Climate Change Missing From Full Trans-Pacific Partnership Text

Fairfax - Gareth Hutchens


TPP: five things you need to know: It's a 12-country trade pact that accounts for 40 per cent of world GDP, but what does it mean for Australia?

• TPP: What the trade pact means for Australia

The final text of a huge 12-country trade agreement has confirmed the "worst nightmares" of environmental groups, with no mention of climate change in its lone environment chapter and weak enforcement mechanisms, Australian academics say.
The text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement was finally released on Thursday, with Trade Minister Andrew Robb saying the deal will deliver "substantial benefits for Australia" in the rapidly growing Asia Pacific.

Under the deal 98 per cent of all tariffs will be eliminated across everything from beef, dairy, wine, sugar, rice, horticulture and seafood through to manufactured goods, resources and energy. Photo: Kitty Hill

The TPP is the biggest global trade deal in 20 years, involving 12 countries in the Pacific region which collectively represent over 40 per cent of world GDP.

Last month, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called the deal "a gigantic foundation stone" for the economy which will deliver jobs and growth while avoiding aspects that would have seen increased costs to the taxpayer for medicines.
But this is the first time Australians have had a chance to see what the federal government has been negotiating on their behalf for over five years.

Matthew Rimmer, Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Law at the Queensland University of Technology, told Fairfax Media it looks like US trade officials have been "green-washing" the agreement.
"The environment chapter confirms some of the worst nightmares of environmental groups and climate activists," Dr Rimmer said.
"The agreement has poor coverage of environmental issues, and weak enforcement mechanisms. There is only limited coverage of biodiversity, conservation, marine capture fisheries, and trade in environmental services. The final text of the chapter does not even mention 'climate change' – the most pressing global environmental issue in the world."

Controversially, the deal includes a clause giving foreign companies the right to sue Australian governments if they introduce laws they say have harmed their investments.
Dr Patricia Ranald from the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network said the "safeguards" Mr Robb claimed he had won to prevent foreign tobacco companies suing Australian governments for pursuing anti-smoking policies do not appear strong enough.
"The general 'safeguards' in the text are similar to those in other recent agreements which have not prevented cases against health and environmental laws," Dr Ranald said.
"Public health groups have influenced governments to include in the text the option of more clearly excluding future tobacco control laws from ISDS cases, which is important and has angered the tobacco lobby. But this also begs the question of how effective are the general 'safeguards' for other public health and environmental laws."
Dr Rimmer also criticised the investment chapter, saying it was one of the most "labyrinthine" in the agreement.
But he also said the general exceptions chapter provided the opportunity for countries to carve out tobacco from the ISDS regime for tobacco control measures.
"That will be significant given Australia's pioneering plain packaging of tobacco products," he said.
Mr Robb has issued a statement heralding the deal, saying Australians now have a chance to examine the text for themselves.
"Along with the landmark North Asian bilateral trade agreements we have concluded with China, Japan and South Korea, the TPP forms a transformational series of agreements that will contribute substantially to the diversification of our economy in this critical post-mining boom phase," Mr Robb said.
However, the text is still missing some important documents. Many of the side letters with details of last-minute bilateral deals between particular governments have not been released.
Dr Ranald said these side letters are likely to favour the largest economies with greater bargaining power, "and should have been released for public scrutiny with the main text."
Mr Robb said as these side letters are finalised they will be made available to the public.
Bryan Clark, the Director of Trade and International Affairs at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said he was "very pleased" the text had finally been released because industry will have a chance to review it.
"Now we can scrutinise it, and engage in the public discussion over its content," he said.
The text shows 98 per cent of all tariffs will be eliminated across everything from beef, dairy, wine, sugar, rice, horticulture and seafood through to manufactured goods, resources and energy.
It has also removed barriers to Australian goods exports, services and investment abroad in the region.
Global trade officials hope the deal will establish a 'model' for future trade agreements, by setting commonly-agreed rules and promoting transparency of laws and regulations.
Its open architecture allows for other members - such as China - to join in the future.

