(24/7 Wall St.) Natural Landmarks Already Damaged Or Destroyed By Climate Change

24/7 Wall St.  - Liz Blossom

Most people who will never travel to more exotic locations will nonetheless recognize images of Mount Kilimanjaro topped with its legendary snows or the Great Barrier Reef and its rich marine life. But these iconic natural wonders, along with many others, are losing their struggle with climate change and may be completely lost to future generations.

As temperatures warm, sea levels rise, and storms intensify, causing food insecurity and displacement of entire populations, natural landmarks that may seem invulnerable to the ravages of climate are also seriously threatened. (These are the 20 countries responsible for nearly all global emissions.)

To find natural landmarks already damaged or destroyed by climate change, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed several sources, including International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Climate change now top threat to natural World Heritage – IUCN report, international environmental organizations, and adventure travel companies, among other sources.

The IUCN study found that 30% – 83 out of 252 – of natural World Heritage sites are threatened by climate change. Their status is described as being “of significant concern,” and 7% of all sites, including the Great Barrier Reef, are classified as “critical.”

While invasive species, human activity, and traditional weather patterns all take their toll on the natural world, the threats from climate change have overtaken other factors in the loss of natural landmarks.

Storm surges are pushing salt into farmland and freshwater reserves; sea level rise is threatening the very existence of islands and atolls; rising temperatures are melting glaciers and drying up lakes; and heat and drought are inviting the spread of highly destructive wildfires. (These are the 30 most destructive wildfires in the U.S. this century.)

These are some of the world’s natural landmarks that have already experienced severe damage from climate change.

Source: Patrick Daxenbichler / iStock via Getty Images

Alps
> Location: France, Switzerland, Monaco, Italy, Liechtenstein, Austria, Germany, and Slovenia

Just 15 years ago, the glaciers atop the Alps held 10% more water that they do today, and the ice continues to recede. The loss of glacial ice signals a slow march to extinction for the unique Alpine plants that are now migrating higher at a rate of 0.05 to 4 meters a decade, being replaced by lowland flora.

Source: Joel Carillet / E+ via Getty Images

Borneo’s Rainforest
> Location: Borneo

Borneo has some of the highest concentrations of forestland and biodiversity in the world, but heavy deforestation and the effects of climate change are working in combination to threaten Borneo’s increasingly endangered species, including the orangutan. In particular, wildfires have increased in intensity over the last two decades as temperatures rise and Borneo suffers from drought and a drying out of the landscape.

N/A (CC BY 2.0) by Simon Fraser University

Chacaltaya Glacier
> Location: Bolivia

Glaciers are particularly vulnerable to climate change and are shrinking rapidly all over the planet. High in the Andes, over 3 miles above sea level, the Chacaltaya Glacier was, until the 1990s, the highest ski center in the world. In the few years between 1992 and 2005, Chacaltaya Glacier lost 90% of its surface area and 97% of its volume. It is now gone.

Source: vvvita / iStock via Getty Images 

Dead Sea
> Location: Jordan and Israel

Climate change is warming many of the world’s lakes faster than the oceans, causing them to shrink, some at a startlingly rapid rate. While the Dead Sea has suffered from direct human intervention, such as diversion of water supplied by the Jordan River and mineral extraction, much of its volume has been lost to evaporation attributed to temperature rise. In the last half century, the Dead Sea has lost one-third of its surface area, and continues to shrink by 1 meter every year.

Source: SimonSkafar / iStock via Getty Images 

Everglades
> Location: Florida, US

With its low elevation and vulnerability to storms, the state of Florida is seriously threatened by climate change. Florida’s iconic Everglades National Park, at the state’s southern tip, is experiencing an increased movement of salt water into its freshwater interior, and increased salinity in its coastal soils. Caused in large measure by the sea level rise and storm surges brought on by climate change, the sea salt intrusion threatens the unique species of plant life found in the Everglades as salt-friendly flora, such as red mangroves, make their way inland.

Source: lucky-photographer / iStock via Getty Images

Giant Sequoias
> Location: California, US

Over the millenia, fire has been an important friend to the Giant Sequoias of California’s Sierra Nevada, promoting seed dispersal and clearing underbrush, but climate change is turning California’s wildfires powerfully destructive. Rising temperatures and drought have increased the intensity and frequency of the fires, with tragic results among the historically resilient trees – each with a diameter of 4 feet or more. There have been six such wildfires between 2014 and 2021, destroying 85% of the state’s giant sequoia groves. By contrast, 25% was lost in the preceding century.

Source: ronniechua / iStock via Getty Images

Glacier National Park
> Location: Montana, US

The glaciers of Glacier National Park began shrinking at the end of the little ice age in 1850, but the shrinking has greatly accelerated in recent decades. With park temperatures rising at twice the global average, the number of named glaciers (those with over 1 square km) has been reduced from 35 to 26 between 1966 and 2015. Some have lost 80% of their surface area. The loss of ice threatens tourism, wildlife habitat, native plants, and underwater archeology.

