(The Conversation) New Research Reveals Animals Are Changing Their Body Shapes To Cope With Climate Change

The Conversation - Sara Ryding | Matthew Symonds

Shutterstock

Authors Sara Ryding is a PhD Candidate in ecology and evolution, Deakin University Matthew Symonds is an Associate Professor and evolutionary ecologist, Deakin University

Global warming is a big challenge for warm-blooded animals, which must maintain a constant internal body temperature. As anyone who’s experienced heatstroke can tell you, our bodies become severely stressed when we overheat.

Animals are dealing with global warming in various ways. Some move to cooler areas, such as closer to the poles or to higher ground. Some change the timing of key life events such as breeding and migration, so they take place at cooler times. And others evolve to change their body size to cool down more quickly.

Our new research examined another way animal species cope with climate change: by changing the size of their ears, tails, beaks and other appendages. We reviewed the published literature and found examples of animals increasing appendage size in parallel with climate change and associated temperature increases.

In doing so, we identified multiple examples of animals that are most likely “shape-shifters” – including species in Australia. The pattern is widespread, and suggests climate warming may result in fundamental changes to animal form.

The great roundleaf bat is among the animals found to be ‘shape shifting’ Shutterstock

Adhering to Allen’s rule

It’s well known that animals use their appendages to regulate their internal temperature. African elephants, for example, pump warm blood to their large ears, which they then flap to disperse heat. The beaks of birds perform a similar function – blood flow can be diverted to the bill when the bird is hot. This heat-dispersing function is depicted in the thermal image of a king parrot below, which shows the beak is warmer than the rest of the body.

All this means there are advantages to bigger appendages in warmer environments. In fact, as far back as the 1870s, American zoologist Joel Allen noted in colder climates, warm-blooded animals – also known as endotherms – tended to have smaller appendages while those in warmer climates tend to have larger ones.

This pattern became known as Allen’s rule, which has since been supported by studies of birds and mammals.

Biological patterns such as Allen’s rule can also help make predictions about how animals will evolve as the climate warms. Our research set out to find examples of animal shape-shifting over the past century, consistent with climatic warming and Allen’s rule.

Thermal image of a king parrot, showing that the beak is warmer than the rest of the body. Alexandra McQueen

Which animals are changing?

We found most documented examples of shape-shifting involve birds – specifically, increases in beak size.

This includes several species of Australian parrots. Studies show the beak size of gang-gang cockatoos and red-rumped parrots has increased by between 4% and 10% since since 1871.

Mammal appendages are also increasing in size. For example, in the masked shrew, tail and leg length have increased significantly since 1950. And in the great roundleaf bat, wing size increased by 1.64% over the same period.

The variety of examples indicates shape-shifting is happening in different types of appendages and in a variety of animals, in many parts of the world. But more studies are needed to determine which kinds of animals are most affected.

A red-rumped parrot, one of the species shown to increase beak size in response to climate change. Ryan Barnaby

Other uses of appendages

Of course, animal appendages have uses far beyond regulating body temperature. This means scientists have sometimes focused on other reasons that might explain changes in animal body shape.

For example, studies have shown the average beak size of the Galapagos medium ground finch has changed over time in response to seed size, which is in turn influenced by rainfall. Our research examined previously collected data to determine if temperature also influenced changes in beak size of these finches.

These data do demonstrate rainfall (and, by extension, seed size) determines beak size. After drier summers, survival of small-beaked birds was reduced.

But we found clear evidence that birds with smaller beaks are also less likely to survive hotter summers. This effect on survival was stronger than that observed with rainfall. This tells us the role of temperature may be as important as other uses of appendages, such as feeding, in driving changes in appendage size.

Our research also suggests we can make some predictions about which species are most likely to change appendage size in response to increasing temperatures – namely, those that adhere to Allen’s rule.

These include (with some caveats) starlings, song sparrows, and a host of seabirds and small mammals, such as South American gracile opossums.

The gracile opossum is among the animals most likely to change appendage size under climate change. Shutterstock

Why does shape-shifting matter?

Our research contributes to scientific understanding of how wildlife will respond to climate change. Apart from improving our capacity to predict the impacts of climate change, this will enable us to identify which species are most vulnerable and require conservation priority.

Last month’s report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change showed we have very little time to avert catastrophic global warming.

While our research shows some animals are adapting to climate change, many will not. For example, some birds may have to maintain a particular diet which means they cannot change their beak shape. Other animals may simply not be able to evolve in time.

