A leaked draft report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change paints the starkest picture yet of the accelerating danger
caused by human use of coal, oil, and gas.
It warns of coming unlivable heat waves, widespread hunger and drought, rising
sea levels and extinction.
To understand the report's warnings,
William Brangham turns to atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayoe.
TRANSCRIPT
Judy Woodruff:
A leaked draft report from the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change paints the starkest
picture yet of the real and accelerating danger caused by
humans' use of coal, oil, and gas.
William Brangham has the latest.
William Brangham:
That's right, Judy.
This is a draft report, so it may still change. And it was
obtained by the AFP, the Agence France-Presse., even so, the
report says the threat from climate change is real, it's here,
and it's getting worse.
It lays out a myriad of impacts, unlivable heat waves,
widespread hunger and drought, rising sea levels that will
force millions from their homes, and the extinction of many
species.
For a U.N. agency, the draft language is blunt, saying — quote
— "The worst is yet to come, affecting our children's and
grandchildren's lives much more than our own."
For more on this, we turn to atmospheric scientist Katharine
Hayhoe. She's authored over 100 research papers, written many
climate reports, and currently teaches at Texas Tech
University. She's also the chief scientist for the Nature
Conservancy.
Professor Hayhoe, very good to have you back on the
"NewsHour."
The UNIPCC keeps saying this is a draft, it may change, but I
think it's pretty clear to say this language is incredibly
stark for the U.N.
What do you see as the main points to take away from this
draft?
I can't comment specifically on the contents of the draft
because it is a confidential document that was provided to
governments and experts for review.
But what I can say is that the results should be no surprise,
because we have known since the 1800s that digging up and
burning coal then, now gas and oil, are producing
heat-trapping gases that are wrapping an extra blanket on the
planet.
In 1965, scientists were sufficiently concerned about the
risks of climate change for humans that they formally warned a
U.S. president. And that was Lyndon B. Johnson. The IPCC
report on the 1.5-degree target that came out in 2018 was
absolutely clear. They said every bit of warming matters,
every action matters, every choice matters, and, really, the
time to act is now.
William Brangham:
It seems that, just from what we understand of the draft
language, that this points to very overtly so many other
threads of our lives, the food that we eat, the air that we
breathe, whether we can walk outside in temperatures that
don't burn us.
I mean, it seems like it is stretching to every aspect of what
it takes to survive on Earth.
Katharine Hayhoe:
That is exactly what is at stake.
After the polar bear, we are next. Climate change is not
something that needs to be moved up any of our priority lists.
The only reason we care about it is because it affects every
aspect of our lives, from literally the air we breathe, to the
food we eat, to the safety of our homes, to our economy, to
the health of our children.
I'm part of an organization called Science Moms, where we
connect climate change to moms and how we care about our kids.
And one of my fellow Science Moms, Joellen Russell, who's at
Arizona, she said today — she said: I had to wake my kids up
at 5:00 a.m., so they could go outside to play because it was
too hot and dangerous for them to play later in the day.
How does that not matter to any parent?
William Brangham:
I'm always leery of saying, well, this will be a turning
point, this heat wave, this drought, this loss of ice.
I wonder, why do you think it has us to take so long to
appreciate the severity of this situation?
Katharine Hayhoe:
We humans are really good at psychologically distancing
ourselves from things that we think will matter in the future,
but not now, from how much money we save for retirement, or
how much we exercise, or don't, or what we eat and what we
shouldn't.
And it's same with climate change. It turns out, in the U.S.,
almost three-quarters of the people would say, oh, yes,
climate change is real, it will affect future generations, it
will affect plants and animals, it will affect people who live
in countries far away.
But when you say, do you think it will affect you, the number
drops precipitously to just over 40 percent. That gap is our
biggest problem, not the gap of people who say it isn't real,
the gap of those of us who say is real, but we don't think it
matters.
William Brangham:
Right. I remember you saying before about how the two great
myths are, it won't affect me, and there's nothing that I can
do.