Source: Luisa Trescher Photos / iStock via Getty Images

Great Barrier Reef
> Location: Australia

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is perhaps the world’s most famous example of the damage wrought by climate change. Rising ocean temperatures are weakening the hundreds of species of coral that make up the reef, reducing their resiliency and diminishing their ability to reproduce. It is estimated that half of the coral in the miles long reef have been lost in the last 25 years.

Source: KiskaMedia / iStock via Getty Images

Joshua Tree National Park
> Location: California, US

Over the past century the average temperature in Joshua Tree National Park has risen by 3 degrees Fahrenheit, while precipitation has dropped by 39%. The change in climate has meant drier conditions, resulting in fewer Joshua tree seedlings and loss of animal habitat, particularly for birds, whose numbers are diminishing. Adding to the park’s climate problems, the drier environment has facilitated more frequent wildfires, an immense threat to the region. In 2020, Dome Fire in 2020 burned 43,000 acres and over a million Joshua trees in the nearby Mojave National Preserve.

Source: 1001slide / Getty Images

Kilimanjaro
> Location: Tanzania

Though all of Africa contributes less than 4% to the world’s output of greenhouse gasses, it is suffering disproportionately from the early ravages of climate change. With land and ocean temperatures rising faster than in most of the rest of the world, the continent is experiencing punishing droughts, floods, and heat, affecting habitability, food production, and health. It has also given the world one of the most visible and striking warnings about climate change, the melting of the iconic “snows of Kilimanjaro.” Along with its twin to the north, Mt. Kenya, Kilimanjaro is rapidly losing its mountaintop glacier due to rising temperatures and diminished precipitation. The ice is likely to completely disappear in the next 20 years, and that of Mt. Kenya in the next 10.

Maldives (CC BY-SA 2.0) by Hotel Kaesong

Maldives

> Location: Indian Ocean

Maldives is an archipelago of coral atolls, some of which support a tourist economy. Rising seas are threatening the tourist industry, but also the reefs that support the nation’s critical fisheries. Of even greater concern is the threat of catastrophic inundation since 80% of the islands’ surface area is 1 meter or less above sea level. Already, beaches are eroding rapidly and fresh groundwater reserves have been all but destroyed by salt water intrusion.

Source: JohannesCompaan / E+ via Getty Images

Pantanal Wetland
> Location: Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay

Located primarily in Brazil and sprawling into Bolivia and Ecuador, the Pantanal is the world’s largest inland wetland, and one of the most biodiverse places on Earth. The health of the ecosystem depends on fires started by lightning strikes and by land clearing, but in recent years fires have become a growing threat to the very survival of the wetland and its creatures. Increasing heat and drought have made fires ever more intense and destructive, with 2020 fires destroying 22% of Brazil’s share of the Pantanal.

Source: HenrikAMeyer / Getty Images

Solomon Islands

> Location: Solomon Islands

The Solomon Islands are a remote Pacific archipelago, and historically one of the most impoverished nations in the world. It is beset by ever more disastrous cyclones, storm surges, drought, and torrential rains, which have in turn led to a loss of land and fresh water, even as sea level rise threatens to submerge low lying islands in the coming decades. Today, these climate change impacts and resulting population displacement are causing extreme socioeconomic and political turmoil.

Source: Tamer_Desouky / Getty Images

Victoria Falls

> Location: Zambia and Zimbabwe

Nearly a kilometer in length along the border between Zambia and Zimbabwe, the magnificent Victoria Falls has been one of Africa’s most perennially popular tourist attractions. Given the region’s dramatic shifts between dry seasons and the monsoon rains, it is not unusual for the falls to lose some of its flow during parts of the year, but in 2019, following a major drought, the magnificent Victoria Falls was reduced to a trickle. While one event does not define a trend, some see the extreme drought as likely attributable to climate change.

Source: bgsmith / iStock via Getty Images

Yellowstone National Park
> Location: Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, US

Since 1950, temperatures in Yellowstone have risen by 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Spring starts earlier, and fall lasts longer, and what might have been snow events in the spring and fall are now rain events, causing the annual snowpack to decrease by 2 feet. The drier park makes it more susceptible to wildfires, a fact that was dramatically demonstrated when, in 1988, wildfires damaged 800,000 acres of the park in the wake of a severe drought.

Links

• Climate change now top threat to natural World Heritage – IUCN report
• The 20 Countries Responsible for Nearly All Global Emissions
• This Is America’s Dirtiest City
• Countries That Generate the Most Plastic Waste
• The 40 Countries Decreasing Emissions the Fastest
• The Countries With the Highest CO2 Emissions Per Capita
• These Are America's Billion-Dollar Environmental Disasters

(The Revelator) Why The Chemical Industry Is An Overlooked Climate Foe — And What To Do About It

The Revelator - Darya Minovi

It’s time to overhaul the chemical industry — for the sake of fenceline communities and the rest of the planet.