So while predicting how wildlife will respond to climate change is important, the best way to protect species into the future is to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prevent as much global warming as possible.

Links

• Photos from the field: why losing these tiny, loyal fish to climate change spells disaster for coral
• This shy little wallaby has a white moustache and shares its name with a pub meal. Yet it's been overlooked for decades
• We name the 26 Australian frogs at greatest risk of extinction by 2040 — and how to save them
• (AU SMH) Global Warming Pushing Emperor Penguins To Brink Of Extinction By 2100
• (USA Salon) Humans Are Causing Mass Extinction At A Rate Not Seen Since The Last Major Extinction Event
• More Than One Way For Animals To Survive Climate Change
• Climate Change And Food Demand Could Shrink Species' Habitats By Almost A Quarter By 2100

(AU SMH) ‘Insufficient’: Audit Office Lashes Lack Of Climate Planning In NSW

Sydney Morning Herald - Peter Hannam

The NSW Audit Office has released a scathing report on the government’s ability to cope with the effects of a heating climate, finding critical assets and services had yet to conduct risk assessments, such as for the state’s $50 billion public housing portfolio.

The findings, released on Tuesday, examined how effectively the Treasury and Planning departments supported agencies to get ready for increased threats from flooding, extreme heat, coastal erosion and other perils.

The NSW government is not taking the necessary steps to prepare agencies for climate change risks, the Audit Office has found. Credit: Nick Moir

It noted the government in 2016 pledged to create a statewide adaptation plan by the following year for public assets but had failed to complete it. All other states of Australia have such a plan.

“The absence of an overall adaptation strategy, and a statewide action plan, means that the [Planning] department’s climate risk and adaptation-related activities...have been occurring for at least four years without strategic direction, strong levers for co-ordination across agencies, and clear resourcing towards defined outcomes,” the Audit Office concluded.

Treasury had separately estimated that the annual fiscal and economic costs associated with natural disasters due to climate change will more than triple by 2061. Even so, there was little co-ordination between agencies, with nine government entities responsible for $120 billion alone in assets failing to complete risk reviews.

NSW has endured a battering from the elements in recent years, ranging from a severe drought, the worst bushfires on record during the 2019-20 Black Summer, and last March’s extensive flooding around Sydney.

Despite setting emissions reductions targets – such as reaching net-zero carbon pollution by 2050 – climate change readiness policies have generally been lacking, with the National Parks and Wildlife Service among the few exceptions, the Audit Office said.

The Herald approached Treasurer Dominic Perrottet, Planning Minister Rob Stokes and Environment Minister Matt Kean for comment.

“The NSW government is determined to take decisive and responsible action to reduce emissions to net zero and manage the physical and financial impacts of climate change,” a Planning spokeswoman said, adding it would “closely consider its recommendations to bolster the state’s response”.

Among the gaps identified was the failure of the Land and Housing Corporation, which holds $50 billion of social housing assets to conduct a review. Projections for “significant increases in the number of heatwaves” mean it will get harder to limit the risk of heatstroke and other poor health outcomes for residents, the report found.



The problems are not just confined to the public sector either. The Building Sustainability Index (BASIX), a sustainable planning measure to drive cuts in residential water and energy use, is under review, but Planning is not considering the potential impact of climate change to these requirements, the Audit Office said.

“[H]omes in NSW are currently being built for the present, but not for a potential future climate,” it said.

Even in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, energy cooling requirements are set to rise 70 per cent by 2030 compared with 2020, and 300 per cent by 2070, the Audit Office said, according to a report commissioned by one council in January.

Labor’s climate spokesman Jihad Dib said the government “might promise a big game on climate change, but this report clearly shows they do not have the ability or desire to meet their own promises”.

“The people of NSW should be concerned that the Strategic Plan for the Climate Change Fund has never been finalised,” he said.

Independent NSW MP Justin Field said “a failure to plan is a plan to fail, and it is clear that the NSW government’s plan to mitigate and adapt to climate change is inadequate”.

Brad McCutcheon, a resident of St George Caravan Park, surveys the scene during flooding of the Hawkesbury River near Sydney in March 2021. Credit: Nick Moir

“We see ongoing resistance to climate planning and adaptation strategies within the Coalition, particularly when it comes to water policy, land-use planning and development controls,” he said. “These short-term political considerations are leaving NSW communities seriously exposed to climate shocks in the future. This report serves as just the latest warning that we’re not doing enough.”