So, for — this report certainly blows away that first myth, as
you are saying. This certainly affects everybody that lives on
this planet.
What about that second issue, though? For someone who is
hearing this news and paying attention to this, and
despairing, rightly so, what do you say to them?
Katharine Hayhoe:
To them I say, you know what? Every single one of us can make
a difference.
And here's the amazing thing. It all begins by talking about
it, by having a conversation about why it matters, how it
connects to what we're already passionate about, whether we're
a mom, whether we live in California and we're worried about
wildfires, whether we're worried about bigger, stronger
hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, whether we're a farmer, whether
we're a business owner, whether we care about national
security.
Talk about why it matters and talk about what we can do to fix
it, from individual actions, like efficiency, clean energy,
electric cars, reducing our meat intake, eating more plants,
to much bigger scale. What can our company do? What could our
school or university do? How could our place of worship help?
How could our city get in on the action?
Cities are really where it's at when it comes to climate
action. We have to recognize that climate action is not a
giant boulder sitting at the very bottom of the hill with only
one or two hands trying to push it up an impossibly steep
cliff. The boulder is already at the top of the hill. It's
already starting to roll down. It's already got millions of
hands on it. It just isn't going fast enough.
William Brangham:
Another aspect that the U.N. report, this draft report touches
on is our seeming failure at doing real adaptation to the
threats we're already seeing, from rising seas, to droughts,
to agriculture.
What would you counsel governmental leaders to be doing on
that front, to deal with the threats that are here today, even
as we also try to deal with emissions longer term?
Katharine Hayhoe:
Absolutely.
We no longer have a choice between cutting our carbon
emissions or adapting to climate change. We have to do both,
because the third alternative is suffering. It's as if we have
been smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for years and even
decades. You might have some spots on your lungs and impaired
breathing, but we don't have emphysema, we don't have lung
cancer, and we're not dead yet.
So how can we prepare for that future? We have to prepare our
water systems, our infrastructure, our buildings, our food
systems, even our national security systems. We have to
prepare them for the changes that are coming.
And we're already doing that. Adaptation is already happening.
And along the way, it can save us money, it can clean up our
air and our water, and it can provide us with much more
healthy and livable cities too.
William Brangham:
All right, Professor Katharine Hayhoe, always good to see you.
Thank you very much for being here.
Aaron Simmons is Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, University of New
England
Annette Cowie is Adjunct Professor, University of New England
Brian Wilson is Associate Professor, University of New England
Mark Farrell is Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO
Matthew Tom Harrison is Associate Professor of Sustainable Agriculture,
University of Tasmania
Peter Grace is Professor of Global Change, Queensland University of
Technology
Richard Eckard is Professor & Director, Primary Industries Climate
Challenges Centre, The University of Melbourne
Vanessa Wong is Associate Professor, Monash University
Warwick Badgery is Research Leader Pastures an Rangelands, The University
of Melbourne
Soil carbon is in the spotlight in Australia.
A key plank in the
Morrison government’s
technology-led
emissions reduction policy, it involves changing farming techniques so soils
store more carbon from the atmosphere.
Farmers can encourage and accelerate this process through methods that increase
plant production, such as improving nutrient management or sowing permanent
pastures.
For each unit of atmospheric carbon they remove in this
way, farmers can earn “carbon credits” to be sold in emissions trading
markets.
But not all carbon credits are created equal.
In one high-profile
deal
in January, an Australian farm sold soil carbon credits to Microsoft under a
scheme based in the United States.
We analysed the methodology
behind the trade, and found some increases in soil carbon claimed under the
scheme were far too optimistic.
It’s just one of several problems raised by the sale of carbon credits offshore.
If not addressed, the credibility of carbon trading will be
undermined. Ultimately the climate - and the planet - will be the loser.
The integrity of soil carbon trading must be assured.Shutterstock
What is soil carbon trading?
Plants naturally remove carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the air through
photosynthesis. As plants decompose, carbon-laden organic matter is added to the
soil. If more organic matter is added than is lost, soil carbon levels increase.
