follows a similar concession by officials from the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources who also said the department had not modelled a pathway to zero net emissions.

While many of Australia’s major trading partners have set a 2050 deadline to hit a zero emissions target, prime minister Scott Morrison and Angus Taylor have merely said that they wish to see Australia reach the target “as soon as possible”.

But revelations that neither the federal energy department nor a key government climate change advisory body has modelled what a pathway to zero net emissions may look like raises questions about the Morrison government’s commitment to reaching zero emissions.

Steggall told RenewEconomy that it was clear that the Morrison government was continuing to ignore experts when it comes to climate change.

“On the one hand, the Prime Minister says he wants to get to net zero as soon as possible, but on the other hand, his departments and agencies aren’t providing any advice or modelling on it. If we are serious, we need to get planning now,” Steggall said.

“The Government tells us it’s listening to the experts, but time and again, it is ignoring experts like the Climate Change Authority as we heard today. That is why I have proposed an empowered climate change commission in the Climate Change Bills. The powerful new commission will require the government to engage and respond to advice.

“We also heard that the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment are not costing climate impacts. The government talks a lot about costs, but how can the government claim action is expensive if it isn’t costing impacts? The Australian people deserve to know the true scale and price of the challenge in front of us,” Steggall added.

Links

• Climate Change Authority
• Climate Change Authority releases it 2020 review of the Emissions Reduction Fund
• Coalition ministers at odds over emissions target after Labor commits to net zero by 2050
• Angus Taylor says it is not Australian government policy to achieve net zero emissions by 2050
• Big business receives a net-zero emissions rocket from Angus Taylor
• Morrison government hasn’t yet modelled zero emissions pathway
• Independent MP Zali Steggall to propose climate change bill to parliament
• Independent MP Zali Steggall welcomes positive response to Climate Change Bill
• Climate Change Authority releases new report - Prospering in a low-emissions world: An updated climate policy toolkit for Australia

Invest In Low-Carbon Cities To Protect Climate And Boost Jobs, Governments Urged

World Economic Forum - Reuters, Anastasia Moloney

Public transport buses running with a compressed natural gas (CNG) engine are seen at a bus stand in New Delhi, India, November 18, 2020. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi

Key Points Cutting carbon emissions from energy, transport and construction in cities would bring jobs and savings, and curb climate change, a new report says. The Coalition for Urban Transitions has outlined preventative measures against climate change that governments and city leaders should prioritise. China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa are the six emerging economies which the report focuses on. Implementing such measures could bring $12 trillion in net benefits, based on cost savings alone, by 2050 and create millions of new jobs by 2030.

More COVID-19 recovery spending and public investment is needed for green transport and clean energy in cities, to create jobs, cut planet-heating emissions and limit the damage from climate change, U.N. officials and researchers said on Wednesday.

A report by the Coalition for Urban Transitions, a group of research organisations pushing for more sustainable cities, assessed climate-friendly measures governments and city leaders should prioritise in six emerging economies.

The report found that China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa - which account for a third of global GDP and about 40% of the world's urban population - could cut annual emissions in key urban sectors by up to 96% more than current plans by 2050, by investing in low-carbon initiatives.

Those include retrofitting old buildings to save on energy use, building new energy-efficient homes with rooftop solar panels, and ensuring affordable housing for the poor is connected to public transport.

Mobility must be made cleaner by expanding fleets of electric buses and adding walking and biking lanes, while cities should recycle more materials and waste, the report said.

Governments also need to help cities protect and restore peatland and mangrove ecosystems in and around them, to curb the risk of flooding and coastal storm surges, it added.

What's the World Economic Forum doing about the future of cities?

Cities represent humanity's greatest achievements - and greatest challenges. From inequality to air pollution, poorly designed cities are feeling the strain as 68% of humanity is predicted to live in urban areas by 2050.

The World Economic Forum supports a number of projects designed to make cities cleaner, greener and more inclusive.

Governments need to unlock the 'enormous potential' of cities to reduce carbon emissions. Image: Unsplash/Hakan Nural

These include hosting the Global Future Council on Cities and Urbanization, which gathers bright ideas from around the world to inspire city leaders, and running the Future of Urban Development and Services initiative.