Links

• Professor Matthew Rimmer: TPP - light on environment & labour, sweet on multinationals
• FTA outcomes and background documents

Poll Finds Global Consensus on a Need to Tackle Climate Change

New York Times -  Sewell Chan

The Passu Glacier in the Gojal Valley in Pakistan. The majority of respondents to a Pew Research Center poll in Pakistan did not support placing limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Credit Aamir Qureshi/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

As world leaders prepare to gather in Paris next month to address global warming, their populations generally agree on the need to curb greenhouse gas emissions, but the countries that emit the most carbon dioxide per person are also the ones least worried about climate change, according to a poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center.
The survey, which sampled people in 40 countries, found that in every nation surveyed, except Pakistan, a majority of respondents supported placing limits on the emissions of gases that are warming the planet. In the United States, 69 percent did; in China, 71 percent; in Nigeria, 77 percent; in Brazil, 88 percent.
Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University who was not involved in the survey, said the findings were more encouraging than he had expected.
“Whether it is the unprecedented drought in California, devastating floods and hurricanes, extraordinary wildfires, people are now seeing the impact of climate change with their own eyes — they are experiencing its negative consequences now, where they live,” Dr. Mann said. “It is no longer a distant, far-off problem. It is very real, and as a result, a growing majority of the population is demanding action.”
But the intensity of concern about rising temperatures varies significantly across the world, the poll found, hinting at some of the domestic constraints leaders could face in negotiating deals in Paris that may impose short-term costs on their economies. Respondents in the United States, Australia and Russia, among the top carbon polluters per capita, were substantially less alarmed about the problem than their counterparts in India, Kenya and Mexico, which have less industrialized economies.
There were also striking differences in opinion trends. In the United States and France, the proportion of people who say global climate change is a “very serious problem” increased over the past five years, according to the poll. In the United States, 45 percent said the problem was very serious, compared with 37 percent in 2010, while in France the proportion rose to 56 percent from 46 percent over the same period.
By contrast, the proportion of respondents who see the problem as very serious declined over the past five years in China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Indonesia, Turkey and Argentina, the survey found. In China, the proportion saying the problem was very serious fell to 18 percent from 41 percent. In Japan, it declined to 45 percent from 58 percent.
Fears about climate change were strongest in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. In Australia, Britain, China, Germany, Israel and Poland, fewer than 20 percent of respondents said they were very concerned that climate change would personally harm them during their lifetimes; in Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ghana, the Philippines and Uganda, more than 70 percent did.
Despite significant differences in views within and across countries, the poll also found broadly similar patterns. People around the world were far more likely to say that significant lifestyle changes will be necessary to mitigate the effects of climate change than to say that technology alone can solve the problem; even in the technology-oriented United States, the respective figures were 66 percent and 23 percent.
The poll also found general agreement that rich countries should do more than poor countries to shoulder the burden of dealing with the problem, because the former have produced most of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions so far, even though the latter will produce more planet-warming emissions in the years to come.
Drought was the most common concern cited by respondents when asked about the consequences of climate change, followed closely by severe weather. In the United States, anxiety about drought was most prevalent in the West and the Midwest, which have both experienced water shortages in recent years.
The poll found stark partisan divisions in the United States: 68 percent of Democrats considered global climate change to be a very serious problem, compared with 20 percent of Republicans; 82 percent of Democrats support curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, compared with 50 percent of Republicans; 79 percent of Democrats saw a need for lifestyle changes, among Republicans, 55 percent. Substantial partisan divisions on the issue were also identified in Britain, Canada and Australia.
American women (51 percent) were substantially more likely than American men (39 percent) to say that climate change is a very serious problem; that it will affect them personally (36 percent versus 23 percent) and that major lifestyle changes will be required (75 percent versus 57 percent).
Similarly, Americans ages 18 to 29 were far more likely to view global warming as a serious problem — and to think that rich nations should do more to address it — than Americans 50 and older. Less affluent Americans were more worried about it than more prosperous ones. Half of American Catholics, but only one-third of American Protestants, said that climate change was a very serious problem.
The poll asked citizens of five large developing countries whether their governments should develop alternative energy sources, like wind and solar power; expand exploration and production of oil, coal and natural gas; or build more nuclear power plants. Majorities in Brazil (73 percent) and China (51 percent) expressed support for alternative energy sources; in India, 44 percent did. People in Russia and South Africa were more likely to say that all three approaches should be given equal priority.
Although fewer than one in five Chinese expressed serious concern about global warming, more than seven in 10 supported an international treaty to curtail emissions — a striking gap that may reflect both the prominence of recent official pronouncements about emissions controls, as well as the fact that other environmental concerns, like air pollution, tend to dominate public debate in China.
The survey was conducted from March 25 to May 27 among 45,435 respondents in 40 countries. The survey included telephone and face-to-face interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International.