Carbon trading schemes require the increase in soil carbon levels to be
measured. The measurement methods are well-established, but can be costly and
complex because they involve collecting and analysing large numbers of soil
samples. And different carbon credit schemes measure the change in different
ways - some more robust than others.
The Australian government’s Emissions Reduction Fund has a rigorous approach to
soil sampling, laboratory analysis and calculation of credits. This ensures only
genuine removals of atmospheric carbon are rewarded, in the
form of
“Australian Carbon Credit Units”.
Farmers can choose other schemes under which to earn carbon credits, such as the
US-based carbon offset platform Regen
Network.
Regen Network’s method for estimating soil carbon largely involves collecting
data via satellite imagery. The extent of physical on-the-ground soil sampling
is limited.
Regen Network issues “CarbonPlus credits” to farmers deemed to have increased
soil carbon stores. Farmers then sell these credits on the Regen Network trading
platform.
Regen Network video explaining its remote sensing methods.
‘A number of concerns’
It was Regen Network which sold Microsoft the soil carbon credits generated by
an Australian farm, Wilmot Station. Wilmot is owned by the Macdoch Group, and
other Macdoch properties have also claimed carbon credits under the Regen
Scheme.
Regen Network should be applauded for making its methods and calculations
available online. And we appreciate Regen’s open, collaborative approach to
developing its methods.
However, we have reviewed their documents and have a number of concerns:
the dry weight of soil in a known volume, also known as “bulk density”, is a
key factor in calculating soil carbon stocks. Rather than bulk density being
measured from field samples, it was calculated using an equation. We
examined this method and determined it was far less reliable than field
sampling
Estimates of soil carbon were not adjusted for gravel content. Because
gravel contains no carbon, carbon stock may have been overestimated
The remote sensing used by Regen Network involved assessment of vegetation
cover via satellite imagery, from which soil carbon levels were estimated.
However, vegetation cover obscures soil, and research has found predictions
of soil carbon using this method are highly
uncertain.
Wilmot increased soil carbon, or “sequestration”, through changes to grazing and
pasture management. The resulting rates of carbon storage calculated by Regen
Network were extremely high – 7,660 tonnes of carbon over 1,094 hectares. This
amounts to 7 tonnes of carbon per hectare from
2018 to 2019.
These results are not consistent with our experience of what is possible through
pasture management. For example, the CSIRO has
documented
soil carbon increases of 0.1 to 0.3 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year in
Australia from a range of methods to increase pasture production.
We believe inaccurate methods have led to the carbon increase being
overestimated. Thus, it appears excess carbon credits may have been awarded.
Many carbon trading schemes apply
rules to ensure
integrity is maintained. These include:
an “additionality test” to ensure the extra carbon storage in the soil would
not have happened anyway. It would prevent, for example, farmers claiming
credits for practices they adopted in the past
ensuring sequestered carbon is maintained over time
disallowing double-counting of credits – for example, by preventing a
country claiming credits that have been sold offshore.
The Emissions Reduction Fund and other well-recognised international schemes,
such as Verra and
Gold Standard, apply these rules
stringently. Regen Network’s safeguards are less rigorous.
Responses to these claims from Regen Network and Macdoch Group can be found at
the end of this article. A full response from Regen can also be found
here.
Carbon trading is a way for farmers to make money by changing
their land management practices.Shutterstock
Not in the national interest?
Putting aside the problems noted above, the offshore sale of soil carbon
credits generated by Australian farmers raises other concerns.
First, selling credits offshore means Australia loses out, by not being able to
claim the abatement towards our own
government
and
industry
targets.
Second, soil carbon does not have unlimited emissions reduction potential. The
quantum of carbon that can be stored in each hectare of soil is
constrained, and limited by factors such as land availability and
climate change. So measures to increase soil carbon should not detract from society’s efforts
to reduce emissions from fossil fuel use.
And third, ensuring carbon remains in soil long after it’s deposited is a
challenge because soil
microbes break down organic matter. Carbon credit schemes commonly manage this
by requiring a “buffer” of unsold credits. If stored carbon is lost, farmers
must relinquish credits from the buffer.