The latter focuses on how themes such as the circular economy and the Fourth Industrial Revolution can be harnessed to create better cities.

To shed light on the housing crisis, the Forum has produced the report Making Affordable Housing a Reality in Cities.

Implementing such measures could bring $12 trillion in net benefits, based on cost savings alone, by 2050 and create millions of new jobs by 2030 - including 500,000 in Mexico, 8 million in India and 15 million in China, it said.

U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Amina J. Mohammed told the online report launch that carbon-neutral, climate-resilient and inclusive cities are essential "to overcome the climate crisis".

Yet only 14% - $2 trillion - of total pandemic stimulus spent in the G20 and 10 other major economies has gone to the energy, transport and waste sectors where cities are best-positioned to implement low-carbon initiatives, the report said.

Less than a third, $544 billion, of that stimulus was green.

"It is time to do better," the report added.

U.N. scientists have said global emissions must fall by about 45% by 2030 from 2010 levels to give the world a good chance of limiting the rise in average temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times.

"Unfortunately current commitments are nowhere near close to what is needed to achieve these targets," Mohammed said. "Carbon dioxide levels are at record highs and extreme wildfires, cyclones, floods and droughts are the new normal."

She urged governments to work with city leaders "to unlock the enormous potential in cities" to cut carbon emissions from energy, transport and construction.

U.N. climate chief Patricia Espinosa noted that cities in the six countries examined in the report produce about 40% of global emissions, but finance was lacking in such nations for low-carbon projects and helping residents, especially the poor, cope better with more extreme weather and rising seas.

By 2030, nearly 1 billion more people will be living in cities, and trillions of dollars will be invested in urban infrastructure, said top climate economist Nicholas Stern.

"Focusing on compact, connected and clean cities ... will be at the heart of achieving climate ambitions," said Stern, chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics.



Links

• Report: National governments can reap $12 trillion in returns, create millions of new jobs, reduce emissions through low-carbon investments in cities
• Global Future Council on Cities of Tomorrow
• The path to a greener future begins in our cities
• How cities can lead the green recovery
• What a mile-deep soil sample can teach us about climate change
• Invest in low-carbon cities to protect climate and boost jobs, governments urged
• Sea levels are rising fastest in big cities – here’s why
• We asked more than 110 investors how they plan for the unexpected. Here’s what we found out
• Sub-Saharan Africa needs fair access to global carbon budget
• Met Office: Atmospheric CO2 now hitting 50% higher than pre-industrial levels
• What a mile-deep soil sample can teach us about climate change

(AU) Climate Action 100+ Investor Group Calls On The World's Biggest Polluters To Lift Their Game

ABC News - Sue Lannin

Emma Herd from the Investor Group on Climate Change says the world's biggest polluters need to do more and spend more to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Key Points Climate Action 100+ represents the world's major investors No major corporation has put aside enough capital to meet UN climate goals Just 9 per cent of firms have targets to reduce supply chain emissions

The world's biggest investors have declared that the world's biggest polluters need to do more and, more particularly, spend more to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to live up to public commitments to cut their carbon footprints.

The report by investor coalition Climate Action 100+ is the group's first assessment of company performance on climate change.

Climate Action 100+ is made up of 575 investors who have $US54 trillion in assets under management, including some of the world's biggest investment houses like BlackRock and State Street.

A total of 159 companies were assessed on nine measures linked to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement, including whether they were on track to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and whether they had allocated enough capital to achieve their goals.

It found that none of firms surveyed had committed enough investment to meet the goals of the United Nations climate change treaty to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels.

Only six companies partially met the capital allocation criteria, including oil giants BP and Total, and consumer goods multinational Unilever.

The report said the finding showed a "huge gap in corporate reporting on climate risk management."

Just over half of the companies surveyed (83) had publicly announced a net zero carbon emissions goal by 2050, but just 9 per cent had targets to reduce most emissions in their supply chain, known as Scope 3 emissions.

The report found that fewer than one-in-five firms had a clear strategy for decarbonisation.

European companies performed the best in terms of setting net zero targets by 2050, with Australian firms second.