Chemical manufacturing plant along the Gulf Coast. Photo: Roy Luck, (CC BY 2.0)

Climate change is quickly evolving into climate catastrophe, and there’s a narrow window of time to do something about it. While the world works on solutions, there’s surprisingly little focus on the chemical industry, which accounts for roughly 7% of global greenhouse gas emissions — as well as other environmental harms.

Weak or nonexistent regulations of the industry have led to widespread cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even facility explosions, primarily in low-income communities and communities of color.

But the industry essentially has a free pass to continue business as usual — it just keeps on keepin’ on, with little accountability.

The same holds true when it comes to the industry’s contributions to our warming planet, which is happening in three major ways:

First, fossil fuels are the “feedstocks” for chemical manufacturing, meaning that oil, natural gas and coal are used as raw material for chemicals. Global plastic production relies heavily on fossil fuel feedstocks and is expected to grow by 40% by 2030. That will bring more environmental problems.

Around 98% of single-use plastic is derived from fossil fuels, and it releases greenhouse gas emissions at every stage of its life cycle. Only a small amount of plastic products are recycled. Most end up in landfills or the environment, and nearly one-quarter is incinerated, releasing millions of metric tons of carbon dioxide and other harmful air pollutants.

Second, fossil fuels power chemical manufacturing. Some of the most commonly manufactured “primary” chemicals, like ethylene, propylene, benzene, toluene, ammonia and methanol, account for two-thirds of the energy used by the industry, according to the International Energy Agency.

While the industry has implemented some energy efficiency measures and low-carbon technology, direct carbon dioxide emissions from chemical production have continued to increase.

Third, the chemical industry contributes to climate change by producing chemicals that are themselves potent greenhouse gases. For example, hydrofluorocarbons, used as refrigerants and foam-blowing agents, are 3,800 times more damaging to the climate than carbon dioxide.

Under the Kigali Amendment of the Montreal Protocol, countries have committed to cutting production and consumption of HFCs by at least 80% by 2047. And just this year, the EPA announced a goal to reduce U.S. production. But this may create new problems.

For example, some proposed plans for capturing HFCs (rather than replacing them with safer chemicals that don’t harm the climate) will result in emissions of other hazardous air pollutants like chloroform, hydrochloric acid, chlorine and hydrogen fluoride. All of these hazardous air pollutants contribute to the cumulative burden faced by fenceline communities.

Finally, not only does chemical production and use contribute to climate change — the intensifying weather patterns of climate change will worsen the industry’s environmental and public health impacts.

Chemical and petrochemical facilities are concentrated along the Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana: the very same areas that are and will be hit hard by hurricanes, flooding and sea-level rise.

Many of these facilities are unprepared for these effects, increasing the risk of catastrophic chemical disasters — predominantly in communities of color and low-income communities.

Across the country, hundreds of thousands of aboveground storage facilities containing hazardous chemicals — such as arsenic, formaldehyde, and trichloroethylene — are NOT subject to state or federal rules designed to prevent and mitigate spills.https://t.co/C9tYm94kIP

— Center for Progressive Reform (@CPRBlog) December 22, 2021

Ultimately, to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change, limit the risk of chemical disasters, and begin to remedy a legacy of environmental injustice, we must significantly reduce and replace the use of fossil fuels in every part of the chemical industry, which needs a systemic overhaul.

It’s a mighty task. Only a handful of more than 40,000 chemicals on the market have ever been restricted; even asbestos hasn’t been fully banned. There are still almost 3.5 billion pounds of hazardous releases to the environment every year. The United States is covered with 1,300 toxic “Superfund” sites, plus thousands more contaminated sites.

But that hasn’t stopped affected communities and organizations from banding together to say enough is enough. Recently a group of more than 100 health, science and environmental justice groups called for a transformation of the chemical industry with the release of the new Louisville Charter.

Named after an area in Kentucky with 11 industrial facilities that release millions of pounds of toxic air emissions every year — disproportionately impacting people of color — the Charter’s 10 principles outline a vision for how to overhaul chemical policies in favor of safety, health, equity and justice, and how to avoid false solutions that simply shift harms to other people and places.

These principles include calls to reduce or eliminate fossil fuel use, substitute toxic chemicals with safer alternatives, remedy environmental injustice, end subsidies for polluting companies, and give communities and workers information about chemical risks and the ability to act upon these disclosures.

We can make gains to achieve these goals if Congress passes the Environmental Justice for All Act and the Build Back Better Act, which would advance the some, but not all, of the Charter’s principles. More action is needed, and the Charter can guide the way.

Whether it’s to solve climate change, stop toxic chemicals from bombarding overburdened communities, or reduce hazardous substances in household products, we need to start replacing harmful chemicals with safe alternatives. No more free passes.