If the loss is greater than the buffer, credits must be purchased to make up the
difference. This exposes farmers to financial risk, especially if
carbon prices rise.
Poorly managed carbon trading schemes can put farmers at
financial risk.Shutterstock
Getting it right
Soil carbon is a promising way for Australia to substantially reduce its
emissions. But methods used to measure gains in soil carbon must be accurate.
Carbon markets must be regulated to ensure credit is awarded for genuine
abatement, and risks to farmers are limited. And the extent to which offshore
carbon markets prevent Australia from meeting its own obligations to reduce
emissions should be clarified and managed.
Improving the integrity of soil carbon trading will have benefits beyond
emissions reduction. It will also improve soil health and farm productivity,
helping agriculture become more resilient under climate change.
Regen Network Response
Regen Network provided The
Conversation with a response to concerns raised in this article. The full
nine-page statement provided by Regen Network is available
here.
The following is a brief summary of Regen Network’s statement:
- Limited on-ground soil sampling: Regen Network said its
usual minimum number of soil samples was not reached in the case of Wilmot
Station, because historical soil samples - taken before the project began -
were used. To compensate for this, relevant sample data from a different farm
was combined with data from Wilmot.
“We understand the use of ancillary data does not follow best practice and our
team is working hard to ensure future projects are run using a sufficient
number of samples,” Regen Network said.
- Bulk density: Regen Network said the historical sample data
from Wilmot did not include “bulk density” measurements needed to estimate
carbon stocks, which required “deviations” from its usual methodology. However
the company was taking steps to ensure such estimates in future projects “can
be provided with higher degrees of accuracy”.
- Gravel content: Regen Network said lab reports for soil
samples included only the weight, not volume, of gravel present. “Best
sampling practice should include the gravel volume as an essential parameter
for accurate bulk density measurements. We will make sure to address this in
our next round of upgrades and appreciate the observation!” the statement
said.
- Remote sensing of vegetation: Regen Network said it did not
use vegetation assessment at Wilmot station. It tested a vegetation assessment
index at another property and found it ineffective at estimating soil carbon.
At Wilmot station Regen used so-called individual “spectral bands” to estimate
soil carbon at locations where on-ground sampling was not undertaken.
- Sequestration rates at Wilmot: Regen Network said while it
was difficult to directly compare local sequestration rates across climatic
and geologic zones, the sequestration rates for the projects in question “fall
within the relatively wide range of sequestration rates” reported in key
scientific studies.
Regen Network said its methodology “provides a conservative estimate on the
final number of credits issued”. Its statement outlines the steps taken to
ensure soil carbon levels are not overestimated.
- Integrity safeguards: Regen Network said it employs
standards “based both on existing standards of reputable programs […] and
inputs from project developers, in order to come up with a standard that not
only is rigorous but also practical”. Regen Network takes steps to ensure
additionality and permanence of carbon stores, as well as avoid double
counting of carbon credits generated through their platform.
A more detailed response from Regen Network can be found
here.
Wilmot Station Response
Wilmot Station provided the
following response from Alasdair Macleod, chairman of Macdoch Group. It has
been edited for brevity:
We entered into the deals with Regen Network/Microsoft because we wanted
to give a hint of the huge potential that we believe exists for farmers in
Australia and globally to sequester soil carbon which can be sold through
offset markets or via other methods of value creation.
Whilst we recognise that the soil carbon credits generated on the Macdoch
Group properties in the Regen Network/Microsoft deal will not be included
in Australia’s national carbon accounts, it is our hope that over time the
regulated market will move towards including appropriately rigorous
transactions such as these in some form.
At the same time we have also been working closely with the Australian
government, industry organisations, academia and other interested parties
on Macdoch Group properties to develop appropriate soil carbon
methodologies under the government’s Climate Solutions Fund.
This is because carbon measurement methodologies are an evolving science.
We have always acknowledged and will welcome improvements that will be
made over the coming years to the methodologies utilised by both the
voluntary and regulated markets.