Firms in emerging economies, where economic conditions are challenging, struggled to meet climate targets.

Only three Australian firms have 'clear' zero emissions plans

Twelve Australian companies were assessed, including BHP, Rio Tinto, AGL, Woolworths and Qantas.

The report found that, on average, Australian companies satisfied just over one-in-three indicators, although local firms had the best disclosure.

Ten years ago one man's plan blew apart Australia's two great parties irrevocably just as they teetered toward consensus on climate change, the most divisive issue of the Australian political century. Read more...

Only three out of the 12 Australian firms — BHP, Rio Tinto and Santos — had a clear strategy to meet their goals of net zero emissions by 2050.

Despite public commitments by firms, including the big miners, to reduce their pollution levels and help their customers cut their carbon emissions, no Australian companies were judged to be spending enough to meet their targets.

Emma Herd from the Investor Group on Climate Change, which co-ordinates Climate Action 100+ in Australia, said the results were a mixed bag, with not enough firms putting in place measures such as linking executive pay to climate goals.

"What we're not seeing enough of is the detailed plans and the capital allocation," Ms Herd told the ABC.

"The ambition is great but the detail to implementation would be better."

Ms Herd said investors would continue to pressure big polluters, including at annual general meetings, to force change.

"It's not that surprising that many of these companies, the world's largest greenhouse gas emitters in the most hard-to-abate industry sectors are not satisfying all these areas of performance," she said.

"But definitely what investors are saying is we expect you to be able to meet these parameters of performance and we will be engaging with you to look at how you are improving your performance."

BHP outranked Rio Tinto in terms of climate change performance, but both firms were assessed as not allocating enough money to deliver on their promises.

Many in the Hunter Valley realise coal's days as the region's major export are numbered, and they're already working on what comes next. Read more...

Last week Rio agreed to endorse shareholder resolutions to set targets for cutting carbon emissions.

Australian Super manages $200 billion in pension funds and is a member of Climate Action.

Australian Super's environmental, social and governance director Andrew Gray said that Rio Tinto was assessed strongly because of an improvement in its approach to climate change, but he warned that "diversified mining companies will need to continue to develop and refine their approach on a number of key issues."

Qantas did not meet five of the assessed criteria, including an inadequate decarbonisation strategy and climate policy engagement.

The airline joined the Climate Action coalition in December last year and said it fully recognised the importance of lowering emissions.

"We were one of the first airlines to commit to being carbon neutral by 2050," Qantas said in a statement.

"We also have one of the largest carbon offsetting programs of any airline."

Mr Gray said the progress of Qantas on climate change was hampered by the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on global aviation.

Woodside Petroleum was judged not to meet the criteria on its decarbonisation strategy and capital allocation alignment.

The oil and gas producer said it would continue to engage directly with shareholders on its climate-related strategy and disclosures, and with Climate Action.

"LNG suppliers will have to earn their place by being increasingly low carbon and cost competitive," a Woodside spokesperson said.

"That's why our aspiration is to be net zero from operations by 2050 or sooner."

Links

• Climate Action 100+
• Climate Action 100+ issues its first-ever net zero company benchmark of the world’s largest corporate emitters
• Climate Action 100+ Investors to Raise Corporate Climate Ambition for 2021 Proxy Season
• Paris Agreement 5 Years On: Reasons for Optimism
• Climate Action 100+ progress report records accelerated company commitments to net-zero emissions but gaps remain
• Major US investors call on largest corporate emitters to disclose how their climate lobbying aligns with climate science
• Climate Action 100+ calls for net-zero business strategies & sets out benchmark of largest corporate emitters
• Investors welcome new BHP industry association and climate policy standards

(AU) ANZ Labelled ‘Worst In Australia’ On Climate Over Fossil Fuel Loans

Sydney Morning Herald - Charlotte Grieve

Environmental activists have attacked ANZ for financing fossil fuels despite recently launching an ambitious climate policy that prevents it from writing loans to new thermal coal plants.

A group of six green activist organisations including Rainforest Action Network (RAN), BankTrack and Reclaim Finance has trawled through Bloomberg terminals and open source data to determine which global banks are financing fossil fuels around the world.