Links

• Julian Cribb - Earth Detox : How and Why we Must Clean up Our Planet
• In conversation with Julian Cribb - ANU
• The Chemical Culprits Behind Climate Change - Nature's Path
• Agents of global warming - NASA Climate Change
• Overview of Greenhouse Gases
• Five Reasons Why Climate Change and Toxic Chemicals are Connected

(AU The Guardian) Great Barrier Reef On Verge Of Another Mass Bleaching After Highest Temperatures On Record

The Guardian - Graham Readfearn

Exclusive: ‘Shocked and concerned’ US government scientists say heat stress over Australia’s ocean jewel is unprecedented

File photo of coral bleaching. Scientists at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration say the Great Barrier Reef headed into the summer with more accumulated heat than ever before. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

Temperatures over the Great Barrier Reef in December were the highest on record with “alarming” levels of heat that have put the ocean jewel on the verge of another mass bleaching of corals, according to analysis from US government scientists seen by Guardian Australia.

On Friday the Morrison government announced $1bn for reef conservation over the next nine years if it wins the next election – a pledge branded by some as a cynical attempt to stop the reef being placed on the world heritage “in danger” list at a meeting in July.

Conservationists and scientists mostly welcomed the pledge, but many said the government needed to greatly improve its greenhouse gas emissions targets and stop supporting fossil fuel projects.

In the three months leading up to 14 December, an analysis from scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) says heat stress over the corals reached a level “unprecedented in the satellite record” for that time of year.

Morrison government announces $1bn pledge for Great Barrier Reef over the next decade. Read more

According to the analysis, temperatures were so hot that between mid-November and mid-December, the minimum temperatures over more than 80% of the reef were higher for that period than previous maximums.

Dr William Skirving, of Noaa’s Coral Reef Watch, said his team “were surprised, shocked and concerned” when the analysis, covering each year from 1985, was completed.

“There’s never been heat stress like that in our records. It’s completely out of character and speaks to the fact that the minimum temperatures were higher than the previous maximums. This is almost certainly a climate change signal.

“Being a scientist in this field in this day and age is sometimes a bit nightmarish. Sometimes I wish I knew a little bit less.”

As greenhouse gas emissions accumulate in the atmosphere, the world’s oceans are getting hotter, and scientists say coral bleaching will become more frequent in the short term, whatever happens to emissions.

The 2,300km reef has seen five mass bleaching events – in 1998, 2002, 2016, 2017 and 2020 – all caused by rising ocean temperatures driven by global heating.

According to the Noaa analysis, which has not been peer reviewed but has been accepted to a scientific journal, the reef headed into the summer with “more accumulated heat than ever before”.

Average water temperatures in mid-December were at least 0.5C hotter than the corresponding period for any previous summer when the reef bleached.

The peak period for heat stress tends to be in late February and March.

Corals get most of their food and colour from the algae that live within them. But if temperatures get too high, the algae separates and leaves the animal bleached white.

Corals can recover from mild bleaching but are weaker, more susceptible to disease and reproduce less in the following years.

Dr Mark Read, the assistant director of reef protection at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, said: “The impact is considered minor at this point, however we are watching conditions closely, recognising the heat accumulation in the system.”

There were reports of heat-stressed corals and some bleaching from offshore reefs between Cooktown and Mackay and inshore reefs near Townsville.

“The risk of broad-scale coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef is reliant on weather conditions over the next couple of weeks,” he said.

Extended periods of cloud cover, rainfall and wind could all help reduce temperatures, he said.

The Bureau of Meteorology meteorologist Shane Kennedy said monsoonal conditions could deliver cloud and rain in the coming week, but this could clear south of Cairns in the coming days.

Associate Prof Tracy Ainsworth, a coral biologist at the University of New South Wales, said cloud cover could reduce the extra stress on corals from sunlight.

“It’s sad we’re in a position where we’re hoping for conditions that minimise coral mortality.”

Prof Jodie Rummer, a Townsville-based marine biologist, said some corals were bleaching at Magnetic Island, near Townsville.

“I’m concerned for the reef and this funding pledge feels a bit like a last-ditch effort [to stop the reef being listed as in danger],” she said.

Scott Morrison views the reef from a glass bottom boat during a visit to the Great Barrier Reef. Photograph: Brian Cassey/AAP

On Friday the prime minister, Scott Morrison, was in Cairns to announce the funding which, if his government was re-elected, would target projects across water quality, pollution, illegal fishing and outbreaks of coral-eating starfish.

Reef health monitoring, habitat restoration and scientific research into making corals and habitats more resilient would also be funded.

The world heritage committee is due to decide in July whether to place the reef on its “in danger” list.

Australian government’s plan to protect Great Barrier Reef falls short, environment groups say. Read more

Unesco science advisers recommended the listing last year, and the $1bn pledge comes just days before a 1 February deadline for the government to send a progress report to Unesco.

Associate professor Mike Van Keulen, the chair of marine science at Murdoch University, described the Coalition’s pledge as “a cynical token action”.