In any event it has become clear that there is huge demand from the
private sector for offset deals of this nature and we will continue to
work towards ensuring that other farmers can take advantage of the
opportunities that will become available to those that are farming in a
carbon-friendly fashion.
At the heart of the Coalition’s problem with climate change is that they’ve told
Australians that dealing with it will be cost free.
It’s not true.
What it really means is that Australians are being told they can be freeloaders.
The
International Energy Agency
says it will cost the world $US5 trillion a year by 2030, of which Australia’s
share, based on GDP, would be $110 billion a year, about three times the current
defence budget … if we spent it, that is, and weren’t freeloaders.
The point about
reducing emissions to (net) zero by 2050
is that it will cost much less than the alternative, which is allowing the
planet to heat up by more than 1.5 degrees.
Politicians around the world, not just here, are trying to pretend they can
dodge the cost and/or continue to mine fossil fuels, and in Australia this line
has become especially well honed, especially in the Coalition.
The methodology has shifted over time, from outright denial that global warming
is happening to: “We’re doing our bit” (Liberal Party) or “It’s too far off” and
“Not our problem” (National Party).
Ex-leader of the Nationals, Michael McCormack, said in February: “I’m certainly
not worried about what might happen in 30 years’ time.”
New leader Barnaby Joyce said: “We’ll all be dead by then”, or words to that
effect, which is called “cut through”, so he got the job.
And the difficulty with committing to net-zero emissions by 2050, as the
government will obviously have to do this year, is that it will be impossible to
keep saying it will be cost-free.
Research by Stanford University has found that since 2000, it has cost the
United States and the European Union at least $4 trillion in lost output and
tropical countries are 5 per cent poorer than they would have been without
climate change impacts.
And, of course, Australia has seen plenty of extreme weather events in recent
years, including the $100 billion
bushfires
in 2019-20.
The Coalition government’s song sheet for ministers is to no longer deny the
science, but to say Australia will fix it with technology, not taxes.
The Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor, told Sky News
recently: “That’s how we’ll achieve this, not by raising the cost of energy, not
by imposing taxes on Australians, not by telling them what kind of cars to
drive, but by developing and deploying technologies that allow them to bring
down their emissions.”
There are two things that will expose that fallacy: First, companies are
voluntarily committing to net zero by 2050 and buying carbon credits and offsets
to achieve it and therefore increasing their costs and prices, and second, the
imposition of carbon border adjustments by countries that have put a price on
carbon emissions to stop Australia being a freeloader.
Europe already has a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) as these taxes
are called, and it will soon be global.
Meanwhile, the voluntary carbon offsets market is growing rapidly, based on
demand from companies trying to do the right thing.
There are four global NGOs issuing carbon abatement certificates: The Verified
Carbon Standard, or Verra, Climate Action Reserve, Gold Standard and the
American Carbon Registry.
An outfit called Science Based Targets has signed up 1537 companies worldwide,
including 32 in Australia, to limiting warming to 1.5 degrees.
Another group called Climate Action 100+ has 167 companies, including 14 in
Australasia, with a variety of emissions targets.
Many local companies have committed to being “carbon neutral” on various time
frames, either because shareholders and employees are demanding it, or they
believe customers want it.
For example, Telstra has been carbon neutral for 12 months by buying two million
tonnes of offsets – supporting carbon-reduction projects. To do it the company
investigated 1000 projects and chose less than 50.
In October last year, Australian carbon trading firm CBL Markets launched the
world’s first standardised carbon offset futures contract, called the GEO
(global emissions offset).
The current spot price of GEOs is $US2.50 per tonne, up from US70c when it
launched; trading is brisk.
And the Australian Clean Energy Regulator has called for tenders to run a local
carbon credits exchange and has been flooded with bids, including from CBL
Markets and the ASX.
Not that the official market in Australia is up to much.
On Tuesday this week, the regulator had issued a total of 95,354,615 Australian
Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs), almost all of which have been bought by the federal
government’s Emissions Reduction Fund, with taxpayers’ money.
