Scientists Confirm Their Fears About West Antarctica — That It’s Inherently Unstable

Washington Post - Chris Mooney

An edge of the Thwaites Ice Shelf. (Jim Yungel/NASA)

It may be the biggest climate change story of the last two years.
In 2014, several research groups suggested that the oceanfront glaciers in the Amundsen Sea region of West Antarctica may have reached a point of “unstoppable” retreat due to warm ocean waters melting them from below. There’s a great deal at stake — West Antarctica is estimated to contain enough ice to raise global sea levels by 3.3 meters, or well over 10 feet, were it all to melt.
The urgency may now increase further in light of just published research suggesting that destabilization of the Amundsen sea’s glaciers would indeed undermine the entirety of West Antarctica, as has long been feared.
In a new study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Johannes Feldmann and Anders Levermann of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research use a sophisticated climate model to study what will happen if these glaciers are, indeed, fully destabilized. And in essence, they find that the process of retreat doesn’t end with the region currently up against the ocean.
“We showed that there is actually nothing that stops it,” said Levermann. “There are troughs and channels and all this stuff, there’s a lot of topography that actually has the potential to slow down or stop the instability, but it doesn’t.”
Or as the paper puts it: “The result of this study is an if–then statement, saying that if the Amundsen Sea Sector is destabilized, then the entire marine part of West Antarctica will be discharged into the ocean.”
West Antarctica can actually be considered the smallest of three planetary ice sheets — Greenland contains some 6 meters (20 feet) of potential sea level rise, and East Antarctica is the most vast of all, at nearly 60 meters, or 200 feet.
[Scientists confirm that East Antarctica’s biggest glacier is melting from below]
However, West Antarctica is currently believed to be the most vulnerable to rapid, large scale change, due to the fact that the Amundsen Sea’s glaciers are rooted on a seabed that slopes downward as you move further inland, in some places plunging a mile or more below sea level. The region’s largest glacier, the gigantic Thwaites, is bigger than Pennsylvania and over a mile in total thickness in places — and may be the single most vulnerable point.
Indeed, Antarctic scientists have expressed a strong consensus that they need to conduct a lot more research in this very remote area as soon as possible, to determine how fast the change could happen.
[Scientists declare an ‘urgent’ mission — study West Antarctica, and fast]
The current study was not an example of — and cannot replace — this difficult fieldwork. Rather, the researchers used a complex ice sheet model that simulated the entire West Antarctic ice sheet, as well as the Antarctic peninsula and some of East Antarctica. They then simulated what they termed a 20 to 200 year “perturbation” to the region, in the form of increased rates of melt similar to what is believed may have already happened. “Our modeled sea-level contribution from the perturbed region lies well within the range of observations,” they say.
With a 60 year or greater perturbation, the model — which, the researchers caution, is only “a single realization of an ice-sheet model that applies approximations to the ice dynamics” — then produced a retreat that continues even without continuance of the perturbation. That is, after all, precisely what has been feared — that the region has an inherent “marine ice sheet instability,” as researchers put it.
“If you have a situation where the bedrock is declining when you go inland, that means that wherever the grounding line is, it is thicker the further it is inland,” explains Levermann. “Which means the [ice] flux is bigger the further you go inland. Which means you lose more ice the further you go inland, which is the vicious cycle.” Levermann confirmed, by email, that this in effect means that there is an “inherent” instability to West Antarctica, based on his new research.
Here’s a visualization of what is happening with West Antarctica, and how a “marine ice sheet instability” works:

The critical issue here is, of course, the speed at which this could all occur. The new study’s simulations show the loss of West Antarctica playing out over thousands of years. But many scientists worry that at least some of the change could happen faster.
“We know very little about the new world we are entering of rapid retreat into deep basins,” said Sridhar Anandakrishnan, a glaciologist at Penn State University who has conducted research atop Thwaites glacier and reviewed the study for the Post, by email.
“There are likely processes there that we haven’t fully accounted for. For example, as the grounding line shifts farther back, the ice front may start to fracture and fail — something we don’t see today because we don’t have any deep grounding lines to study and use as analogies.”
When asked how fast he thought all of this could unfold, Levermann underscores that we simply don’t know. “And by we don’t know, I mean, we don’t know,” he says. “I don’t want to say it’s quicker, but it’s much more likely that it’s faster than these thousands of years, than [that] it’s slower.” He points out that based on reconstructions of the planet’s past, there are reasons to think sea levels can rise fairly rapidly.
The study therefore concludes that:

The currently observed retreat in West Antarctica hence might mark the beginning of a millennial period of self-sustained ice discharge from West Antarctica and require long-term global adaptation of coastal protection, such as the building or rebuilding or raising of dykes, the construction of seawalls, or the realization of land fills in the hinterland.