The report found ANZ has written $15.2 billion in loans to 57 high-emitting companies over the past five years, including $2.9 billion last year alone to oil and gas producers such as Santos, Vitol, Thai Oil, United Petroleum and mining giants such as Glencore.

That compares to $6.5 billion worth of exposure to fossil fuels at Westpac, $6.2 billion at the Commonwealth Bank and $3.6 billion at the National Australia Bank over a five-year period, the report said.

Big banks are still funding billions of dollars in fossil fuel projects despite announcing net zero emissions targets. Credit: Rob Homer

The activists’ findings on the banks’ fossil fuel backing come as analysis by Climate Action 100+, a group of 545 investors managing a combined $70 trillion of assets, found Australian companies were not spending the money required to achieve net zero emissions targets.

ANZ pledged to stop funding new coal mines and power stations from last October, with plans to fully exit thermal coal by 2030. The policy was criticised at the time by senior Nationals politicians who said the bank was giving in to activist pressure, but chief executive Shayne Elliott has maintained the move was driven by financial risk.

DOWNLOAD THE FULL REPORT

However, the activists’ research revealed ANZ’s climate policy did not prevent it from providing loans to CLP Group last year, a Hong-Kong-based electricity company that makes 23 per cent of its revenue from coal and has stakes in coal mines in China, Taiwan and India.

ANZ’s policy also dictates it will only provide finance to “low carbon gas” and renewable energy projects by 2030. However, the bank loaned more than $1 billion last year to Inpex’s Western Australian Ichthys project, referred to as one of the world’s most significant oil and gas projects, the report says.

RAN member Alison Kirsch said ANZ was “ahead by a bullet when it comes to funding climate chaos”, compared to the other big banks. “When the policies are not replicated on the oil and gas side, this is what you see.”

An ANZ spokesman said the bank’s exposure to thermal coal had fallen significantly and would continue to “significantly reduce over time”.

“Since the Paris Agreement was reached in 2015, our exposure to thermal coal mining has reduced by about 70 per cent. Simultaneously, we have committed $50 billion to support companies in their transition to a low-carbon economy,” the spokesman said. “Our exposure to oil and gas businesses has remained relatively flat over the past five years.”

Dan Gocher, climate director at the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility, said ANZ had told investors it was not “shopping around” for new fossil fuel clients, “but they’re not turning down the deals when they come either”.

The federal government has launched a review into corporate policies that exclude investments in fossil fuels, with submissions open to industry and the public closing next month. Mr Gocher said action on climate at ANZ and other banks would “absolutely” be slowed down by the government’s push-back against these exclusions.

“There are companies that won’t speak out on climate just because they’re concerned about the government attacking them in the press,” Mr Gocher said. “This is supposed to be a free market.”

'Sheer virtue signalling': ANZ carbon policy riles Nationals

Looking at fossil fuel loans provided by the other big banks, the climate activists found that last year CBA provided finance to Glencore and Ichthys, NAB financed Whitehaven Coal and Glencore, and Westpac also financed Whitehaven Coal and Indian oil and gas giant ONGC Videsh.

CBA said the bank’s progress on its climate commitments had been outlined in its annual report, showing loans to gas and thermal coal producers had both decreased by 6 per cent over the year while its financing of oil companies had increased by 7 per cent. “We are committed to playing our part in limiting climate change in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement and supporting the responsible global transition to net zero emissions.”

NAB said it was unable to discuss individual customers, but pointed to plans to achieve “effectively zero” thermal coal exposure by 2035 and said it would review oil and gas financing by September. “Our customers are also working towards lower emissions and we are supporting them in developing or improving their low carbon transition plans,” the spokeswoman said.

Westpac also said it could not discuss individual clients, but added the report included diversified entities with limited fossil fuel exposure and multiple countings due to the inclusion of refinancing and underwriting contracts. A spokesman pointed to Westpac’s recent sustainability report, where it reported a $3.3 billion exposure to coal, oil and gas mining.

Mr Gocher said the bank’s climate policies were often vague, and provided the example of NAB banning finance to companies involved in arctic drilling and tar sands mining – operations that don’t exist in Australia. “They’re signalling a bit, but not really delivering on cutting back lending to oil and gas,” he said.