What’s left – about 6 million units – can be traded on the exchange, but that
represents less than 1 per cent of the emissions covered by the National
Greenhouse and Energy Reporting scheme that was introduced in 2007.
The last auction of ACCUs in April resulted in an average price of $15.99, less
than a fifth of the European price.
Why the difference?
Simply because Australia hasn’t committed to net-zero emissions by 2050 like
everyone else, which means companies are not required to buy many ACCUs so there
isn’t much demand for them.
Which brings us back to where this column began: Freeloading.
A minority of companies have made a net-zero emissions commitment of some sort
and are buying offsets, which mean their costs rise and they become less
competitive. Their competitors are freeloading.
Some companies are offering customers the option of paying more to offset their
carbon footprint caused by buying that company’s product, and some people are
actually paying it, even though most are freeloading instead.
The reason for a national target of net zero by 2050 – that is, making emissions
reduction mandatory rather than “preferable” – is to spread the burden of
reducing emissions and share the cost.
Eventually carbon border adjustments and a consensus among corporate
stakeholders forcing companies to buy offsets will ensure that everyone pays in
the end.
And maybe that’s the cunning political plan, to simply dodge the blame for the
inevitable.
Energy Minister Angus Taylor Picture:
Sitthixay Ditthavong
Australia's green bank will be blocked from funding non-renewable technologies
after the Morrison government's bid to expand the agency's remit was thwarted in
the Senate.
Labor, the Greens and crossbenchers teamed up in a vote late on Tuesday to
torpedo new regulations allowing ARENA to invest in the federal government's
favoured "low emissions" technologies, including carbon capture and storage and
"clean hydrogen".
The Parliamentary Library's advice suggested the changes could be invalid and
vulnerable to legal challenge, which would would place "considerable
uncertainty" over projects supported under the new regime.
Department officials had previously insisted the changes were "quite legitimate"
and believed they would survive legal challenge.
Labor have shown their true colours - opposing investment in new clean
technologies which will create jobs and economic opportunities.
@AustralianLabor
doesn't believe in technology to reduce emissions, only taxes, which means
Australians will pay more
#auspol
Labor and the Greens' attempt last week to block the ARENA overhaul was voted
down in the House of Representatives, where the Coalition holds an absolute
majority.
The government will berueing the absence of One Nation senator Pauline
Hanson, whose vote on Tuesday night would have tipped the Coalition over the
line.
Energy Minister Angus Taylor slammed Labor after the vote, saying its decision
to team up with the Greens would result in the loss of $192 million in planned
investment and 1400 jobs.
Nah mate. We’ve opposed and defeated your efforts to water-down ARENA’s
commitment to renewables and give yourself (yes, you!) the power to determine
what a “low emissions technology” is. You keep attacking ARENA and CEFC and
we’ll keep defending them.
https://t.co/KtAaqqJcE0
"Labor has walked away from clean tech jobs, and blue-collar jobs," he said.
"Despite the Australian Labor Party platform explicitly supporting these
technologies, every Senator in the Australian Labor Party room has now voted
against them.
"It has not only shown that Labor is economically reckless, but that their
promises cannot be trusted."
Labor's climate and energy spokesman, Chris Bowen, dismissed Mr Taylor's attack,
arguing if that the government wanted to fund technologies such as carbon
capture and storage it could so so through other programs.
"This [change] was always wrong, it was probably illegal," he said.
"It is just the latest attack on ARENA and CEFC [Clean Energy Finance
Corporation] by a government which is prejudiced against renewable energy.
"Angus Taylor doesn't believe in renewable jobs."
Labor Hunter MP Joel Fitzgibbon criticised his party's stance.
"It will take more than wind turbines and solar panels to create a cleaner
economy," he said. "We need a broad mix of technologies including carbon capture
and storage, and those which reduce vehicle emissions.
"We should never vote against more money to do more things, regardless of the
agency being used to spend the money."
Greens leader Adam Bandt said Tuesday night's vote was a "really big win for
climate".