Climate Change is Moving Mountains

ScienceDaily

Terminus of the Hubbard Glacier at Resurrection Bay. The ice front is about 300 feet high.
Credit: provided by UC's Eva Enkelmann

For millions of years global climate change has altered the structure and internal movement of mountain ranges, but the resulting glacial development and erosion can in turn change a mountain's local climate. The degree of this cause-and-effect relationship has never been clearly observed, until now.

Based on research led by University of Cincinnati geologist Eva Enkelmann in the St. Elias Mountain Range -- located along the Pacific coastal region of North America -- the way a mountain range moves and behaves topographically can also change and create its local climate by redirecting wind and precipitation. The repercussions of these changes can in turn, accelerate the erosion and tectonic seismic activity of that mountain range.
Based on her findings, Enkelmann shows clear evidence for a strong relationship between global and local climate change and a mountain's internal tectonic plate shifts and topographic changes.
Enkelmann, an assistant professor in the University of Cincinnati Department of Geology, was among several UC researchers and thousands of geoscientists from around the globe presenting their findings at the 2015 Annual Geological Society of America Meeting, Nov.1-4, in Baltimore.
This research also was published in July in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Moving Mountains
"To understanding how mountain structures evolve through geologic time is no quick task because we are talking millions of years," says Enkelmann. "There are two primary processes that result in the building and eroding of mountains and those processes are interacting."
Looking at the St. Elias Mountains in particular, Enkelmann notes how dry it is in the northern part of the mountain range. But the precipitation is very high in the southern area, resulting in more erosion and material coming off the southern flanks. So as the climate change influences the erosion, that can produce a shift in the tectonics. This has been suggested in earlier studies based on numerical and analytical models, however, it had not yet been shown to have occurred over geologic times in the real world.
Enkelmann synthesized several different data sets to show how a rapid exhumation occurred in the central part of the mountain range over four to two million years ago. This feedback process between erosion and internal tectonic shifting resulted in a mass of material moving up toward the surface very rapidly.
Enkelmann's model suggests that global climate shifts triggered a change in the rheology -- the way material behaves.
While Earth was much warmer millions of years ago, glaciers still existed in the high altitudes. However, 2.6 million years ago Earth experienced a shift to a colder climate and glaciation intensified. Existing glaciers grew larger, froze solid, covered the area and did not move.
Enkelmann says the glaciers today are wet-based and are moving, very aggressively eroding material around and out, and in the case of her observation, into the Gulf of Alaska. The tectonic forces (internal plates moving toward one another) continue to move toward Alaska, get pushed underneath and the sediment on top is piling up above the Yakutat plate.

Shake, Rattle and Roll
Adding to the already complex effects of climate change, these processes essentially work against each other.
The movement of glaciers can compete with the internal buildup and develop a feedback process that is very rapid and ferocious. Scientists have suggested that the Himalayas, European Alps and mountains in Taiwan were caused by the same competing reactions as those Enkelmann has observed in southeastern Alaska.
In Enkelmann's observation, the climate-driven erosion can influence the tectonics and change the motion of the rocks in that area. This makes studying the St. Elias Mountain Range particularly ideal because this area is very active tectonically, with strong glacial erosion. As an example, she cites the Great Alaskan Earthquake of 1964 -- the world's second largest earthquake recorded to date -- that also resulted in a tsunami.
"In 1899, there were two big earthquakes in a row, an 8.1 and an 8.2 magnitude, says Enkelmann pointing to a photo of the resulting shoreline lift that still stands today. "These earthquakes resulted in up to 14 meters of co-seismic uplift on the shore, so the shoreline basically popped up 14 meters (45 feet) and it happened immediately.
"Our biggest concern today is the continued potential for earthquakes that can also result in tsunamis," says Enkelmann.
Enkelmann appreciates the challenge of collecting samples here because this range has the highest peaks of any coastal mountain range and is only 20 kilometers from the Pacific Ocean, but she points out that it is a tough area to study because of the big ice sheets.
"So as geologists, we go to the area and take samples and do measurements in the field on the mountain ranges that stick out," says Enkelmann. "One approach is to sample the material that comes out of the glaciers that has transported the eroded sediment and analyze that sediment.
"By going to all of these individual glaciers, we can get a much better understanding of what has happened and what was moved on the entire mountain range."