Given the significance of the findings, the Post asked several other Antarctic experts to comment on the work.
Anandakrishnan, who was concerned that sea level rise could happen even faster than in the study, nonetheless  called the work a “fascinating study that shows the tipping points in the stability of the whole West Antarctic Ice Sheet (not just Thwaites or Pine Island, as some previous studies have shown)” by email. “The retreat of Thwaites continues past any ‘local’ ups and downs in its bed, and affects the glaciers that flow into the Ross Ice Shelf and into the Filchner Ronne Ice Shelf.” (You can see these regions on the map above.)
Jonathan Bamber, a glaciologist at the University of Bristol in the UK, also praised the study, calling the model “sophisticated” and adding, “It [may] take millennia for a full collapse but once it’s started we’re fully committed to multiple metres of sea level rise. How quickly we reach this point of no return, and how rapidly it proceeds, are sensitive to certain model details but what is clear is that the next few decades will determine whether the WAIS is just endangered or on its path to extinction.”
What’s striking is that even though we are now having this discussion about possible destabilization of West Antarctica, scientists are still not fully sure about what has caused the phenomenon. One suspicion, however, is that the warming of the climate as a whole has changed wind patterns around Antarctica which, in turn, has also changed ocean patterns — allowing warmer water to reach the bases of mostly submerged glaciers that hold back the gigantic volumes of inland ice.
There is some concern that similar processes may also play out in submarine based glaciers of East Antarctica — although so far, scientists have not identified a part of the Antarctic continent that is both as vulnerable, and also experiencing as rapid change, as West Antarctica.
Despite all of this, Levermann cautions that the results should not be over-interpreted in an alarmist way, since whatever change may be occurring, it is certainly not expected to happen all at once.
“No one has to be afraid of sea level rise,” he says. “One should be worried about sea level rise. It is not a threat to people, it’s a threat to things, and land, and cultural heritage.”

The World's Plan To Save Itself, In 6 Charts

Mother Jones - Tim McDonnell

World leaders have a pretty comprehensive plan to fight climate change, according to a United Nations report released Friday—even if it doesn't go as far as many of them had hoped.
In just over a month, representatives from most of the countries on Earth will gather in Paris in an attempt to finalize an international agreement to limit global warming and adapt to its impacts. The video above is a snappy explainer of what's at stake at this meeting, but suffice it to say the proposed deal is split into two keys parts. First is the core agreement, parts of which may be legally binding, that comprises broad, non-specific guidelines for all countries. It calls on countries to take steps such as transparently reporting greenhouse gas emissions and committing to ramp up climate action over the next few decades.
But the real meat-and-potatoes is in the second part, the "intended nationally determined contributions" (INDCs). The INDCs are what sets the Paris talks apart from past attempts at a global climate agreement in Kyoto in 1997 and Copenhagen in 2009. Those summits either left out major polluters (the US dropped out of the Kyoto Protocol; China and India were exempted) or fell apart completely (Copenhagen), in large part because they were built around universal greenhouse gas reduction targets that not everyone could agree to.
This time around, the UN process is more like a potluck, where each country brings its own unique contribution based on its needs and abilities; those are the INDCs. The US, for example, has committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, mostly by going after carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. So far, according to the World Resources Institute, 126 plans have been submitted, covering about 86 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. (The European Union submitted one joint plan for all its members.) Those contributions are likely to limit global warming to around 2.7 degrees Celsius (4.9 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels by 2100. That's above the 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) limit scientists say is necessary to avert the worst impacts—but it's also about 1 degree C less warming than would would happen if the world continued on its present course.
Now, we have a bit more insight into how countries are planning to make this happen. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the group that is overseeing the Paris talks, combed through all the INDCs to look for trends. Its report is a bit convoluted and repetitive; I don't recommend it to any but the nerdiest climate nerds. But I pulled out a few of the charts as an overview of what global action on climate change really looks like.