Local government was also getting little assistance from Planning, the Audit Office said, noting that the department’s 2018 Guide to preparing Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) for councils does not mention climate change.

Extreme weather

Even 1.5C warming will still leave world’s coasts exposed to extremes

“Of the 143 council LEPs we examined in March 2020, all make a reference to climate change, but this is only in relation to flood planning, reflecting guidance from the Department’s 2005 Floodplain Development Manual,” the Audit Office said.

Another gap is in Crown Lands, an agency that oversees about 42 per cent of NSW’s land area including coasts and infrastructure, but had failed to develop adaptation plans.

“Crown lands will be increasingly exposed to climate risks, including risks associated with sea level rises,” the report said, noting CSIRO data showing sea levels already risen by about 25 centimetres since 1880.

Links

• NSW Audit Office: Managing climate risks to assets and services
• (AU SMH) ‘Really Big Win’: NSW Environmental Watchdog Ordered To Address Climate Change
• (AU SMH) Grim Climate Forecasts Point To Shrivelling Rivers In Northern NSW
• (AU The Guardian) Why Is Australia Building A $600m Gas Power Plant As World Experts Warn Against Fossil Fuels?
• (SMH AU) Damage Bill From Natural Disasters To Treble By 2061

(Anthropocene) People Don’t Know What Climate Experts Are Talking About

Anthropocene Magazine - Sarah DeWeerdt

Simpler language and more context could aid public understanding of climate change

Members of the public have trouble understanding words and phrases that climate scientists often use, according to a new study. The confusion affects both people who accept the reality of climate change and climate change doubters.

If climate change is to be stopped, scientists can’t just communicate amongst themselves. They also need to make their findings understood by policymakers and the general public so that we can collectively take action. This need has led the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate-science organizations to step up their efforts at science communication.

To find out if these efforts are hitting the mark, researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 20 members of the U.S. general public about key terms used in climate change communications. The group of study participants was about evenly split between the climate-concerned (those who accept the scientific consensus that climate change is mostly human-caused) and the climate-ambivalent (who hold varying views on the reality of climate change).

Each 30-40 minute interview covered 8 terms drawn from an IPCC report: tipping point, unprecedented transition, carbon neutral, carbon dioxide removal, adaptation, mitigation, sustainable development, and abrupt change.

 Participants were asked to share their interpretation of each term and rate how easy it was to understand, and to do the same with a sentence using the term. They were also invited to make suggestions for improving the language to make it clearer and more comprehensible.

Participants rated the terms mitigation, carbon neutral, and unprecedented transition as hardest to understand, the researchers report in the journal Climatic Change. The terms adaptation and abrupt change were rated easiest.

Still, both climate-concerned and climate-ambivalent participants found many of the terms unfamiliar and too technical.  And the sentences that were meant to clarify the terms were sometimes no help because they were wordy and full of jargon.

LARGE IMAGE

“Words that might be familiar to climate scientists may not be familiar to people who are not in climate science,” says lead author Wändi Bruine de Bruin, Provost Professor of Public Policy, Psychology, and Behavioral Science at the University of Southern California Sol Price School of Public Policy and Dornsife Department of Psychology.

What’s more, a closer look at the interview transcripts revealed subtle misunderstandings of many of the terms. For example, participants knew what adaptation means but not necessarily what it means in the context of climate change.

Even though mitigation was perceived as the hardest term to understand and adaptation one of the easiest, some participants conflated the two (a finding that has popped up in other studies, too).

Some people thought that “unprecedented transition” referred to extreme weather events or climate shifts, when in fact the IPCC uses the phrase to indicate sweeping changes to the economy and society that will be necessary to respond to climate change.

Participants also felt that many of the terms left out crucial details. For example, some didn’t understand how carbon neutrality is achieved, what adaptation was to, or what form of carbon various terms referred to. For carbon dioxide removal, people needed to know what carbon was being removed from and how.

The clear takeaway: “To communicate more clearly, avoid jargon,” says Bruine de Bruin. “As a rule of thumb, words of three syllables or more tend to be less widely understood and more likely to involve jargon. If you must use jargon, try to explain what it means in everyday language.”

Participants suggested that climate scientists should use simpler words when communicating with the general public, clarify the climate change context of various terms, and make the underlying processes explicit. They also made specific suggestions about how to improve or explain various terms (See table.)

Both climate-concerned and climate-ambivalent participants expressed confusion about the terms in the study, as well as being willing to suggest improvements to the language. But while the sample size is large enough to find terms that are misunderstood and how, it wasn’t designed to identify differences between the two groups, Bruine de Bruin says.