Story Source:
The above post is reprinted from materials provided by University of Cincinnati.

Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General

New York Times - Justin Gillis & Clifford Krauss

An Exxon Mobil refinery in Los Angeles, Calif. The New York attorney general is investigating the oil and gas company. Credit T. Fallon/Bloomberg, via Getty Images

The New York attorney general has begun a sweeping investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how those risks might hurt the oil business.
According to people with knowledge of the investigation, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.
The investigation focuses on whether statements the company made to investors about climate risks as recently as this year were consistent with the company’s own long-running scientific research.
The sources said the scrutiny would include a period of at least a decade when Exxon Mobil funded outside groups that sought to undermine climate science, even as its in-house scientists were outlining the potential consequences — and uncertainties — to company executives.
Kenneth P. Cohen, vice president for public affairs at Exxon Mobil, said on Thursday that the company had received the subpoena and was still deciding how to respond.

Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman of New York, shown in May, issued a subpoena Wednesday demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents from the company. Credit Hans Pennink/Associated Press

“We unequivocally reject the allegations that Exxon Mobil has suppressed climate-change research,” Mr. Cohen said, adding that the company had funded mainstream climate science since the 1970s, had published dozens of scientific papers on the topic and had disclosed climate risks to investors.
The people with knowledge of the New York case also said on Thursday that, in a separate inquiry, Peabody Energy, the nation’s largest coal producer, had been under investigation by the attorney general for two years over whether it properly disclosed financial risks related to climate change. That investigation has not been previously reported, and has not resulted in any charges or other legal action against Peabody.

Vic Svec, a Peabody senior vice president, said in a statement, “Peabody continues to work with the New York attorney general’s office regarding our disclosures, which have evolved over the years.” The Exxon Mobil investigation might expand further to encompass other oil companies, according to the people with knowledge of the case, though no additional subpoenas have been issued to date.

The people spoke on the condition they not be identified, saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about investigations that could produce civil or criminal charges.
The Martin Act, a New York state law, confers on the attorney general broad powers to investigate financial fraud.

Mr. Schneiderman’s decision to scrutinize the fossil fuel companies may well open a new legal front in the battle over climate change.
To date, lawsuits trying to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for the damage they are causing to the climate have been failing in the courts, but most of those have been pursued by private plaintiffs.

Attorneys general for other states could join in Mr. Schneiderman’s efforts, bringing far greater investigative and legal resources to bear on the issue. Some experts see the potential for a legal assault on fossil fuel companies similar to the lawsuits against the tobacco companies in recent decades, which cost them tens of billions of dollars in penalties.

“This could open up years of litigation and settlements in the same way that tobacco litigation did, also spearheaded by attorneys general,” said Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia law school.
“In some ways, the theory is similar — that the public was misled about something dangerous to health. Whether the same smoking guns will emerge, we don’t know yet.”
In the 1950s and 1960s, tobacco companies financed internal research showing tobacco to be harmful and addictive, but mounted a public campaign that said otherwise, and helped finance scientific research later shown to be dubious.
In 2006, the companies were found guilty of “a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public.” The history at Exxon Mobil appears to differ, in that the company published extensive research over decades that largely lined up with mainstream climatology. Thus, any potential fraud prosecution might depend on exactly how big a role company executives can be shown to have played in directing campaigns of climate denial, usually by libertarian-leaning political groups.