Types of targets: Most of the INDCs contain specific emission reduction targets. (Not all do; some countries, such as the small island nations, have such small or nonexistent emissions that it wouldn't make sense to promise to reduce them.) The most common way to state these targets is to promise that emissions at X future date will be lower than they would be with no action. Indonesia, for example, has pledged to increase its emissions over the next 25 years by 29 percent less than it would have under a "business as usual" scenario. The US commitment fits in the second category, an "absolute" target where emissions actually begin to go down. Others specify a date at which emissions will "peak," or set a goal for emissions per unit of GDP or energy production ("intensity").

UNFCCC

Greenhouse gases: The commitments cover a broad range of greenhouse gases (most cover more than one), but carbon dioxide is the most common enemy. That's no surprise, as it's by far the most common.

UNFCCC

Economic sectors: In different countries, different economic sectors are more or less responsible for climate pollution. In the US, the number-one source of emissions is coal-fired power plants; thus, President Barack Obama's plans focus on the power sector. In Indonesia, by contrast, deforestation is the biggest problem. Most plans cover more than one sector, but the most common is energy.

UNFCCC

How to fix it: This section finds that implementing renewable energy is the most common way countries are planning to meet their targets. More interesting is the tiny role played by carbon capture, use, and storage, down at the bottom of the chart. This refers to technology that "captures" greenhouse gas emissions on their way out of power plants, or directly from the atmosphere, and buries or re-purposes them. Support for carbon capture—also known as "clean coal"—is popular with policymakers who don't want to curb coal use (including GOP presidential contender John Kasich), even though it remains costly and unproven at scale.

UNFCCC

How to adapt: Many countries' INDCs also contain information about how they plan to adapt to climate change. Water use, agriculture, and public health appear to be the biggest areas of focus.

UNFCCC

A terrible, no-good, very bad summary: The most important question is clearly how all this adds up to reducing the world's greenhouse gas footprint and averting the worst threats posed by climate change. But the chart that addresses this question (below) is…not great. I'm including it so you have some sense of one big drawback of the Paris approach—without universal emissions targets, it's a lot harder to specify what the cumulative effect of these plans will really be. In short, here's what this chart shows: The gray line is global greenhouse gas emissions up to today. The orange line is how emissions will grow over the next couple decades if we do nothing. The three blue lines show how quickly we would need to reduce emissions to keep global warming to 2 degrees C; the longer we wait to take action, the steeper the cuts have to be. The yellow rectangles show a snapshot of where the INDCs leave us.

UNFCCC

So, we're better off than before, but we're not out of danger. That's why it's essential for the core agreement to include requirements that countries adopt even more aggressive goals in the future; that's one of the key things that will be debated in Paris. In other words, the Paris meeting is just one key battle in a war that's far from over, Jennifer Morgan, director of the WRI's global climate program, said in a statement.
"Despite the unprecedented level of effort, this report finds that current commitments are not yet sufficient to meet what the world needs. Countries must accelerate their efforts after the Paris summit in order to stave off climate change. The global climate agreement should include a clear mandate for countries to ramp up their commitments and set a long-term signal to phase out emissions as soon as possible."

Australian Insurance Companies Slow On Climate Change As Pacific Braces For Infrastructure Damage

New Matilda - Thom Mitchell

Labor’s top brass are touring the Pacific to hear about how climate change will affect the region, but closer to home Australian insurance companies have been found to be unprepared for the coming crisis. Thom Mitchell reports.

Typhoon Champi. Image: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/Flickr 