“A survey with a large sample would be needed to find out how common these misunderstandings are, and how they are related to climate change concern,” Bruine de Bruin says. Future studies could also examine whether the simpler explanations really do improve public understanding or engagement with climate change.

Links

• Public understanding of climate change terminology
• Writing clearly, concisely and precisely
• What is climate change? A really simple guide
• What is climate change? | Australian Academy of Science
• An IPCC that listens: introducing reciprocity to climate change communication
• Public understandings of climate change

News Corp Hasn’t Seen The Light On Climate – They’re Just Updating Their Tactics

RenewEconomy - Ketan Joshi

Have you heard the good news? One of the key institutions holding back climate action in Australia – Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation – is suddenly on Team Climate Action!

Today, the Sydney Morning Herald revealed that the company’s Australian outlets are set to launch a campaign urging “the world’s leading economies” to embrace a target of net zero emissions by 2050; to be fronted by columnist Joe Hildebrand. The details aren’t out yet, but I contend that we can comfortably predict what it will look like.

It will be a centrist, pro-business approach to climate action. It will make a show of dismissing the “hysterics” of climate activists, while urging governments, including Australia’s, to set distant, meaningless and non-binding climate targets.

It won’t allow any room for emissions reductions in line with the 1.5C goals or the Paris agreement; no short-term meaningful targets or actions such as those highlighted in the IEA’s recent ‘net zero’ report. It won’t argue for a coal phase-out by 2030, or the end of all new coal, gas and oil mines in Australia, or a ban on combustion engine sales by 2030-2035; all vital actions if Australia is to align with any net zero target.

It’ll champion controversial technologies like CCS and fossil hydrogen. It’ll highlight personal responsibility: tree planting, recycling and electric vehicle purchases. It will not propose or argue in favour of any new policies; at least none that might reduce the burning of fossil fuels.

How can we know all this before we’ve seen the actual campaign? It’s easy – let me explain.

Done with denial

Here’s a remarkable statistic for you. In the month of August this year, global media coverage of climate saw its highest volume since the December 2009 Copenhagen climate meetings. That’s partly down to the release of the IPCC’s AR6 Working Group one report into climate change, six years in the making.

That report reiterated something extremely important: every single tonne of carbon dioxide does damage. Actions must be immediate and aggressive to align with the most ambitious pathways. Delay is deadly.

No media coverage records for Australia: coverage of climate change has dropped almost entirely off the radar relative to the high volumes of late 2019 and early 2020 (partly driven by the Black Summer bushfires).

These figures track newspaper coverage of climate change or global warming in 5 Australian newspapers (Sydney Morning Herald, Courier Mail & Sunday Mail, The Australian, Daily Telegraph & Sunday Telegraph, and The Age). Updated through August 2021.

During the Black summer bushfires of 2019-20, I did a few interviews about Australia with baffled and perplexed international reporters. “What is going on over there? Why did the people elect such a climate laggard?”.

A key part of my response was to pin blame on Australia’s media industry. Mostly on News Corp, which dominates the country’s uniquely concentrated media landscape, and which is notorious for its heavily politicised climate views. In fact, a recent study quantified this in historical terms, analysing media coverage within Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia for its climate science accuracy.

By a comfortable margin, News Corp’s Daily Telegraph and the Courier Mail scored the second and fourth worst among every media outlet analysed between 2005 and 2019 (The Australian wasn’t included in the analysis).

Australia has, in general, seen the least accurate climate science coverage from 2013 onwards, despite a general rising trend in scientific accuracy over the past decade. For a decade and a half, News Corp lied about climate science with the blatant aim of protecting the revenue streams of the fossil fuel industry, and protecting its political allies.

This is important as a historical study, but today, it’s increasingly irrelevant. As the study points out, the accuracy of climate science has essentially plateaued in media coverage, with outright denial consigned to the dustbin.

The authors highlights that “the terrain of climate debates has shifted in recent years away from strict denial of the scientific consensus on human causes of climate change toward ‘discourses of delay’ that focus on undermining support for specific policies meant to address climate change”. The fundamental goal is the same – staving off action – but the way it manifests is very different.

Delay is the main game

There are many substantial recent examples of this. A good one was the severe blackouts that spread across Texas in February this year, which were immediately blamed on wind power failures, alongside easily debunked claims that snows and ice were blocking solar panels and freezing up wind turbines in Texas and around the world.