For several years, advocacy groups with expertise in financial analysis have been warning that fossil fuel companies might be overvalued in the stock market, since the need to limit climate change might require that much of their coal, oil and natural gas be left in the ground.

The sources said the attorney general’s investigation of Exxon Mobil began a year ago, focusing initially on what the company had told investors about the risks that climate change might pose to its business.

News reporting in the last eight months added impetus to the investigation, the sources said. In February, several news organizations, including The New York Times, reported that a Smithsonian researcher who had published papers questioning established climate science, Wei-Hock Soon, had received extensive funds from fossil fuel companies, including Exxon Mobil, without disclosing them. That struck some experts as similar to the activities of tobacco companies.

More recently, Inside Climate News and The Los Angeles Times have reported that Exxon Mobil was well aware of the risks of climate change from its own scientific research, and used that research in its long-term planning for activities like drilling in the Arctic, even as it funded groups from the 1990s to the mid-2000s that denied serious climate risks.

Mr. Cohen, of Exxon, said on Thursday that the company had made common cause with such groups largely because it agreed with them on a policy goal of keeping the United States out of a global climate treaty called the Kyoto Protocol.

“We stopped funding them in the middle part of the past decade because a handful of them were making the uncertainty of the science their focal point,” Mr. Cohen said. “Frankly, we made the call that we needed to back away from supporting the groups that were undercutting the actual risk” of climate change.

“We recognize the risk,” Mr. Cohen added. He noted that Exxon Mobil, after an acquisition in 2009, had become the largest producer of natural gas in the United States. Because natural gas creates far less carbon dioxide than coal when burned for electricity, the company expects to be a prime beneficiary of President Obama’s plan to limit emissions. Exxon Mobil has also endorsed a tax on emissions as a way to further reduce climate risks.

Whether Exxon Mobil began disclosing the business risks of climate change as soon as it understood them is likely to be a major focus of the New York case. The sources said the investigators for the attorney general were poring through the company’s disclosure filings since the 1970s, but were focusing in particular on recent statements to investors.

Exxon Mobil has been disclosing such risks in recent years, but whether those disclosures were sufficient has been a matter of public debate.

Last year, for example, the company warned investors of intensifying efforts by governments around the world to limit emissions. “These requirements could make our products more expensive, lengthen project implementation times, and reduce demand for hydrocarbons, as well as shift hydrocarbon demand toward relatively lower-carbon sources such as natural gas,” the company said at the time.

But in another recent report, Exxon Mobil essentially ruled out the possibility that governments would adopt climate policies stringent enough to force it to leave its reserves in the ground, saying that rising population and energy demand around the world would prevent that.
“Meeting these needs will require all economic energy sources, especially oil and natural gas,” the company said.

Wall Street analysts on Thursday were uncertain whether the case would inflict long-term damage on the company, which has already suffered from a plunge in commodity prices, like other oil and gas producers.

“This is not good news for Exxon Mobil or Exxon Mobil shareholders,” said Fadel Gheit, a senior oil company analyst at Oppenheimer & Company. “It’s a negative, though how much damage there will be to reputation or performance is very hard to say.”
Brian Youngberg, senior energy analyst at Edward Jones, said, “There is headline risk, but the actual financial impact will not affect the company for a long time, if ever. I think there will be a modest overhang.”
Exxon Mobil shares closed at $84.81, down 1.4 percent.

'The Blob' Warm Pool in The Pacific May Prolong Life of Monster El Nino

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

The powerful "Great Godzilla" El Nino in the Pacific may last as much as two months longer than expected because of another unusual climate phenomenon scientists have nick-named "The Blob".
First observed in 2013, the huge "blob" of abnormally warm water extends from the Californian coast far into the Pacific. (See chart below from US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.)

It's going to make the battery last longer, that's for sure. 
Dr Wenju Cai, principal research scientist, CSIRO

This year's big El Nino may linger longer than expected. Photo: Timothy Connell

One effect is that the winds that blow westward during an El Nino are much further north than they would normally be at this time in the event's cycle, researchers in the US and Australia say.