A new report has found that Australian insurers are lagging behind in recognising the financial risks created by climate change, and that they don’t appear to be on-board with the globally agreed goal of limiting the rise in average temperatures to less than two degrees.
The release of the World Wildlife Fund report this morning comes as Labor heavyweights, including Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and his Deputy Tanya Plibersek, tour the Pacific to investigate how climate change will impact the vulnerable region.
They’re likely to come under renewed pressure to side with Pacific leaders in arguing for a global goal of limiting temperature rises to 1.5 degrees rather than 2, with forecasts indicating Pacific nations will be left acutely at risk from climate change.
Closer to home it appears Australian insurance companies are not factoring in the implications of commitments made by 195 governments to work towards the two degree goal.
“No discussion was found by the Australian insurers about the importance of a 2 degree target in their primary disclosure documents and no self-contained public policies or statements have been identified,” the WWF report said.
The report analysed publicly available statements and policies for mentions of climate change from Australian insurers — IAG, QBE and Suncorp — and compared them with those of three international firms, Allianz, Prudential Financial and AXA.
Four Australian banks — Westpac, ANZ, CBA, and NAB — were also analysed, and were found to be more vocal and transparent about their position on climate risk and the two-degree target.
“Given the insurance industry’s expertise in risk management, weather-related impacts and prominent position in the business community, insurance companies have a responsibility to reduce risks and costs to consumers,” the report said.
In spite of this, WWF found, “None of the Australian insurance companies seem to have self-contained public climate change statement in their annual reviews or sustainability reports.”
The environmental NGO compared this stance to the international insurance companies, finding that foreign firms had warned more explicitly, more publicly, and more often about the risks that hostile weather and the diminishing value of fossil fuel stocks are creating.
This morning Labor leader Bill Shorten touched on similar themes, noting in Port Moresby that “rising sea levels are threatening the livelihoods and homes of our [Pacific] neighbours”.
As New Matilda reported in June, one study in Nature has already projected that the clean-up bill for under-developed South Pacific island nations alone could be as high as $21.9 billion, given their “acute vulnerability to climate change”.
Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, and Tuvalu were deemed particularly at-risk, with researchers from the University of New England finding that more than 95 per cent of their built infrastructure, by value, is located within 500 metres of the typically low-lying coast.
This morning WWF sought to highlight the unholy confluence between the increasing need for insurance, and the expected difficulty in securing it in a climate-changed world.
“The insurance industry will be affected through increased claims, reputational damage, decline in insurance affordability, and an increase in uninsurable sectors or geographies,” the WWF study notes.
The Pacific will be among the ‘geographies’ hardest hit, and Shorten is visiting both Kiribati and the Marshal Islands as part of his tour.
The ABC reports that this morning Shorten said “the message [I am] already getting loud and clear is that climate change is a first-order issue for our neighbours and we need … Australia to have serious policies, credible policies, which will help to contribute to mitigating the effects of climate change in our region”.
The WWF stressed that the policies of Australian insurance companies are also integral to efforts to limit the extent and impact of climate change and help in adaptation efforts.
“The private sector has a key role to play” in driving action toward the internationally agreed two degree target, the report said. “Communicating this target helps do that and also draws attention to whatever specific actions are in place to support it.”
“It is hoped that corporate discussion of a 2 degree Celsius threshold would lead to commitments and specific targets and actions.”

How Climate Change Disproportionately Affects Women

Fairfax - Mehreen Faruqi *

Tackling climate change is crucial for women, writes Mehreen Faruqi. Photo: Brad Newman

In a few weeks' time, world leaders, policy-makers, scientists and lobbyists will converge on Paris for the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, and hopefully agree to a universal and binding agreement on climate to serve as the successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The outcome of the conference will be crucial for everyone, but especially for the world's women.
As with all complex and wicked problems, gender inequality and climate change are inextricably linked. Like gender inequality, climate change is an issue of deep injustice. Poorer countries such as the Pacific islands, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka already are and will continue to bear much higher burdens of the effects of sea level rise, extreme heat, water scarcity and catastrophic weather events.
This injustice not only exists between nations but also impacts women disproportionately. The gendered impacts of climate change are numerous and are further magnified for women living in poorer countries where, for example, women and girls bear the burden of collecting water and fuel to meet their families' needs. As the United Nations has noted, the impacts of climate change take hold, collecting water and firewood is getting harder and they are having to search further and further to access these essential resources. As a result of these responsibilities, women have less time to earn money, engage in politics or public activities, learn to read or acquire other skills, which further perpetuates the cycle of disempowerment and social injustice.
About 70 per cent of the world's poor are women and gender differences in deaths due to natural disasters correlate with women's social and economic rights. The 1991 the Bangladesh cyclone killed 150,000 people, 90 per cent of whom were women. Women are often not taught survival skills such as swimming or climbing. They have restricted mobility and cultural constraints that decrease their access to escape, shelter and health care. Post-disaster, women are usually at higher risk of being placed in unsafe, overcrowded shelters, which is mainly due to the lack of economic capacity, property or land ownership.
Even in richer countries, many more women than men live in poverty. The number of women in the bottom 10 per cent of income earners in New South Wales is almost double that of men. The increasing severity and frequency of droughts as a result of climate change will contribute to higher prices for food and water, which will disproportionately disadvantage these women even further.
It is somewhat revealing that while climate change is much worse news for women, they are the ones who are more cognisant of environmental change and are more likely to support environmental protection. Yet they also face the historical disadvantage of having limited access to the decision-making process.
Last year, a Climate Institute poll found a growing number of Australians want the nation to lead on finding solutions to climate change and 64 per cent of women want Australia to be a leader. The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage survey entitled "Who Cares About the Environment?" also suggests women are more likely than men to be concerned about environmental problems. On average, women undertake more environmental activities than men.
Women are uniquely positioned to be extremely effective creative agents to influence change, but empowerment, gender equality and equal participation in decision-making are key to unlocking climate change solutions. In Bangladesh, women farmers reported that their profitable chickens were drowning because of frequent flooding. When they were involved in planning for climate change, their solution was to raise ducks.
Addressing climate change will of course not only require global and collective political leadership in Paris, but also national and local leadership in individual countries to get the policy settings right and drive change. For our own part, Australia must invest heavily in renewable energy, phase out coal and bypass the dangerous lure of coal seam gas development. We must also do our fair share of assisting other countries - particularly in our own region - with climate change adaptation and mitigation.
Bringing women to the forefront of political decision-making will help in securing a safe climate future. It is notable that last week Nepal elected its first female president, making it the latest in a long line of South Asian and so-called "third world" countries to elect women leaders. The new Nepalese constitution requires one-third of legislators to be women. Meanwhile, in NSW parliament, I sit in a chamber with only 10 women out of 42 MPs. We should be doing a lot better.
The NSW Government recently objected to my motion calling on the government to "heed the advice and warnings of the world's leading scientists and ramp up efforts to address climate change in our state", and it continually refuses to make the necessary shift towards 100 per cent renewable energy in NSW, which is possible, affordable, and essential.
All governments have a responsibility not only to tackle climate change, but also to involve those who will be most affected by it. This is the 'strong moral imperative' for Australia, not digging up and shipping out more coal. In India, for example, 120,000 people die every year from health complication related to coal. No doubt a heavy burden falls particularly on women. Instead of exporting coal, we should be working with countries around the world to jointly transition to a clean and green renewable energy future.