Investors to turn up heat on Australia’s biggest emitters

Climate Action 100 global steering committee member Emma Herd said Australian banks had done “a lot of work” to examine the credit risks in the thermal coal sector, and now this would be extended to other fossil fuel industries following net zero emissions targets announced last year by major trading partners such as China, Korea and Japan.

“Australia’s banks are in between a rock and a hard place at the moment,” Ms Herd said. “Climate change is a very problematic debate in Australia and they face a lot of pressure to do what everybody else wants them to do as well.

“It’s a work in progress and while it’s not as fast as some would like, and not as fast as we need it to be, it’s definitely shifting quickly.”

Links

• 60 Largest Banks In The World Have Invested $3.8 Trillion In Fossil Fuels Since The Paris Agreement
• Banking On Climate Chaos 2021
• Banking on Climate Chaos 2021: Fossil Fuel Finance Report
• JPMorgan Chase Expands Commitment to Low-Carbon Economy and Clean Energy Transition to Advance Sustainable Development Goals
• Citigroup: First Steps Towards Net Zero
• “Climate Commitments Not On Track to Meet Paris Agreement Goals” as NDC Synthesis Report is Published
• Global Coal Exit List 2020
• Here’s what you need to know about ‘the social cost of greenhouse gases’—a key climate metric
• This Google X spin-off is offering a pathway to heat and cool your home with clean energy
• Bill Gates: Nuclear power will ‘absolutely’ be politically acceptable again

(AU) If 80% Of Australians Care About Climate Action, Why Don’t They Vote Like It?

The Conversation - Rebecca Colvin | Frank Jotzo

Shutterstock

Authors Rebecca Colvin is Senior lecturer, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University Frank Jotzo is Director, Centre for Climate and Energy Policy, Australian National University

Poll after poll suggests a large majority of Australians cares about climate change. Yet in recent federal elections, this hasn’t translated into wins for parties with stronger policy platforms on climate change.

So what determines someone’s climate change attitude, and how does it translate into voting?

In research published today, we studied 2,033 Australian voters’ attitudes across the political spectrum in the context of the 2019 federal election. And we found over 80% said they think it’s important Australia reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This includes close to 70% of conservative voters (those voting for Coalition parties).

However, digging deeper reveals nuance to these attitudes. While most Australians support climate action, stark differences emerge along political party preferences in terms of how important voters think it is.

Our research suggests the question about social support for climate action in Australia is no longer: “does climate change matter to enough Australians?”. Instead, the critical question may well be: “does climate change matter enough to Australians to shift climate politics?”.

Why the ‘climate election’ didn’t pan out

We conducted our survey in July 2019, two months after the Coalition won the federal election. Its victory came as a surprise to many, as the election was sometimes billed the “climate election”, implying climate change was a bellwether issue.

The climate policies of the two major parties were night and day, with the Labor Party campaigning on ambitious mitigation targets and the incumbent Coalition maintaining the status quo of very limited climate policy.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison led the LNP to victory in 2019, defying the polls. AAP Image/Mick Tsikas

So what were the voters thinking?

We found about half of Australian voters (52%) said climate change was important when deciding their vote in the 2019 Australian federal election. However, climate was the most important issue for only 14% of voters.

Even among those who said they felt it was extremely important for Australia to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, most (58%) said climate change was important, but not the most important issue, when deciding their vote.

Climate change was stated as the most important issue for 21% of Labor voters and 39% of Greens voters, but for less than 5% of Liberal Party, National Party, and Queensland LNP voters.

This pattern was reversed for those who didn’t take climate change policy into account in their vote: 26% of Liberal, 21% of National, and 31% of Queensland LNP voters did not consider climate change when deciding their vote. Under 15% of Labor and Greens voters did the same.

And when we looked at how much voters cared about climate action, the differences become more potent. Three quarters (73%) of progressive voters (those voting for the ALP or the Greens) see Australian action to reduce emissions as “extremely important”. Only one quarter (26%) of conservative voters say the same thing.