Conservation groups have long called for extra funding to improve water conditions over the reef, which experts say can improve the health of corals and give them a better chance of surviving as temperatures rise.

Richard Leck, the head of oceans at WWF-Australia, said the pledge was “positive news for our national icon” and would keep funding at broadly their current levels.

“Progress on reducing water pollution has fallen behind the government’s targets to protect the reef, so it’s vital that this investment is applied in a way that markedly improves water quality.”

But he said it “needs to be complimented by real action on climate to drive down emissions this decade”.

Dr Anita Cosgrove, a Queensland campaigner with the Wilderness Society, said the package was “insufficient to overcome the breadth of challenges”.

The Australian Academy of Science president, John Shine, said global heating threatened the reef’s “extraordinary variety of habitats and species”.

The Australian Marine Conservation Society water quality expert, Jaimi Webster, said funding to address water pollution and illegal fishing was welcome, but insufficient.

Gavan McFadzean, of the Australian Conservation Foundation, said: “A government that is fair dinkum about protecting the Great Barrier Reef would urgently phase out coal, oil and gas – and would not continue to subsidise the growth of fossil fuel industries – to give the reef a chance to survive.”

‘Dancing through the water’: rare sighting of blanket octopus in Great Barrier Reef. Read more

The Queensland Conservation Council director, Dave Copeman, also said the government’s support for fossil fuel projects was putting the reef under threat. 

Labor’s deputy leader, Richard Marles, questioned whether the Morrison government would follow through on its $1bn pledge.

“This is a prime minister who throughout his time in office has completely failed to take any meaningful action on climate change,” he said, adding “you cannot take action on the reef without being serious on climate change, and Scott Morrison is not”.

The Greens senator for Queensland, Larissa Waters, said: “A belated cash splash on the Great Barrier Reef is a joke from a government that has turbo-charged the climate crisis imperilling the reef by giving billions to fossil fuels and backing new coal and gas.”

Morrison’s pledge was also criticised by one of his own backbenchers. The Queensland Liberal National party senator Gerard Rennick told the ABC it was “unnecessary funding” that was only aimed at “appeasing the United Nations”.

Links

• (AU ABC) $1b Plan To Save Great Barrier Reef Will Fail Without Climate Change Action, Expert Says
• Let's strip away the politics and look at the facts — the things that actually matter to the reef
• Morrison government announces $1bn pledge for Great Barrier Reef over the next decade
• Great Barrier Reef: Australia must act urgently on water quality, says Unesco
• Australia must choose between coal and coral – the Great Barrier Reef depends on it
• Great Barrier Reef authority a 'shell of its former self', says Queensland minister

(AU ABC) $1b Plan To Save Great Barrier Reef Will Fail Without Climate Change Action, Expert Says

ABC North Qld | Zilla Gordon

Reactions to the government's funding announcement have been mixed.(Facebook: Great Barrier Reef Legacy)

Key Points Labor says the government has had 10 years to try and restore the health of the Great Barrier Reef A marine biologist says the funding won't help much without broader action on climate change A dive business operator says the reef can be nursed back to health and has welcomed the announcement

The Morrison government's billion-dollar plan to save the Great Barrier Reef has been criticised by a scientist who says it will mean nothing if global carbon emissions are not reduced.

The nine-year plan announced today in Cairns is the biggest single investment ever made in the reef and will support the development of technology and water management practices.

It comes after the 344,400-square-kilometre ecosystem narrowly avoided being listed as "in danger" by UNESCO last year.

James Cook University marine biology associate professor Jodie Rummer said she felt underwhelmed by the commitment.

"Without a mention of climate change in this announcement … it's not looking great," she said.

"We need to be putting resources and money – $1 billion – towards net zero by 2035 and to reducing our emissions by 75 per cent in this decade."

Jodie Rummer says the reef will be doomed without more action on climate change.(ABC News: Travis Mead)

Dr Rummer said Australia was not doing enough to address climate change.

"We're barrelling towards two-degree warming," she said.

"What we've already seen with one and 1.2 degrees of global warming is three million heat waves within five years resulting in 98 per cent bleaching on reefs worldwide.

"This is isn't just isolated to Australia — it's a problem worldwide."

Coral bleaching at Magnetic Island. (Supplied: Victor Huertas)

'Better late than never'

Paul Crocombe runs a dive business in Townsville and has been working on the reef for more than 40 years.

He welcomed today's announcement, saying it was "better late than never".

Mr Crocombe's biggest concern was water quality.

"We get drought, we get a lot of exposed soil, and they we'll get a cyclone and a flood and that soil will wash down into the ocean," he said.

Mr Crocombe hoped people would become more aware that what they washed down their drains ultimately affected the reef.

He also felt many believed the reef was beyond repair, but he said the reef had the potential to be "very good for a long time" provided it was properly cared for.

"I don't think it's too late," he said.