* Dr Mehreen Faruqi is a Greens MP in the NSW Upper House. She is an engineer, academic, and activist, working for social and environmental justice.

Pacific Islands Make Last-Ditch Plea To World Before Paris Climate Change Talks

The Guardian - Oliver Milman

‘Unless the world acts decisively in coming weeks, the Pacific as we know it is doomed,’ says Fijian prime minister Frank Bainimarama

For low-lying Pacific islands the likely sea-level rise of a metre by the end of the century means coastal erosion, saltwater seeping into precious rainwater catchments and ruined crops. Photograph: Giora Dan/AAP

Amid the rustling palm trees, blissed newlyweds and colourful attire of a tropical island resort, Pacific leaders have been getting blunt with wealthy nations about the unfolding calamity of climate change that is gradually gnawing away their remote idylls.
At a summit in Fiji last week, the last major gathering of Pacific island nations before crunch UN climate talks in Paris next month, islanders thrashed out their collective plea to the world to help address the health impacts of climate change, particularly upon women, infants and adolescents.
Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, Fiji’s foreign minister, said the country was dealing with the re-emergence of climate-influenced diseases such as typhoid, dengue fever, leptospirosis and diarrhoeal illnesses. Last year, a dengue outbreak in Fiji infected 20,000 people.
But the meeting also showed that Fiji, for one, is not pulling any more punches with large, industrialised nations it sees as culpable for climate change.
“We in the Pacific are innocent bystanders in the greatest act of folly of any age,” said Fijian prime minister Frank Bainimarama.
“Unless the world acts decisively in the coming weeks to begin addressing the greatest challenge of our age, then the Pacific, as we know it, is doomed.
“The industrialised nations putting the welfare of the entire planet at risk so that their economic growth is assured and their citizens can continue to enjoy lives of comparative ease. All at the expense of those of us in low-lying areas of the Pacific and the rest of the world.”
Bainimarama added that he has yet to see the “necessary political will” amongst wealthy nations to head off the worst impacts of climate change at the Paris talks.
These gloomy warnings are becoming grimly regular fodder for Pacific islanders to digest and, increasingly, experience first-hand.
“It’s an everyday issue here,” said Dr Karen Allen, Unicef’s representative in 14 Pacific nations. “Children here in the Pacific talk about climate change like children elsewhere talk about school or TV. It’s so routine.”
Media coverage of climate change in Fiji doesn’t have the luxury of wallowing in the sort of cosseted denialism seen in the US, Britain or Australia.
The lead story in the Fiji Times ​one day last week featured the tale of a seven-year-old child who drowned in an unprecedented high tide in the Namena district. A new FIJI$670,000 ($436,000) sea wall has been approved but the area’s commissioner, Meleti Bainimarama, conceded: “What we are doing is remedial action. I think the best thing to do is relocate the village, but it will come at a cost.”
The other front-page tale featured a man in the same village complaining how his house is regularly swamped by seawater that once lapped 20 metres from his front door. While wealthy nations mull over climate projections and agonise over potential dips in GDP, the stereotypically ebullient Pacific islanders aim to bring some steely reality to Paris.
“I won’t be going to Paris wearing the usual friendly, compliant Pacific smile,” warned Bainimarama. “In fact, I won’t be going to Paris in a Pacific frame of mind at all. I fear that our interests are about to be sacrificed.”
Previous UN climate change forums, where dreary jargon often pours treacle over any sense of urgency, have been enlivened by entreaties from Pacific island leaders. But Paris will see an escalation. Pacific islanders will be turning up in numbers – almost all leaders are expected to attend, unlike in Copenhagen in 2009 – and with a string of demands.
The latest, the Suva Declaration, calls for an end to new coalmines and a more ambitious limit to global warming. The language has sharpened beyond Fiji – Kiribati president Anote Tong recently called Australia, previously venerated as a benevolent protector in the Pacific, “selfish” for its continued enthusiasm for burning vast amounts of fossil fuels.
The cause for concern is clear – Nasa recently reported the world’s sea level has risen nearly 8cm since 1992, with the Pacific experiencing a more rapid increase than other oceans.
A rise of around a metre by the end of the century now looks likely. For low-lying islands in the Pacific, this means coastal erosion, saltwater seeping into precious rainwater catchments and ruined crops.
Meanwhile, rising temperatures will heighten the risk of diseases, including those carried by mosquitos. Cyclones are expected to become more severe. The World Health Organisation estimates climate change will cause around 250,000 deaths globally between 2030 and 2050.
At the Fiji summit, delegates wearing Sulu va Taga, a type of traditional kilt, and floral shirts spell out the problems and what must be done. Jarringly, the gathering is being held at a luxury resort on Denarau island, a manmade construction featuring manicured lawns, fountains and an 18-hole golf course, created through seabed dredging and reshaping of the coastline.