Around four in five Australians (82%)
across the political spectrum want action on climate change.

Importance of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 2033 respondents, 2019, Australia.

Chart: The Conversation CC-BY Source: Rebecca Colvin, Frank Jotzo. Get the data

Who’s more willing to make sacrifices for the climate?

Our research also explored the extent voters were willing to accept a personal cost to support climate action. We asked about their willingness to accept a significant or small personal cost, but didn’t specify what we meant by small or significant, because a small cost to one person may be a significant cost to another.

Most voters (72%) said they’d be willing to incur some personal cost in return for emissions reductions. Across the political spectrum, the proportion of voters willing to accept a small personal cost is relatively similar: 60% of progressive voters, 55% of conservative voters.

Almost 30% of Australian voters
wouldn't make any personal sacrifices for the climate.
Willingness to accept a personal cost to support action
to reduce Australia's emissions, 2033 respondents, 2019, Australia.

Chart: The Conversation, CC-BY Source: Rebecca Colvin, Frank Jotzo, Get the data

Major differences emerge when it comes to “significant personal cost”.

While 26% of progressive voters are willing to incur a significant personal cost, only 5% of conservative voters feel similarly. At the other end of the spectrum, 40% of conservative voters are unwilling to incur any personal cost, but only 14% of progressive voters feel the same.

Support for strong climate policies may depend on whether the policies will, or are perceived to, personally impact voters. Given political leaders’ stances influence public support for climate policies (as 2018 research showed), our research highlights an opportunity for conservative political leaders to clarify their position on climate change.

Around one in four progressive voters
would accept significant personal cost for the climate.

Extent of willingness to accept a personal cost to support
climate action, 2033 respondents, 2019, Australia.

Chart: The Conversation, CC-BY Source: Rebecca Colvin, Frank Jotzo Get the data

Interestingly, age was a consistent predictor of responses. Younger people were more likely than older people to consider it important that Australia reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Younger people were more willing to incur a personal cost to support climate action, and to consider climate change when deciding their vote.

In fact, we found an Australian voter from the Baby Boomer generation is half as likely as a voter from Generation Z to consider it important to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Divisive politics have a limited shelf life

If future young people cared just as much about climate change as today’s young people, and if existing cohorts don’t change their views as they age, then the percentage of Australian voters who consider greenhouse gas emissions to be “extremely important” is likely to increase from 52% in our 2019 data, to 56% by 2030. By 2050, this figure could rise to 65%.

How might attitudes towards climate action change in future?
The projected percentage of voters who consider emissions reduction to be "extremely important"

Chart: The Conversation, CC-BY Source: Rebecca Colvin, Frank Jotzo Get the data

These projections are purely on the basis of more climate-aware cohorts coming into voting age and replacing older voters. It doesn’t consider any future changes in attitudes within cohorts (which may also make a big difference).

The key implication is simple. If Australian political leaders pursued stronger climate action, they could rest assured most of the voting population will broadly support them, along with most of their own voter base — regardless of which party is in power.

This will become only more pronounced with gradual generational change, and likely changes in attitudes within age groups. In any case, it’s clear divisive politics that result in climate delay have a limited shelf life.

Links

• Australia’s major parties’ climate policies side-by-side
• Australian voters’ attitudes to climate action and their social-political determinants
• The influence of political leaders on climate change attitudes
• New polling shows 79% of Aussies care about climate change. So why doesn’t the government listen?
• Nearly 80% of Australians affected in some way by the bushfires, new survey shows
• (AU) Wealthy Victorians Least Likely To Support Climate Action: Poll
• (AU) Survey Shows Australian Support For Paris Agreement And Net Zero Target
• (AU) Climate Change Worrying More Australians Than Ever Before, Australia Institute Report Reveals
• Many Globally Are As Concerned About Climate Change As About The Spread Of Infectious Diseases
• (AU) Changing The Narrative Of Climate Change

60 Largest Banks In The World Have Invested $3.8 Trillion In Fossil Fuels Since The Paris Agreement

CNBC - Catherine Clifford

Oil pumpjacks photographed in California, U.S. Gary Kavanagh | E+ | Getty Images

Major banks around the world are still financing fossil fuel companies to the tune of trillions of dollars.