Terri Butler says the reef wouldn't be in such bad shape if "real action" had been taken earlier. (News Video)

Labor lashes government's timing 

Opposition Environment spokeswoman Terri Butler said she viewed today's announcement as an admission of failure from the government.

"Their only policy to date has been giving half a billion dollars to a tiny charity behind closed doors in a backroom deal and clearly they're admitting that hasn't been enough," she said.

Ms Butler said if the government had taken "real action" on climate change the reef's health would not be in such steep decline.

"This is a government that is desperately trying to scrabble in relation to the reef after a decade of mismanagement," she said.

"This is a government that turned up to Glasgow this year with nothing more than a pamphlet."

Australia avoids Great Barrier Reef
global embarrassment

Let's strip away the politics and look at the facts — the things that actually matter to the reef. Read more

Ms Butler said Labor supported immediate action, but would not comment on whether the party would match the $1b commitment.

"The government's announcement is for funding over 10 years,'" she said.

"We don't even know how much of this money is suppose to be spent immediately and how much is spent in year seven, eight, or nine."

Labor has pledged to spend $163 million, including an additional $63m to the Reef 2050 program.

At the moment the plan is only funded until 2023/24.

Shadow Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the Prime Minster had turned an environmental issue into a political one and that Australians would see through the timing of the announcement.

"We know that Scott Morrison doesn't care about the reef — if he did he would have done something about it over the last decade the Liberals and Nationals have been in office," he said.

Scott Morrison says the funding comes in addition to billions already spent on the reef.(ABC News: David Sciasci)

PM reaffirms climate commitments

When asked if the funding adequate and whether the government should have focused on reaching net zero by 2030, Mr Morrison said the reef had always been a priority.

"We've committed to net zero by 2050 and we've reduced emissions by over 20 per cent," he said.

"We're so proud of our reef and we can be proud that Australia leads the world in reef management."

 Youtube Great Barrier Reef dodges 'danger' status

Mr Morrison said the funding came on top of $2b already invested in its sustainability plan.

"We are backing the health of the reef and the economic future of tourism operators, hospitality providers and Queensland communities [who] are at the heart of the reef economy," he said.

Links

• Great Barrier Reef 'seen from outer space, not an office in Paris', says Minister rebuking UNESCO's warning
• 'Trajectory's not good': Great Barrier Reef bleaching study returns worrying results
• 'Net zero' is a political win, but it has entrenched a climate policy stalemate
• (AU SMH) Critics Pan A Plan For The Barrier Reef As Bleaching Threat Rises
• (AU ABC) Promising Signs Of New Life On Australia's Largest Oceanic Reef, Despite Frequent Heat Stress
• (Washington Post) Photos Show Vast Coral Spawning Event In Great Barrier Reef, Giving Divers Hope For Climate Change Recovery
• (USA TIME) UNESCO Says Australia's Great Barrier Reef Isn't In Danger Yet. Many Environmentalists And Divers Disagree
• (AU The Conversation) Not Declaring The Great Barrier Reef As ‘In Danger’ Only Postpones The Inevitable
• (AU SBS) Australia Accused Of ‘Censoring Science’ After Great Barrier Reef Avoids World Heritage ‘In Danger’ Listing
• (AU ABC) Australia Avoids Great Barrier Reef Global Embarrassment, But The Dangers Of Climate Change Remain For The Reef

(USA NYT) Judges Increasingly Demand Climate Analysis In Drilling Decisions

New York Times - Lisa Friedman

A federal judge this week required the government take climate change into account before approving offshore oil drilling leases. That’s becoming more common.

A federal judge ruled on Thursday that the Biden administration had acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” when it conducted an auction of offshore leases. Credit...Education Images/Universal Images Group, via Getty Images

WASHINGTON — A judge’s decision this week to invalidate the largest offshore oil and gas lease sale in the nation’s history, on grounds that the government had failed to take climate change into consideration, shows that regulatory decisions that disregard global warming are increasingly vulnerable to legal challenges, analysts said Friday.

Judge Rudolph Contreras of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on Thursday that the Biden administration had acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” when it conducted an auction of more than 80 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Interior Department failed to fully analyze the climate effects of the burning of the oil and gas that would be developed from the leases, the judge said.

The ruling is one of a handful over the past year in which a court has required the government to conduct a more robust study of climate change effects before approving fossil fuel development. Analysts said that, cumulatively, the decisions would ensure that future administrations are no longer able to disregard or downplay global warming.

“This would not have been true 10 years ago for climate analysis,” said Richard Lazarus, a professor of environmental law at Harvard University.

He said it is “a big win” that courts are forcing government agencies to include “a very robust and holistic analysis of climate” as part of the decision-making when it comes to whether or not to drill on public lands and waters.

Emissions from fossil fuel extraction on public lands and in federal waters account for about 25 percent of the country’s greenhouse gases.

Shell, BP, Chevron and Exxon Mobil offered $192 million for the rights to drill in about 1.7 million acres in the area offered by the government in the Nov. 17 lease sale. The leases have not yet been issued.