But the Pacific islands mean business. A lack of regional leadership from Australia – where senior government ministers apparently consider seawater inundation hilarious – is forcing Pacific islanders to set aside their reputation for gentle amiability in order to make themselves heard internationally.
“We don’t want to change the way we are but we need to change our approach so that when we say enough is enough, we are heard,” said Satini Tulaga Manuella, health minister of Tuvalu, which is comprised of nine scattered islands, none of which peak higher than 4.5m above sea level.
In March, Tuvalu was pummelled by Cyclone Pam, which washed huge waves over the atolls and ripped apart buildings with 350kmph winds. The dead were upturned from their resting place in cemeteries, crops were ruined, islands reshaped. Tuvalu, the fourth-smallest nation in the world at just 26 sqkm, caught a glimpse of what may cause its demise. But the government is determined the population will not migrate.
“People are worried but they want to stay, our priority is to save our country,” Manuella said. “We say if you save Tuvalu you save the world, because if you bring down emissions enough to save us, the rest of the world will be OK.
“Science is telling politicians in other countries what is happening. So why aren’t they listening? They have to look after their own people but they also have an obligation to the world. Imagine if a whole race, Tuvaluans, we have our own culture, our own ways, is made extinct overnight because we are hit by a cyclone.”
There’s recognition that the smaller of the Pacific islands face the brunt of climate change, even among those in Fiji who have had to move due to its impact.
In January last year, the Fijian village of Vunidogoloa had to relocate several kilometres inland because of the merciless advance of the sea. Saline intrusion was causing crops such as barley and cabbage to fail. The leaves on the trees were turning yellow from the salt. Children were no longer left to play unsupervised after a king tide washed away a young boy.
“We were most vulnerable at night because we didn’t know what was happening with the sea,” said Sailosi Ramatu, leader of the village. “Now people are happy, they can sleep at night. We have land that is higher up in Fiji but other countries don’t have that.”
The unfairness of islanders suffering the consequences of greenhouse gases they mostly didn’t emit is mirrored by the raw deal suffered by the women who form the cornerstone of family life in the Pacific.
The Fiji summit, hosted by the government and the UNFPA, focused on how to deal with the health and gender equity problems thrown up by climate change.
According to figures cited to delegates by Princess Sarah Zeid of Jordan, ambassador for the Every Woman Every Child program, women and children are 14 times more likely to die in a natural disaster than men.
“Cooking food, taking care of children, fetching water, taking care of livestock – climate change disrupts every element of a woman’s life,” said Zeid, who is the latest royal to lend stardust to the Pacific islands’ cause after Prince Albert of Monaco provided his backing, reportedly sinking a few cans of XXXX with aid workers at a recent call to arms in Kiribati.
“When climate impacts are rapid, the consequences for women and children are also severe,” said Zeid. “The greater the gender inequality, the greater the difference.”
As women in developing countries do the bulk of caring for children and elderly relatives, they are less likely to escape floods and cyclones. This was demonstrated by 2008’s cyclone Nargis in India, where most of the fatalities were women who held onto children while the men clung to coconut trees.
In the Pacific, there are a myriad of problems to work through – many health clinics are at risk from inundation and are inaccessible to those in remote areas. Delivery of maternal and reproductive health is patchy and the risk of sexual assault and abuse is heightened following disaster.
“In the Pacific, men surround their thatched homes and hold the poles together to keep their women and children safe inside during a cyclone,” said Unicef’s Allen. “The Pacific has the most incredible strong community spirit of anywhere in the world I’ve been.
“That makes it all the harder to face the reality of abuse. Because when your whole culture is built around how much you love and care for each other, it may be difficult to face the fact abuse is increasing.”
These challenges require money and Pacific islands are eying the $100bn in climate finance that has been repeatedly promised by wealthy nations. The Paris talks have left open the possibility of major help for adaptation, such as sea walls, new types of crops and relocated facilities, as well as a 1.5C, rather than 2C limit on warming.
But proposals for a facility to deal with people displaced by climate change, required because they do not fall under the UN refugee convention, have been dropped, to the dismay of Kiribati, which has purchased land in Fiji and has a “migration with dignity” policy, and the Marshall Islands, where residents of the famous Bikini atoll are currently looking to relocate to the US.
It’s a mixed picture that leaves Pacific leaders far from confident that this will finally be the year where their existential crisis triggers a response.
“We will see,” said Jone Usamate, Fiji’s health minister. “The world is a system – you do something at one end of the world and it has an impact at the other end.
“So we all need to be responsible but this is not our fault. Unfortunately, we are paying the price for it.”