"As a result, the government cannot use public money to fund coal and gas
projects through the renewable energy agency," he said.
Jon C. Day is PSM, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University
Scott F. Heron is Associate Professor, James Cook University
Terry Hughes is Distinguished Professor, James Cook University
The Australian government on Tuesday expressed shock at a
draft decision
to list the Great Barrier Reef as “in danger”.
But the
recommendation has been looming for some time.
The recommendation, by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), acknowledges Australia’s commitment to
implementing the
Reef 2050 Plan, an overarching framework to protect the natural wonder for future
generations.
But the “outstanding universal value” of the Great Barrier Reef has
continued to decline.
The draft decision will now be considered at the World Heritage Committee
meeting, to be held online next month. The development is significant for
several reasons – not least that Australia’s progress under the Paris
Agreement is being linked to its stewardship of the reef.
Last year, severe bleaching struck all three regions
of the Great Barrier Reef.ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies
What did UNESCO say?
In recommending the in-danger listing, UNESCO and IUCN cited a
2019 report
by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority which found the ecosystem’s
long-term outlook had deteriorated from poor to very poor.
It said global
warming had also triggered coral bleaching events in 2016 and 2017 – which
were followed by another mass bleaching event in 2020.
The report said Australia’s progress on the Reef 2050 Plan “has been
insufficient in meeting key targets”. It said the plan requires stronger and
clearer commitments, in particular on urgently addressing threats from climate
change, and improving water quality and land management.
Among other recommendations, the draft decision called on the international
community to “implement the most ambitious actions to address climate change
[…] and fulfil their responsibility to protect the Great Barrier Reef”.
The 2020 coral bleaching event was the second-worst in more than
two decades.ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies
No real surprise
Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley’s
said
the government was “blindsided” by the draft recommendation.
However the move
has been a long time coming.
As noted above, the government’s 2019
Outlook Report
documented the impacts and threats to the Great Barrier Reef in no uncertain
terms, and identified climate change as the most serious threat.
There were other indicators the recommendation was looming. In 2020, the
IUCN World Heritage Outlook
listed the Great Barrier Reef as “critical” due to threats including climate
change and poor water quality. The rating – the worst on a four-point scale —
was a decline from the 2017 rating of “significant concern”.
And in 2018,
a report
predicted that without major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, all 29
World Heritage coral reefs, including the Great Barrier Reef, will cease to be
“functioning ecosystems by the end of the century”.
Finally in 2012, the World
Heritage Committee warned the Great Barrier Reef could be placed on the
in-danger list “in the absence of substantial progress”.
Climate change isn’t the only concern
While climate change is a major concern in the draft decision, it is but one
of
numerous pressures
on the Great Barrier Reef. Poor water quality due to nutrient and sediment
runoff – the latter linked to land clearing – are also big problems.
The IUCN outlook report said climate change is the biggest threat to all the
world’s natural heritage places. In this regard, this week’s draft decision
sets an important precedent for the World Heritage Committee. It would seem
the committee is now prepared to directly address the issue of climate change,
after being
less so inclined
in previous years.
The Reef 2050 Plan does not adequately address the climate change threat. The
UNESCO report calls on Australia to correct this, and ensure the plan
sufficiently addresses other threats including water quality.
Decisions by the World Heritage Committee are not binding on any country.
Still, we expect the committee’s concerns to result in Australia amending the
Reef 2050 Plan to better acknowledge climate change as a significant issue.
The draft decision will be considered at the annual meeting of the World
Heritage Committee in July, chaired by China and comprising 21 countries.
Getting placed on the in-danger list isn’t likely to impact
tourism.Shutterstock
An end to tourism?
The experience of other major tourist destinations suggests an in-danger
listing may not
damage tourism
at the Great Barrier Reef, as some have feared.
Take the Everglades in the United States, Belize in the Caribbean and the
Galapagos Islands. An
analysis
of these World Heritage properties showed no discernible tourism downturn
after an in-danger listing. However, if the Great Barrier Reef’s condition
continues to deteriorate, industries that rely on a healthy Reef are likely to
endure long-term damage.