Judge Contreras said the government had relied upon an outdated and flawed analysis from the Trump administration, which argued that not holding the lease sale would result in higher greenhouse gas emissions because oil companies overseas would increase their production to fill a vacuum in the market.

He called reliance on that analysis a “serious failing” and ordered a new study under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, which says the government must consider ecological damage when deciding whether to permit drilling and construction projects.

The judge reached the same conclusion as judges for both the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and the District Court for the District of Alaska in cases within the past two years concerning lease sales based on a similar analysis.

“This is continuing to set an established precedent that NEPA requires a greenhouse gas analysis,” said Collin O’Mara, the president of the National Wildlife Foundation. “This just continues to show the damage that we’re doing by allowing federal leasing to go on.”

Keith Hall, director of the energy law center at Louisiana State University, cautioned that having to show the impacts of climate change does not necessarily mean fossil fuel development will come to a standstill.

A future administration could show the full impacts of climate change in a lease sale decision and still legally decide that economic benefits outweigh the climate dangers.

“An administration more friendly to the fossil fuel industry could still go forward,” Mr. Hall said. “Weighing the pros and cons is ultimately a policy decision.”

The Biden administration is now in an awkward position of deciding whether to appeal the ruling.

As a candidate, Mr. Biden promised to stop issuing new leases for drilling on public lands and in federal waters. Shortly after taking office, he signed an executive order to pause the issuing of new leases.

But after Republican attorneys general from 13 states sued, a federal judge in Louisiana blocked that order, and also ruled that the administration must hold lease sales in the Gulf that had already been scheduled by the Trump administration.

The Biden administration went forward with the sale in November, despite arguments by environmental activists that the Interior Department could have done more to prevent or reduce the size of the lease sale.

In a statement Melissa Schwartz, a spokeswoman for the Interior Department, said the agency was reviewing the decision.

“We have documented serious deficiencies in the federal oil and gas program,” Ms. Schwartz said. “Especially in the face of the climate crisis, we need to take the time to make significant and long overdue programmatic reforms.”

Analysts said they expected the Biden administration to let the ruling stand.

“They’re not spilling a lot of tears over this one, since it’s a big lease sale done by Trump that they obviously wanted to pause,” Mr. Lazarus said.

That opens up a question of whether the oil companies that purchased leases, the trade groups representing them, or the Republican states suing the Biden administration’s effort to block new leases, could appeal.

Mr. Hall said he believed they could.

“The defendants are impacted enough that they would have standing to appeal,” he said.

In a statement, the Louisiana solicitor general, Elizabeth Murrill, said the state was “exploring potential legal remedies” to the court decision.

Links

• (UK Financial Times) Shell Climate Case Winner Targets Dozens More Companies
• (AU ABC) Beetaloo Basin Fracking Grants Ruled Invalid, 'Legally Unreasonable' In Court Challenge Brought By Environment Groups
• (China Dialogue) Climate Litigation Up In 2021, With Private Sector Now Exposed
• (AU BBC) The Teenagers And The Nun Trying To Stop An Australian Coal Mine
• (AU SMH) Can Court Cases, Boardroom Takeovers And Protests Save The Planet?
• (AU The Guardian) 'One More Mine Does Make A Difference’: Australian Children Argue For The Climate – And The Law Agrees
• Lethal Heating: Doctrine of Public Trust
• John Kerry, U.S. Climate Envoy, Tells Top Polluters ‘We Must All Move Faster’
• An Extraordinary Iceberg Is Gone, but Not Forgotten
• New Research Shows How Health Risks to Children Mount as Temperatures Rise
• Guide for children: Bad Future, Better Future
• Searching for Hidden Meaning in Climate Jargon
• How to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint
  

(AU AIIA) The Language Of Diplomats In Times Of Climate Change And Populism

Australian Institute of International Affairs - Mirjam Gruber

The power of language has long been recognised — while populists often employ radical and emotionally driven language, diplomats must be thoughtful and cautious in their communication. Is this compatible in times of climate change?

Author Mirjam Gruber is a political scientist at the Center for Advanced Studies of Eurac Research, a private research center based in Bolzano, Italy.

While the United Nations Climate Change conference in Glasgow and its results were criticised by environmental activists and also by scientists as damaging for climate protection, some participants of the conference seemed satisfied that a common agreement was found at all.

For example, the global coal “phase-out” was modified to a “phase-down” due to pressure from China and India, which many described as too vague and too unspecific.

However, looking at other international papers, many agreements between different international actors seem to fit this description of vague and unspecific.

In fact, a well-known feature of diplomatic semantics is that many issues are not addressed at all, and others are not clearly stated. Reasons for this vary, but one primary goal is to maintain international relations peacefully and prevent escalations of conflict.