This year's El Nino already ranks among the most powerful in history. Its impacts range from bushfires blanketing Indonesia in smoke, droughts in Papua New Guinea and heatwaves across southern Australia, to floods in the Americas as winds and rainfall patterns shift.
"The funny thing with this El Nino is the same wind anomaly that we would have expected on the Equator is sitting north of the equator," Axel Timmermann, a professor of oceanography at the University of Hawaii told Fairfax Media.

Indonesia's annual burning season has been made worse by the El Nino-linked drought. Photo: Getty Images

"The north Pacific is so much warmer than the south Pacific, and typically around this time or a month from now, the wind anomalies should already have moved to the south [of the Equator]."
Those westward winds are currently blowing about 5-7 degrees north of the Equator, with southerly surges flows from near Australia providing some of their power. (See NOAA chart below.)

Farmers have been doing it tough because of a dry winter and much of spring across much of Australia. Photo: Justin McManus

Wenju Cai, a principal research scientist with the CSIRO who has published widely on how climate change will likely make extreme El Ninos more common, said the timing of these winds is particularly unusual and will likely prolong the event.
"This pattern is often one of the features of an extreme event but I didn't expect it to last until now," Dr Cai said.
"This pattern is good for charging the heat in the Pacific," he said. "It's going to make the battery last longer, that's for sure."

Floods in Pakistan in July 2015. A switch from El Nino to a La Nina may mean floods for China and elsewhere. Photo: AP

'Strongest in a generation'
Mike McPhaden, a senior NOAA scientist, said the current El Nino is "the strongest in a generation and it continues to grow in its amplitude".
As the Bureau of Meteorology chart below shows, recent westerly wind bursts have triggered a further rise in abnormally warm temperates in a key region of the Pacific.
The 2.3-degree anomaly is still shy of the record 2.8 degrees recorded in 1997-98, but it is predicted to rise further before the event peaks late this year, the bureau said.

Dr McPhaden cautioned that the El Nino's demise is hard to predict five to six months out, noting the 1997-98 event broke down within a matter of weeks in May 1998.
The Blob, though, had made this El Nino particularly unusual because it had abnormal differences in temperatures between the north and south Pacific.
"How this will affect what's happening on the Equator is a very interesting question," Dr McPhaden said.
"I'm not sure we understand that yet," he said. "It's quite possible it could lead to some prolongation of the event."

La Nina switch
The extreme weather events associated with this El Nino are already straining the resources in countries such as Papua New Guinea or cyclone-hit Vanuatu in the Pacific.
Any extension would likely add to the misery and stretch economies and ecosystems further.
Dr Cai said the El Nino, based on US definitions, could last until May, June or even July.
Professor Timmermann said University of Hawaii's own seasonal forecasting models show "there is some indication this El Nino will last two months longer on average than the 1997 event".
Since El Ninos tend to flip into La Ninas - when Pacific trade winds revert back to be easterlies but intensify - many nations could be in for extreme conditions the other way.
China, for instance, may shift within a few months from excessively dry to abnormally wet weather.
"This is a recipe for big floods in China: a huge El Nino which drives dry conditions and then a switch to a La Nina," Dr Cai said.
"The longer it lasts, if it is to switch into a La Nina, the faster it has to do it," he said.
While El Nino years generally have relatively few tropical cyclones making landfall in Australia but La Nina years typically have more such super storms than usual.

University of NSW Scorcher Website Keeping Track of Heatwaves in Australia

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

Unusual El Nino may stick around: Fairfax's Peter Hannam explains why this year's El Nino has confused some scientists and may last longer than usual.

• Climate change's role in record hot year
• Melting records point to lingering warmth

A couple of cool days, it seems, is all it takes to forget we're in the midst of Sydney's hottest years on record.
Who remembers, for instance, that last month included the earliest trio of consecutive days of 32 degrees or warmer weather ever recorded in the city?

There's only one place to go in the middle of a heatwave. Photo: James Alcock

Or that average overnight temperatures exceeded any previous October by a full 1 degree, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.