This isn’t climate change denial: it’s “mitigation denial“. That is, a move away from denying the problem exists and towards decrying its solutions as utterly unacceptable. An important part of this performance is pretending to have a moment of having seen the light, but then continuing to commit the same acts of delay as before.

Murdoch’s The Sun, in the UK, did precisely this. In October 2020, The Sun launched a ‘Green Team‘ campaign that focused on ‘individual responsibility’ in the lead-up to COP26, to be held in Glasgow at the end of this year. It wasn’t long until they were celebrating their own victory in freezing fossil fuel taxes.

how it started how it's going pic.twitter.com/p1ZVOnOKmX

— Zach Boren (@zdboren) March 3, 2021

The UK’s Daily Express, another hyper-conservative outlet that ‘saw the light’, continues to publish articles attacking climate activism and, more significantly, framing climate action in an explicitly “eco nationalist” way, as UK writer Sam Knights highlights in this article in Novara media. He says,

“Make no mistake: these newspapers are not your friends. They are not your allies. Their politics are not in any way ecological. They are deeply racist, reactionary, right-wing publications. Their sudden interest in climate change is not to be celebrated – it is a terrifying indication of things to come.”

Last week, @GreenpeaceUK, @WWF, @nationaltrust, and @friends_earth signed up to the "green crusade" of the Daily Express. Just ten days later, the rightwing newspaper has already run two articles attacking Greta Thunberg... Surely these charities will now withdraw their support? pic.twitter.com/Xz5NcjLu8N

— Sam Knights (@samjknights) February 18, 2021

It’s notable that these examples seem to manifest in the UK, and less so in similar anglophone countries like Canada or the US or New Zealand. Those are led by centre-left parties and politicians, but the UK’s conservative embrace of climate action is surely a model that Australia’s PM Scott Morrison pines to replicate.

Sure, the UK certainly is miles ahead of Australia in terms of climate action – but there remains a very significant gap between Boris Johnson’s climate policies and where the country actually needs to be to align with the carbon budget that its independent climate advisor body has laid out.

A technocratic, rich white country with a government more concerned with optics than doing what needs to be done to protect people from being hurt by fossil fuels. Morrison’s obviously inspired by the UK, but Australia’s conservative media outlets are increasingly inspired, too.

Net zero by sometime after I retire, please

This is all coming to a head at COP26. George Brandis, Australia’s attorney general, who once declared that “coal is very good for humanity indeed”, is now High Commissioner for Australia to the UK, and has significantly ramped up the broader greenwashing exercise that the government has been enacting over the latter half of last year and most of this one.

As I wrote in RenewEconomy, that means creative accounting, dodgy charts and deceptive framing, all designed to paper over Australia’s significant failure to reign in emissions.

Morrison will almost certainly set a net zero by 2050 target before COP26, but it’ll be packaged with a collection of loop holes that allow for rising emissions in the short term. It is dawning on the government just as it is dawning on News Corp: the best way to protect the fossil fuel industry today is not to deny the science, but to pretend to accept it. This is not the end of climate denial. It’s evolution from a common ancestor.

That this effort will be lead by Joe Hildebrand is telling enough. His previous work on climate change does exactly what a centre-right campaign like this would be best at – decrying both sides as ‘hysterical’ while failing to propose anything meaningful or substantial.

This @Joe_Hildebrand piece is a near-perfect example of what I mean when I say that this is more about reassurance and excuses than it is about persuasion.

This is about figuring how to be internally okay with their own antagonism towards climate action.https://t.co/TLiiIVY2ih pic.twitter.com/k1HIoxUFIR

— Ketan Joshi (@KetanJ0) October 6, 2019

We can also see hints of what a conservative climate message looks like in a previous editorial from the more progressive News Corp outlet, NT News, which – of course – continues to host syndicated climate denial from the Sky News Australia channel. Ditto for News dot com.

This is News Corp's northern territory outlet.

Note the 'affordable' - a reference to the conservative meme that decarbonisation is bad because it's too expensive.

Even in accepting the need for action, they need to throw in messaging from previous fossil fuel advocacy. https://t.co/HifYmyX2R3

— Ketan Joshi (@KetanJ0) January 15, 2020

What might reasonably seem like a surprising change of heart in News Corp’s stance on climate is actually a long-term tactical shift that has been occurring for at least a few years. Whatever policies they failed to destroy through their earlier campaigns, they will try and reframe through racist, nationalistic, technocratic and pro-business frames.