A new report, published Wednesday from a collection of climate organizations and titled Banking on Climate Chaos 2021, finds 60 of the world’s largest commercial and investment banks have collectively put $3.8 trillion into fossil fuels from 2016 to 2020, the five after The Paris Agreement was signed.

DOWNLOAD THE FULL REPORT

“This report serves as a reality check for banks that think that vague ‘net-zero’ goals are enough to stop the climate crisis,” says Lorne Stockman, a Senior Research Analyst at Oil Change International, one of the organizations authoring the report, in a statement released with the report.

“Our future goes where the money flows, and in 2020 these banks have ploughed billions into locking us into further climate chaos.”

On an annual basis, total fossil fuel financing dropped 9% in 2020. But the report attributes that to Covid-19-related restrictions on demand.

The report also found that “fossil fuel financing ... from the world’s 60 largest commercial and investment banks was higher in 2020 than it was in 2016,” the first full year the Paris climate greement was in effect.

It is worth noting that President Donald Trump withdrew from the international agreement in 2017. President Joe Biden rejoined The Paris Agreement on his first day in office.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by United Nations (@unitednations)

The three banks that did the most fossil fuel financing in 2020, according to the report, were JPMorgan Chase at $51.3 billion; Citi at $48.4 billion; and Bank of America with $42.1 billion.

A representative of JPMorgan Chase told CNBC Make It that the bank could not comment on a third party report. But the bank did direct CNBC Make It to its initiatives addressing climate change, including “adopting a financing commitment that is aligned to the goals of the Paris Agreement” and facilitating $200 billion in clean, sustainable financing by 2025.

Citi directed CNBC Make It to a blog post published Tuesday from Val Smith, the bank’s Chief Sustainability Officer. In the post, Citi said it will work with existing fossil fuel banking clients to transition first to a public reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and then to a gradual phase out of financing offered to companies that don’t comply in adhering to carbon reduction standards.

“As the world’s most global bank, we acknowledge that we are connected with many carbon-intensive sectors that have driven global economic development for decades,” Smith wrote. “Our work to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 therefore makes it imperative that we work with our clients, including our fossil fuel clients, to help them and the energy systems that we all rely on to transition to a net-zero economy.”

Bank of America did not immediately respond to CNBC Make It’s request for comment.

The Banking on Climate Chaos 2021 report comes as indicators show global economies are not currently on track to meet the emissions reductions established as part of The Paris Agreement in 2015.

The 2020 report is the 12th annual, though the scope of the report has expanded in that time. The report was a collaboration by seven non-profits: Rainforest Action Network, Bank Track, Indigenous Environmental Network, Oil Change International, Reclaim Finance, and Sierra Club.

The report authors aggregate bank lending and underwriting data using Bloomberg’s league credit methodology, meaning credit is divided between banks playing a leading role in a given transaction, and uses data from Bloomberg Finance L.P. and the Global Coal Exit List.

Also, banks are given the opportunity to weigh in on the findings. “Draft report findings are shared with banks in advance, and they are given an opportunity to comment on financing and policy assessments,” the report says.

Links

• Banking On Climate Chaos 2021
• Banking on Climate Chaos 2021: Fossil Fuel Finance Report
• JPMorgan Chase Expands Commitment to Low-Carbon Economy and Clean Energy Transition to Advance Sustainable Development Goals
• Citigroup: First Steps Towards Net Zero
• “Climate Commitments Not On Track to Meet Paris Agreement Goals” as NDC Synthesis Report is Published
• Global Coal Exit List 2020
• Here’s what you need to know about ‘the social cost of greenhouse gases’—a key climate metric
• This Google X spin-off is offering a pathway to heat and cool your home with clean energy
• Bill Gates: Nuclear power will ‘absolutely’ be politically acceptable again

Major Climate Polluters Accused Of Greenwashing With Sports Sponsorship

The Guardian - Matthew Taylor

Report reveals more than 250 deals between high-carbon industries and leading sports teams

The former Team Sky are now sponsored by the oil and gas company Ineos. Photograph: Anne-Christine Poujoulat/AFP/Getty Images

Polluting industries are pouring hundreds of millions of pounds into sports sponsorship in an attempt to “sports-wash” their role in the climate crisis, according to the authors of a report published on Monday.