An in-danger listing is not permanent, nor does it mean the Great Barrier Reef
will be permanently removed from the World Heritage list. Currently, 53 World
Heritage properties are on the
in-danger list; others were
taken off the list once concerns were addressed.
The Great Barrier Reef will continue to be harmed until nations collectively
adopt more ambitious climate goals, global emissions of greenhouse gases fall
to net-zero and sea temperatures stabilise.
Without real and urgent actions at all levels — global, national, and local —
the values that make all heritage places special will decline. That makes it
less likely that future generations will be able to enjoy these wonders as we
have done.
Draft law is intended to prosecute offences against the environment
Polly Higgins led a decade-long campaign for ecocide to be
recognised as a crime against humanity before her death in
2019.Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian
Legal experts from across the globe have drawn up a “historic” definition of
ecocide, intended to be adopted by the international criminal court to prosecute
the most egregious offences against the environment.
The draft law, unveiled on Tuesday, defines ecocide as “unlawful or wanton
acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe
and widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those
acts”.
The Stop Ecocide Foundation initiative comes amid concerns that not enough is
being done to tackle the
climate
and ecological crisis.
If adopted by the ICC’s members, it would become just the fifth offence the
court prosecutes – alongside war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and
the crime of aggression – and the first new international crime since the
1940s when Nazi leaders were prosecuted at
the Nuremberg trials.
Prof Philippe Sands QC, of University College London, who co-chaired the panel
that spent the past six months hammering out the definition, said: “The four
other crimes all focus exclusively on the wellbeing of human beings.
"This one of course does that but it introduces a new
non-anthropocentric approach, namely putting the environment at the heart of
international law, and so that is original and innovative.
“For me the single most important thing about this initiative is that it’s
part of that broader process of changing public consciousness, recognising
that we are in a relationship with our environment, we are dependent for our
wellbeing on the wellbeing of the environment and that we have to use various
instruments, political, diplomatic but also legal to achieve the protection of
the environment.”
The members of the panel, which also included experts from Samoa, Ecuador and
the US, are hopeful that now is the right time for agreement.
The other co-chair, Dior Fall Sow, a UN jurist and former prosecutor from
Senegal, said: “The environment is threatened worldwide by the very serious
and persistent damage caused to it, which endangers the lives of the people
who live in it.
"This definition helps to emphasise that the
security of our planet must be guaranteed on an international scale.
“In the current context, where serious damage to the environment is
increasingly important and affects a large number of states, their support
could be gained for this new definition of the crime of ecocide.
"One can think, among others, of island developing states that are
subject to ecological ecocides committed by corporations.”
Several small island nations, including Vanuatu, in the Pacific, and the
Maldives, in the Indian Ocean, called for “serious consideration” of a crime
of ecocide at the ICC’s annual assembly of states parties in 2019.
The ICC has been criticised for not investigating major environmental crimes.
In 2016,
it said it would assess existing offences, such as crimes against humanity, in a broader context to include
environmental destruction and landgrabs.
Sands said some panel members had pushed for the definition to explicitly
mention climate change but that was rejected because of a desire to make it
more difficult for countries – and corporations – to oppose the proposed new
law.
Instead, it created “a definition that catches the most
egregious acts but doesn’t catch the kinds of daily activity that so many of
us, myself included, and regions and peoples and countries are involved in
which cause significant harm to the environment over the long term”.
He cited transboundary nuclear accidents, major oil spills and
Amazon deforestation as potential examples of ecocide but, on a smaller geographical scale, also
the unlawful killing of a significant protected species such as
the two remaining northern white rhinos.
Jojo Mehta, from Stop Ecocide Foundation, said it was a “historic moment”,
adding: “The resulting definition is well pitched between what needs to be
done concretely to protect ecosystems and what will be acceptable to states.
"It’s concise, it’s based on strong legal precedents and it will
mesh well with existing laws. Governments will take it seriously, and it
offers a workable legal tool corresponding to a real and pressing need in the
world."