Climate Change Treaty Will Be The Flop Of The Year

Australian Financial Review - Christopher Booker

After failures at Kyoto in 1997, and Copenhagen in 2009, climate change activists face the same obstacles in Paris next month.

Political leaders, officials and green activists from all over the world will converge on Paris later this month, hoping for a treaty to save us all from further global warming. Photo: Reuters

At the end of this month 40,000 politicians, officials, green activists, lobbyists and journalists from 195 nations will converge outside Paris – at Europe's largest airport reserved only for private jets – for a conference they hope will change the world.
Their declared aim is to agree on a treaty that commits to such a massive cut in greenhouse gas emissions that the earth's temperature is prevented from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius higher than when the climate began naturally warming again two centuries ago.
The chief obstacle to such an agreement is exactly the same as it was at Kyoto in 1997, and at that last mammoth conference at Copenhagen in 2009, which so signally failed to get Kyoto renewed. The vast majority of countries have argued all along that, if man-made CO₂ is causing a problem, the fault lies with those "developed" nations that became rich before everyone else by burning fossil fuels to power their industrial revolution.
It is therefore up to the developed countries of the West to make the most drastic cuts, leaving the still "developing" nations to catch up. They say they are prepared to make some contribution to reducing CO₂, but only if they are paid to do so out of a $100 billion a year "Green Climate Fund", financed by the rich countries that originally created the problem.
Now, as Paris approaches – although scarcely noticed by the Western media – we can see just what the 20 countries responsible for 81 per cent of global CO₂ emissions are proposing as their "Intended Nationally Determined Contributions" to cutting emissions by 2030. These have been meticulously analysed on the Notalotofpeopleknowthat website, with further reporting on that site of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
China, now easily the world's largest emitter, contributing 24 per cent of the total, plans by 2030 to double its CO₂ emissions, not least by building 363 more coal-fired power stations. India, now the third-largest emitter, plans by 2030 to treble its emissions. The fourth-largest emitter, Russia, despite slashing its emissions after 1990 by closing down much of its old Soviet industry, now proposes to increase them from their 2012 level by up to 38 per cent.
Japan, the fifth-largest emitter, does claim that it will cut its emissions by some 15 per cent, but is still planning to build more coal-fired power plants. Although South Korea, the world's seventh-largest emitter, claims that it will cut emissions by 23 per cent (not least by buying "carbon credits" that will allow it to "offset" its continuing production of CO₂ for cash), even its proposed target will still be 100 per cent higher than it was 25 years ago.
As for the Middle East, the oil states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran (the eighth and ninth-largest emitters) have not yet submitted any proposals. But the United Arab Emirates, which have more than doubled their emissions since 2002, show no sign of slowing that increase, apart from a promise to invest in more "carbon-free" solar and nuclear power. As for Brazil, which as the 11th largest emitter has been rapidly increasing its dependence on fossil fuels, it sees its main contribution as being to slow the felling and burning of the Amazon rainforest.
So which countries are obviously missing from this list? President Obama may talk the talk about his ambitious plans for the United States, the world's second-largest emitter. But there is no more chance of Congress agreeing to the proposed treaty than there was in 1997, when the Senate unanimously voted no to Kyoto.
Which leaves the European Union as the only part of the world committed to cutting its emissions by 40 per cent within 15 years. However, Poland is already refusing to sign the treaty, as it builds more fossil-fuel power stations to keep its lights on, while Germany, the sixth-largest emitter does the same.
The only government in the world wholly committed to meeting that 40 per cent target by 2030 is Britain, the 14th-largest emitter, responsible for just 1.3 per cent of global emissions. This is less than China or India are now adding every year, as we shut down those fossil-fuel power plants that still manage to provide 70 per cent of our electricity.
And what about that Green Climate Fund, supposed by 2020 to be dishing out $100 billion every year to help developing countries to "adapt to climate change"? Firm pledges received so far total just $700 million, leaving $99.3 billion still to go.
The only real question that will remain after the failure of this bid for a binding treaty in Paris is how much longer it can be before the most expensive and foolish scare story in history finally falls apart.