Whatever policies they can delay or destroy, they’ll simply keep running scare campaigns about, insisting that ‘the balance isn’t right’, and that the threat of climate action is greater than the threat of climate change, as they always have (in Australia, News Corp’s partnerships with Google and Facebook mean these campaigns to destabilise climate action are growing more powerful and more harmful every day).

When the next federal election comes around, the “COSTS OF NET ZERO” scare campaigns will ramp up in Australia as they are in the UK, and News Corp will be at the forefront, pleading that acting too fast will cause catastrophe. Absolutely mark my damn words: this is what will happen.

Net zero by 2050 isn’t enough. We’ll know that the denialism has truly ended when organisations like News Corp treat the IPCC’s latest report like it’s real. That is, when they acknowledge that every additional unit of greenhouse gases causes harm to life on Earth, and that actions to stop their release must be as fast as possible.

That climate change is an emergency that requires rapid action to wind down the fossil fuel industry in a just and equitable way, and that its replacement must be grown to full size with just as much passion and urgency.

This campaign won’t look anything like that. We know what it will look like – and it won’t be anything surprising at all.

Links

• News Corp's net zero by 2050 push is climate change denial in 2021
• Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers, 24-hour news channel to champion net zero emissions
• (SMH Editorial) News Corp’s climate change shift is welcome
• Rupert Murdoch's News Corp Australia to Ease Climate Change Denial
• Australians fed up with News Corp’s climate scepticism
• This was more inspiring than the Olympics were

(AU Crikey) News Corp’s Net Zero By 2050 Push Is What Climate Change Denial Looks Like In 2021

Crikey - Cam Wilson

It sounds so very environmentally caring and sharing. But the truth is the Murdoch media's campaign is a cynical, and useless, move.

News Corp's Sky News Australia CEO Paul Whittaker appearing at a Senate hearing into media diversity

Less than a month ago, the world’s leading climate scientists issued a stark warning: the world is hurtling towards a future where increasingly common and severe fires, droughts and floods threaten our existence.

Our only option to reverse the trajectory, the IPCC sixth assessment report’s authors wrote, was to take drastic climate action.

Viewed through that lens, News Corp’s promise to briefly campaign for an unambitious target of net zero emissions by 2050 is a commitment to lock the world into 1.5 degrees of warming and all the horrors that would entail.

Far from being a shift from the company’s traditional opposition to climate action, this campaign is further proof that Rupert Murdoch’s empire doesn’t believe the science about the world’s transformation — or doesn’t care.

On Monday morning, Nine papers reported that News Corp’s metro papers and news channel Sky News Australia would launch a “company-wide campaign promoting the benefits of a carbon-neutral economy as world leaders prepare for a critical climate summit in Glasgow later this year”.

The target, even if taken up, would leave the federal government lagging behind the US and UK and drag it in line with many banks, insurers and other companies.

News Corp stays silent on James Murdoch’s climate denialism claims. Read More

This report comes as a Senate inquiry into media diversity holds a hearing on Sky News Australia’s suspension from YouTube.

The details of the campaign show it is even smaller than it first appears.

News Corp papers and Sky will campaign for two weeks in October. The Australian will be excluded from the campaign, and “dissenting voices” — a euphemism for the staunchest climate change denialists who inhabit many of its top perches — will be expected to “reframe” their arguments.

(It remains to be seen how figures such as Rowan Dean will reframe their complete denial of man-made climate change.)

Sky’s participation will be limited to a documentary exploring the idea of net zero carbon emissions.

The choice of Joe Hildebrand as the face of the campaign provides some insight into the direction of the campaign, says writer and consultant Ketan Joshi.

“His previous work on climate change does exactly what a centre-right campaign like this would be best at: decrying both sides as ‘hysterical’ while failing to propose anything meaningful or substantial,” he wrote in RenewEconomy.

During the bushfires of December 2019, the News Corp columnist warned against discussing climate change in the midst of a climate emergency.

While Australians were fleeing for their lives, Hildebrand argued that they shouldn’t have to concede much to battle climate change: “We need to find an economic path for Australia that can give working people the same quality of life — or just the capacity to survive day to day — that our abundance of fossil fuels currently offers.”

The announcement also makes clear that when it comes to climate change News Corp continues to act as more of a player than an impartial observer.

Nine’s Zoe Samios and Rob Harris report that its management briefed the government about the campaign, much like how a government would usually brief a publication about its campaign.