Unusual heat can be harder still to recall when it lands during cooler months, as in the 12-day heatwave in May 2014, the longest of any recorded.
While unseasonably warm weather can be blissful, it can throw agriculture and nature more generally out of kilter, Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a heatwave expert at the University of NSW, said. During warmer months, the impact on health can be severe.

Heatwaves can come at anytime - even during normally cooler months of the year. Photo: UNSW

"Sometimes even short, sharp heat spikes can have an impact," Dr Perkins-Kirkpatrick said.
Keeping track of heatwaves in Sydney, or at dozens of sites across Australia, has now been made a lot easier thanks to a revamp of UNSW's Scorcher website.
"People might think 'It's really hot today', but what did this date look like a year or 10 years ago?", she said.

How to tell if you're in the middle of heatwave. Photo: Janie Barrett

Abnormal warmth in Sydney - based on two or more consecutive days in the top 10 per cent of records for the specific date - can be identified in any year going back to 1910.
Here's how the May 2014 event appears with the solid red line spiking above the long-term trend:

The use of historic data also helps to highlight how heatwaves have become more common, as background warming from climate change makes such events much more likely.
New research by Dr Perkins-Kirkpatrick published on Friday by the American Meteorological Society found that the May 2014 event - which lasted 19 days at a national level - was 23 times more likely because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels.
"Not every year is going to be hotter than every previous year," she said. But for most Australian sites - particularly in the east and south, heatwaves are becoming more intense, more frequent and last longer."
That's something worth keeping in mind on the next chilly day.

Can Paris Talks Produce A Climate Change Deal That Sticks?

PBS NEWSHOUR

Countries from around the world will meet in a few weeks to try to reach agreement on limiting greenhouse gasses. Previous climate summits have been fraught with disagreement. Will the Paris meeting produce results? Jeffrey Brown speaks to UN climate chief Christiana Figueres about what to expect.