Paris 2015: Carbon Promises Lock In 2.7 Degrees Of Warming, UN Says

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

The United Nation's top official on climate change, Christiana Figueres. Photo: Brendan Esposito

The world remains on course to exceed dangerous temperature increases even if nations carry out pledges they make at next month's global climate summit in Paris, the United Nations says.
An assessment by the UN of 146 national goals and those of the European Union covering about 86 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions found they would cut average per capita pollution by as much as 8 per cent by 2025 and 9 per cent by 2030 compared with the current trajectory.
So-called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) represent a big step forward from the 2009 Copenhagen summit but still fall short of keeping temperatures to within two-degrees warming on pre-industrial levels that scientists say would trigger dangerous climate change.
"The INDCs have the capability of limiting the forecast temperature rise to around 2.7 degrees by 2100, by no means enough, but a lot lower than the estimated four, five, or more degrees of warming projected by many prior to the [pledges]," Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said.

Just weeks to go before the summit, global heat records continue to tumble. Vrendendal in South Africa recorded 48.4 degrees on Tuesday, the hottest recorded temperature in October anywhere.2015 remains odds on to smash annual records after September was the most unusually warm month in 1629 monthly records kept by US agencies.
This month is also likely to be Australia's hottest October as the powerful El Nino adds to be background warming from climate change.
Australia has promised to cut 2005-level emissions 26-28 per cent by 2030 - a target that while relatively ambitious on a per capita basis would still leave the country with the highest pollution per person among rich nations.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is expected to attend the opening day of the Paris conference, joining world leaders expected to call for bolder action to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
A climate meeting of negotiators in Bonn, Germany earlier this month made little progress, with the draft text of the Paris agreement swelling out to 55 pages.
The final agreement is expected to contain few specific numbers, in part to enable US President Barack Obama to impose regulatory measures to curb emissions in the world's second largest polluting economy without the need to seek approval in the hostile Republican-dominated Senate.
Key differences, though remain between rich and developing nations. The latter want to see a firm commitment to increase the combined public and private financial aid from a goal of $US100 billion ($141 billion) a year beyond 2020, while the former want greater transparency and accountability for national emissions.
A worst-case scenario could a very minimalist agreement "with a bow-tie put around the INDCs", one source said.
The negotiations at Paris are also likely to focus on the durability of any pact and whether nations will be obligated to lift their commitments at each future review, possibly set at five-year intervals.
With the Paris pledges falling short of the two-degree target, many observers are arguing the event will likely be the start of a new process to reduce emissions rather than the end of the road.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt is expected to attend the first week of the conference with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop likely to attend at least three days in the second week.