The most interesting thing about this story is that News Ltd is reported on as if it is a fully-fledged political player - changing policies while confidentially briefing affected parties and negotiating with dissenters in its ranks. https://t.co/lukgxb6Cqs

— Richard McGregor (@mcgregorrichard) September 5, 2021

In the inquiry hearing on Monday morning, Sky News’ CEO Paul Whittaker defiantly claimed that News Corp accepts the science: “We don’t deny climate change. The question is what is the solution, and what is the cost?”

The world’s top experts say the solution is immediate action — and the cost is less than the cost of inaction. Anything less — like News Corp’s campaign — is denying the science of how our climate is changing for the worse.

Links

• News Corp Hasn’t Seen The Light On Climate – They’re Just Updating Their Tactics 
• Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers, 24-hour news channel to champion net zero emissions
• (SMH Editorial) News Corp’s climate change shift is welcome
• Rupert Murdoch's News Corp Australia to Ease Climate Change Denial
• Australians fed up with News Corp’s climate scepticism
• This was more inspiring than the Olympics were

More Than 200 Medical Journals Call For Urgent Action On Climate Change

France 24 - AFP

The authors say better air quality alone would benefit health so much that the global costs of emissions reductions would easily be offset. © Arun Sankar, AFP/File 

Global warming is already affecting people's health so much that emergency action on climate change cannot be put on hold while the world deals with the Covid-19 pandemic, medical journals across the globe warned on Monday.

"Health is already being harmed by global temperature increases and the destruction of the natural world," read an editorial published in more than 220 leading journals ahead of the Cop26 climate summit in November.

Since the pre-industrial era, temperatures have risen around 1.1 degrees Celsius (34 degrees Fahrenheit).

The editorial, written by the editors-in-chief of over a dozen journals including the Lancet, the East African Medical Journal, Brazil's Revista de Saude Publica and the International Nursing Review, said this had caused a plethora of health problems.

"In the past 20 years, heat-related mortality among people older than 65 years has increased by more than 50 percent," it read.

"Higher temperatures have brought increased dehydration and renal function loss, dermatological malignancies, tropical infections, adverse mental health outcomes, pregnancy complications, allergies, and cardiovascular and pulmonary morbidity and mortality."

It also pointed to the decline in agricultural production, "hampering efforts to reduce undernutrition."

These effects, which hit those most vulnerable like minorities, children and poorer communities hardest, are just the beginning, it warned.

As things stand, global warming could reach +1.5C on pre-industrial levels around 2030, according to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

And that, along with the continued loss of biodiversity, "risk catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse," the editorial warned.

"Despite the world's necessary preoccupation with Covid-19, we cannot wait for the pandemic to pass to rapidly reduce emissions."

In a statement ahead of the publication of the editorial, World Health Organization chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said: "The risks posed by climate change could dwarf those of any single disease."

"The Covid-19 pandemic will end, but there is no vaccine for the climate crisis.

"Every action taken to limit emissions and warming brings us closer to a healthier and safer future."

The editorial pointed out that many governments met the threat of Covid-19 with "unprecedented funding" and called for "a similar emergency response" to the environmental crisis, highlighting the benefits.

"Better air quality alone would realise health benefits that easily offset the global costs of emissions reductions," it read.

The authors also said "governments must make fundamental changes to how our societies and economies are organised and how we live."

Links

• Full list of authors and signatories to climate emergency editorial September 2021
• Editorial Text: Call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health
• Health Experts Call Global Warming Greatest Health Threat
• Climate crisis is “greatest threat to global public health.”
• WHO leader says "there is no vaccine for the climate crisis" 
• “Emergency action on climate and nature crisis cannot wait for the pandemic”, says unprecedented joint editorial from health journals

(AU The Conversation) Climate Change Means Australia May Have To Abandon Much Of Its Farming

The Conversation - Andrew Wait | Kieron Meagher

A dust storm engulfs a farm in Forbes, NSW. This image won the National Photographic Portrait Prize for 2021. Joel B. Pratley/National Portrait Gallery,

Authors Andrew Wait is a Professor in the School of Economics at the University of Sydney. He has a PhD from the Australian National University and a Bachelor of Economics (Honours) from the University of Adelaide. Kieron Meagher is a Professor, Research School of Economics, Australian National University. He has an MA (Hons.) in pure mathematics from Waikato University and a PhD in Economics from the Australian National University.

The findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggest Australia may have to jettison tracts of the bush unless there is a massive investment in climate-change adaptation and planning.

The potential impacts of climate change on employment and the livability of the regions have not been adequately considered.