Sometimes, therefore, adjectives or articles are deliberately omitted from conversations or documents, general paraphrases are used instead of concrete ones, or specifics are left unspecified. In principle — when in doubt — diplomats formulate sensitive issues too cautiously rather than too aggressively. This is also called the jargon of diplomats, because it helps to communicate in difficult situations and can help to find solutions to pressing issues.

Indeed, leading negotiations and engaging in persuasion are essential abilities that diplomats must master. In this respect, language is a major tool for diplomats. But of course, it is not just diplomats that know and use the power of language.

Understanding language as a social, cultural, or psychological phenomenon is one of the main research fields of linguistics scholars. The study of linguistic aspects of social phenomena or issues has now become a part of many disciplines, such as political science, sociology, or psychology.

The role of language and how it is framed has an influence on the perception of social phenomena, and thus it can shape the representation of these phenomena. Especially nowadays, when people receive an incredible amount of information through digitalisation and more concretely social media and so are exposed to fake news, misinformation, and disinformation, the linguistic dimension can be a central aspect in the studies of social and individual behaviour.

Many examples can be found in the scientific literature that examine the influence of language on the behaviour of individuals, on the polarisation of society, or on the perception of social issues. However, just as diplomats use language selectively to achieve their goals, so do other actors.

For example, in migration studies, the role of far-right and right-wing populist actors came into focus as they have strongly influenced the migration discourse in many countries. For instance, scholars claimed that the, “strong anti-immigration and anti-refugee rhetoric orchestrated by the Law and Justice Party (PiS) across the Polish public sphere has also played a pivotal role in increasing levels of xenophobic, as well as outright racist sentiments, in wider Polish public discourse and society.”

Similar developments have been observed in many other countries, such as the USA, UK, and Australia.

Furthermore, right-wing populist actors are also increasingly shaping public discourse on other issues, such as climate change. This is exacerbated by the spread of fake news, such as the denial of anthropogenic climate change, which has even been fuelled by former US President Donald Trump.

In the current discourse on the COVID-19 pandemic, fake news as well as conspiracy theories are a major problem — which can also contribute to the polarisation of society. Even though rising populist movements in industrialised Western nations often do not have a great deal of formal power, they have the potential to substantially impact policies through influencing political and public discourse.

Due to the rising populist influence in many regions of the world, as well as the fast dissemination of fake news and the global challenge of the climate crisis, language and its power must become the centre of attention not only in research, but also in public discourse.

While political parties, social movements, think tanks, and the media are already the subject of environmental and climate research, the role of diplomats and diplomatic jargon should become more central.

This is where so-called climate diplomacy comes in. The current climate crisis requires the international community to tackle this problem via the implementation of climate change policies — and not only on a global level, but also a national and local level.

To do so, a common and conscious language is an important ingredient. Indeed, thoughtfulness and sensitivity in communication is essential to define common goals.

On the other hand, regarding climate change, the international community has already agreed to implement the goals of the Paris Agreement. In this phase, it is particularly important to rely on science and to generate strong implementation measures that are based on scientific evidence and research.

At this point, it should also be mentioned that climate change itself is already a term that has been politically framed.

In fact, some media outlets have decided to speak of the “climate crisis” or “climate emergency” to better reflect the scale of the issue.

Such framing in the sense of promoting unified and strong communication based on scientific evidence is especially important in times when fake news or, more specifically, the denial of climate change, is actively and strongly fuelled by some actors, such as far right political parties such as the Alternative for Germany, fossil fuel and coal industries, or media outlets.

In diplomacy, however, things often go in a different direction. When diplomats or ambassadors shift from using terms such as “climate change” or “climate crisis” to “promoting biodiversity” when communicating with policy makers, the urgency of the climate crisis suddenly sounds less critical and does not directly imply a serious threat.

So, what is the goal behind changing such terms?

Maintaining a dialogue with all possible actors is, of course, very important. However, in the case of an issue where science is very strong and individual nations — as well as the international community — have promised to act and to comply with agreements, concise and assertive use of language might help to implement policies which are urgently needed in the fight against climate change.

Diplomacy is certainly a difficult area in international relations, and it requires extreme sensitivity and empathy — and often uses language as one of its key tools.

These linguistic evasions from the concrete to the non-concrete offer advantages, but can also have disadvantages.

In today’s world, we can and should discuss the impact of diplomatic jargon in relatively new areas of international cooperation — the fight against climate change — and the direction in which the further development of diplomatic language should go, taking into particular consideration the potential rising populist influence in public discourses.

Links - Australian Institute of International Affairs Climate Change Articles

• The Cascading Impacts of Climate Change
• Can International Agreements Prevent Climate Change Catastrophe?
• Climate Change Intensifies Humanitarian Crises
• Will US action on climate change lead Australia to adopt more ambitious policies?
• When Rain Turns to Dust: The Impact of Conflict & Climate Change
• Holding the Government to Account: Climate Change and the Legacy of Government Policy
• Citizens’ Assemblies – A French Approach to Climate Change Policy