The study reveals more than 250 advertising and sponsorship deals between some of the biggest corporate polluters and leading sports teams and organisation.

Andrew Simms, a co-director of the New Weather Institute and one of the report’s co-authors, said:“Sport is in the frontline of the climate emergency but floats on a sea of sponsorship deals with the major polluters. It makes the crisis worse by normalising high-carbon, polluting lifestyles and reducing the pressure for climate action.”

The report, by the New Weather Institute, the climate charity Possible and the Rapid Transition Alliance, identified advertising and sponsorship deals with major polluters across 13 different sports, including football, cricket and tennis.

Football was found to have the most deals, receiving 57 sponsorships from high-carbon industries ranging from oil and gas corporations to airlines.

Simms said: “We know about ‘greenwash’ – when polluters falsely present themselves as environmentally responsible. This is ‘sports-wash’ – when heavily polluting industries sponsor sport to appear as friends of healthy activity, when in fact they’re pumping lethal pollution into the very air that athletes have to breathe, and wrecking the climate that sport depends on.”

He said “major polluters” had replaced tobacco companies as big sports sponsors. “They should be stopped for the same reason tobacco sponsorship ended: for the health of people, sports and the planet.”

The study follows a high-profile campaign against UK arts institutions’ sponsorship deals with oil and gas giants. Several have now cut their ties to fossil fuel companies.

The authors of the report say sport will be the next battlefield in challenging the social licence of polluting industries.

“Sport has been a gamechanger in raising awareness and rapidly shifting opinions and policy on vital issues ranging from child poverty to racism,” said Simms. “Now it could be set to do the same for climate change.”

The report claims that the car industry is the most active high-carbon sector courting sports sponsorship, with 199 different deals across all sports.

Airlines come second with 63, followed by oil and gas companies such as Gazprom and Ineos, whose deals have previously been criticised by climate campaigns.

When Ineos was preparing to take over sponsorship of Team Sky cycling in 2019, a spokesperson for the chemicals company said it was committed to moving towards a circular economy.

The report reveals the carmaker Toyota as the largest sponsor with 31 deals, followed by the airline Emirates with 29 partnerships.

A spokesperson for Toyota said it could not comment in detail without seeing the full report, adding that the company had been “the world leader in low-emission electrified vehicles for 25 years” and had “amongst the lowest CO₂ fleet averages of any major volume manufacturer and is committed to some of the most ambitious environmental goals of any mobility company”.

Emirates did not respond to requests for comment.

Campaigners argue that the findings in the report appear to undermine recent pledges made by many clubs and sports bodies to take action on climate breakdown.

Melissa Wilson, a member of the GB rowing team for the Tokyo Olympics, is one of the athletes supporting the campaign. “As athletes, we focus a lot on keeping sport ‘clean’ through prioritising anti-doping,” she said.

“Yet continuing to pollute in the face of the climate emergency is the Earth equivalent of doping or scoring own goals. By keeping polluting sponsors on board, sports detract from their opportunity to play a productive part in the race to zero carbon. It’s time for sports and athletes to change that.”

Links

• Climate Polluters Pour Billions Into Hundreds of 'Sportswashing' Sponsorships: Report
• Climate crisis threatens future of global sport, says report
• Sport floats on a sea of high-carbon sponsorship (pdf)
• Royal Shakespeare Company to end BP sponsorship deal
• Anti-fracking protesters to line Tour de Yorkshire route
• Climate crisis: 2020 was joint hottest year ever recorded
• Ban SUV adverts to meet UK climate goals, report urges
• 'Coronavirus profiteers' condemned as polluters gain bailout billions
• EU accused of climate crisis hypocrisy after backing 32 gas projects
• Firms ignoring climate crisis will go bankrupt, says Mark Carney
• Ineos accused of 'greenwashing' over Daily Mile sponsorship
• Greenhouse gas emissions in UK fell 3% in 2018, official figures show
• Artist donates part of BP prize money to Greenpeace in oil sponsorship protest