Even if emissions are curtailed, Australia likely faces billions of dollars of adaptation costs for rural communities.

As the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (published last month) makes clear, the climate will change regardless of any mitigation actions taken now.

Even under its modest conservative projections, worldwide temperatures will rise by 1.5℃.

That may not sound like much, but it will double the frequency of droughts — from once every 10 years to once every five.

Worse still, a 2℃ temperature rise — also a likely outcome without substantial emission reductions — will make droughts 2.5 times more frequent.

Farm profits are falling

Climate change is already hurting Australian farmers. Compared with historical averages, agricultural profits have fallen 23% over the 20 years to 2020. This trend will continue.

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) predicts a likely scenario is that overall farm profit will fall by 13% by 2050. There will be significant differences between regions. Cropping profits in Western Australia, for example, are predicted to drop 32%.

Effect of 2001-2020 seasonal conditions on farm profit

ABARES

With higher emissions, the reductions will be worse. Estimates of the fall in farm profits range from 11% to 50%.

These changes go beyond the cycles of weather with which Australian farmers have always had to cope. Inconsistent water supplies, increased natural disasters and greater production risks will render agricultural production in many areas uneconomic.

Due to these climatic changes agricultural assets, both land and infrastructure, could become virtually worthless – so-called stranded assets.

No future without water

Vibrant regional communities aren’t just about farms. They are interdependent networks of businesses, towns, public infrastructure and people.

The effect of falls in farm income will ripple throughout these communities. Lower output will mean fewer jobs. If farms close, so will other regional businesses, leading to more stranded assets. Those affected could face displacement along with an inability to sell their homes and businesses.

And of course these communities can’t survive without water.

A water canal between Pooncarie and Menindee in western New South Wales in February 2019. At the time more than 98% of New South Wales was in drought. Dean Lewins/AAP

So far development planning in Australia has not adequately considered the potential impacts of the climate on livability, especially in rural communities. This failure to account for climate change exacerbates the potential for stranded assets.

For example, the NSW Auditor General reported in September 2020 that the state government had “not effectively supported or overseen town water infrastructure planning in regional NSW since at least 2014”. This contributed during the intense drought of 2019 to at least ten regional NSW cities or towns coming close to “zero” water.

Population pressures

In some areas these water problems are being compounded by population growth.

Consider, for instance, the NSW townships surrounding Canberra. In January 2020 the town of Braidwood (about halfway between Canberra and Batemans Bay) had to start trucking in water when its own water source, the Shoalhaven river, stopped flowing. Yet nearby Bungedore (about 50 km away) is building a new high school due to population growth.

Farmer Ian Cargill stands in a middle of a dam on his property near Braidwood, NSW, in August 2018. At the time 100% of the state was drought-affected. Lukas Coch/AAP

This “tree-change” trend, with people leaving cities in search of a better lifestyle and more affordable housing, is widespread. It appears to have been amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, with figures showing net internal migration of people out of Sydney and Melbourne.

More investment in adaptation needed

There is an urgent need for a comprehensive assessment by all levels of government of risks to livelihoods in agriculture and regional communities, and of the default risk on stranded assets.

Budget projections need to account for climate-change adaptation and economic structural change.

In last year’s budget the federal government committed to investing A$20 billion “to ensure Australia is leading the way in the adoption of new low-emissions technologies while supporting jobs and strengthening our economy”.

As important as this is, we must start planning and spending on adaptation.

The A$1.2 billion over five years the federal budget allocated for natural disasters is just the beginning. In some regions changed farming practices, subsidised insurance and investment in water infrastructure may be enough. But proper infrastructure takes many years to plan, and to build.

Some areas are going to become unviable. We will need deal with the loss of entire communities, and internal climate refugees.

It is time to start budgeting for the costs of living with climate change, not just the costs of cutting emissions.

Links

• (AU The Guardian) Climate Crisis Cuts Australian Farm Profits By A Quarter Over Past 20 Years
• (AU ABC) ABARES Says Changing Climate Is Costing Every Farm, On Average, $30,000 Every Year
• (AU New Daily) Australian Farmers Line Up To Demand Action On Climate Change
• (AU) Climate Change To Force Farmers To Become More Efficient
• (AU) The Five Principles Of Regenerative Farming And How To Apply Them
• Australian farmers are adapting well to climate change, but there's work ahead
• Helping farmers in drought distress doesn't help them be the best
• IPCC says Earth will reach temperature rise of about 1.5℃ in around a decade. But limiting any global warming is what matters most