TRANSCRIPT

JUDY WOODRUFF: But, first, in just a few weeks, countries from around the world will meet in Paris to try to reach a new agreement on limiting or reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But prior climate summits have often hit a wall over disagreements about economics, development and what should be the ultimate goals.
As the Paris conference nears, Jeffrey Brown explores the prospects ahead.
JEFFREY BROWN: Last year marked the warmest for the planet since records were first kept, lending new urgency to calls from scientists and many leaders for slowing greenhouse gas emissions.
To that end, the Paris summit could present a major opportunity — a key goal, find a way to slow the rise in global temperatures to about two degrees Celsius or by the end of the century.
President Obama, who traveled to Alaska this summer to show the effects of warming, has made it a central focus of his second term, including new limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. In recent months, China, India and the European Union have all announced long-term plans.
But a similar conference in Copenhagen six years ago failed to reach a deal. And there are questions about whether voluntary commitments will work this time, and also continued political opposition here and abroad.
Christiana Figueres is the U.N.’s point person in charge of the Paris summit. I sat down with her in Washington earlier today.
Christiana Figueres, welcome to you.
CHRISTIANA FIGUERES, UN Climate Chief: Thank you, Jeff.
JEFFREY BROWN: Let me start with the big question, six years ago in Copenhagen widely seen as a failure. Now Paris. Have things changed?
CHRISTIANA FIGUERES: Well, you know, I have often said that Copenhagen was the most successful failure of the United Nations, because we learned an awful lot from Copenhagen. But, yes, things have changed.
JEFFREY BROWN: Is that good spin? Or is that…
CHRISTIANA FIGUERES: No, no, no, no, no, no. Truly, we made actually a very in-depth study of everything that went wrong in Copenhagen, so that we could learn. So, it’s not just spin. It truly is the case.
But, you know, in addition to the way that we handle conferences nowadays, in addition to that, what has changed dramatically is the context in which this meeting in Paris is going to take place, for many different reasons, technology perhaps being one of the very salient differences, where we had before — it wasn’t really sure whether renewable energies would be able to compete with fossil fuel.
But, today, we have the answer. Yes, they are already competing. So, you know, technology is definitely much better. Finance is already beginning to flow. We already have $2.6 trillion that’s already moving into green technology. The policy…
JEFFREY BROWN: OK, but let me stop you on finances then, because I want to get to some of the continuing problems you face.
The pledge by industrial countries to help poorer countries with $100 billion a year, that part hasn’t happened.
CHRISTIANA FIGUERES: It is a pledge to help developing countries with $100 billion by 2020.
A report that was just launched a couple of weeks ago shows that, in 2013, the flow was at $51 billion. In 2014, the flow was at $62 billion. And we don’t have the numbers for 2015, obviously not also for next year, but there is already a trend going up, and hence a very good possibility that we will be able to — that they will be able to get to $100 billion.
Those numbers that I quote have not been accepted by developing countries because there still has to be a discussion about methodologies, definitions and assumptions. But, order of magnitude, it shows that we’re moving certainly in the right direction.
JEFFREY BROWN: Political will, you think, is more there than it was?
CHRISTIANA FIGUERES: Political will is definitely there.
JEFFREY BROWN: Where do you see that? Give me an example. Where do you see that?
CHRISTIANA FIGUERES: Well, that’s very simple.
All you have to do is take a look at the 157 national climate change plans that we have already received and counting, because we will receive more before Paris, so 157 different countries, every single one of the industrialized countries, every one, and over 100 other countries who have already put in writing and in public what they’re going to do to contribute both to bringing emissions down, as well as to making their infrastructure more resilient.
JEFFREY BROWN: Most of that nonbinding agreements from these countries.
A lot of experts continue to question that. Circumstances change. Politics change. How do you know that they stick to it?
CHRISTIANA FIGUERES: Well, first of all, I don’t know of anything binding that is actually a guarantee.
The Kyoto Protocol is the best example of that, because we had countries adopt the Kyoto Protocol and then not ratify. We had countries adopt, ratify and then still not comply. So, you know, even if it’s legally binding, that’s not a guarantee.
And I think one of the major — going back to your first question, sort of the major, major shift that we had between where we were in Copenhagen and now is that countries have increasingly understood that addressing climate change is not just a global issue. It is actually also a national priority. It is national development opportunity.
So, they’re no longer seeing themselves as having to choose between what is important to them nationally and how they can contribute globally. But, rather, they’re beginning to see the coincidence of these. That, to me, is a much more compelling driving force, because countries will operate in their own interests.
JEFFREY BROWN: Going into this conference, one of the huge goals, major goal, holding the warming to two degrees Celsius, already declared unreachable, according to your analysis.
CHRISTIANA FIGUERES: The sum total of all of those climate change plans make a huge dent in both the growth of emissions that would have projected without those climate change plan, and certainly in the corresponding temperature.
So, without those climate change plans, we would have been where we were in Copenhagen, for example, moving into a scenario of a world that would have warmed four, five, six degrees centigrade. Today, with these climate change plans, assuming that they’re implemented, and we can talk about that, we’re moving into a world that, currently, with the current level of effort, would warm somewhere between 2.7 to three degrees.
A major improvement. Is it enough? No.
JEFFREY BROWN: No, a huge dent, but not enough.
CHRISTIANA FIGUERES: Not enough, which is why Paris is not just going to be the receiving vessel for those climate change plans as currently being planned, but, rather, it will understand that that is the floor of global effort and certainly not the ceiling.
JEFFREY BROWN: You talk about the political will being there, but continued skepticism from many quarters in this country, in Congress.
We’re, of course, now in a presidential campaign again, where you hear about opposition to making changes in the economy, in policy for climate change. You are still facing that.
CHRISTIANA FIGUERES: Yes.
But what I see is an increasing support on the part of certainly the private sector, as well as different subnational governments, whether they are state or city level, for President Obama’s Clean Power Plan.
But, more importantly than that, more importantly, let us remember that this is not the first time that this country has grappled with the question of, do we stay bound in an operating mode that has been prevalent in the past, or do we move toward something completely new?
It is not the first time. And if you look at the history of the United States last century, this century, it is a very tough call. But the U.S., as every other country, eventually does make the right choice, and there is only one right choice to make. And I am very confident that this country will make the right choice, clearly.
JEFFREY BROWN: Christiana Figueres, thank you very much.
CHRISTIANA FIGUERES: Thank you very much for the invitation.