27/05/2016

How Satellites Are Helping To Fight Climate Change

CNBC - Anmar Frangoul



They may be many, many miles up in the air, but satellites have a vital role to play when it comes to analysing our planet and its climate.
In the U.S., for example, NASA says it has over a dozen "Earth science" spacecraft and instruments in orbit, and is conducting research on everything from solar activity to rising sea levels, air pollution and "changes in sea ice and land ice."
The European Space Agency (ESA), based in Paris, is also keen to stress just how important the relationship between space and our climate is.
"The data we get from space in influencing people about climate change is very, very important," Philip Haines, the European Space Agency's head of telecom business development, told CNBC's Sustainable Energy.
The ESA says that climate change is arguably "the greatest challenge facing mankind in the 21st century," and for Haines, the data gathered from up in the heavens is invaluable.
"(A) picture tells 1,000 words, and having a picture of the arctic ice shrinking so you can see how it's changing is much more powerful than going off and having some measurements that you make (in) a report just in a table or a document," Haines added.
To give just one example, at the end of last year radar observations from ESA satellites were used to inform a study which showed that a glacier in Greenland was losing "five billion tonnes of ice a year to the ocean."
But it's not just changes to our planet that satellites are monitoring.
"The satellites are offering a new way of looking at farming production, energy generation and general global conservation by giving a global view of vegetation and water, and atmosphere and climate," the ESA's Ian Downey said.
Satellites were offering farmers, agronomists (who study the science of using food for different purposes) and food producers efficiencies of production, harvest and transportation, Downey added.
They were "also providing important information about the energy resources from the wind from the sun and from biomass fuels," he said.

Links

Australia Scrubbed From UN Climate Change Report After Government Intervention

The Guardian

Exclusive: All mentions of Australia were removed from the final version of a UNESCO report on climate change and world heritage sites after the Australian government objected on the grounds it could impact on tourism
Great Barrier Reef
The Great Barrier Reef is in the midst of its worst crisis in recorded history. Unusually warm water has caused 93% of the reefs along the 2,300km site to experience bleaching. Photograph: XL Catlin Seaview Survey/AFP/Getty Images
Statement
Professor Will Steffen
Climate Councillor
Emeritus Professor, ANU
Today it was confirmed that Australian government officials pressured a prestigious international body to silence the truth about the risks of climate change for the Great Barrier Reef.
I was one of the scientists they tried to silence.
Here's the story: last year I was asked to review an international scientific report on the impacts of climate change on World Heritage sites and tourism. I reviewed a case study on the Great Barrier Reef, focussing on the increasing risks to tourism from climate change. The report was authored by UNESCO and the International Union of Concerned Scientists. It promised to alert the world to the escalating risks that climate change poses for some of the most beautiful and valuable places on Earth.
Overnight the report was released -- but mysteriously, the Great Barrier Reef had been cut completely.  I was astonished, given we've just witnessed the worst coral bleaching event in the Reef's history.
Australian officials have now confirmed to The Guardian that they asked the report authors to remove any reference to the Great Barrier Reef, or any Australian world heritage site. No sections about any other country were removed.
As a scientist, I'm angry. As an Australian, I'm disgusted. As a Climate Councillor, I'm now asking for your help.
Today you will hear me on the TV and radio-waves as we ask the government to answer these allegations.
Information is the currency of democracy. When governments attempt to suppress or pressure scientific information, we must speak up. To me, this is about more than one report, and more than the Reef.
Sadly, we can't just rely on governments to provide independent scientific information. We experienced that first hand when the Climate Commission was abolished by the Abbott Government.
Because of people like you chipping in, we were able to keep going as the Climate Council. Because of you we are able to speak out on days like today.
A strong, independent voice for science is more important than ever. If you believe the public deserve to hear the facts; if you believe the government has no right to silence scientists, then please help fund the Climate Council's ongoing work.
The Climate Council receives no government funding. We exist because Tony Abbott abolished the Climate Commission, and thousands of Australians who thought that was a bad call kicked in their own funds to enable us to continue.  Since then, we've seen increasing attacks on science – gutting funding for CSIRO climate research, renewable energy investment and more.
If you're as disturbed by all this as I am, let's all chip in to keep standing up for science
Every reference to Australia was scrubbed from the final version of a major UN report on climate change after the Australian government intervened, objecting that the information could harm tourism.
Guardian Australia can reveal the report "World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate", which Unesco jointly published with the United Nations environment program and the Union of Concerned Scientists on Friday, initially had a key chapter on the Great Barrier Reef, as well as small sections on Kakadu and the Tasmanian forests.
But when the Australian Department of Environment saw a draft of the report, it objected, and every mention of Australia was removed by UNESCO. Will Steffen, one of the scientific reviewers of the axed section on the reef, said Australia's move was reminiscent of "the old Soviet Union".
No sections about any other country were removed from the report. The removals left Australia as the only inhabited continent on the planet with no mentions.
Explaining the decision to object to the report, a spokesperson for the environment department told Guardian Australia: "Recent experience in Australia had shown that negative commentary about the status of world heritage properties impacted on tourism."
As a result of climate change combined with weather phenomena, the Great Barrier Reef is in the midst of the worst crisis in recorded history. Unusually warm water has caused 93% of the reefs along the 2,300km site to experience bleaching. In the northern most pristine part, scientists think half the coral might have died.
The omission was "frankly astounding," Steffen said.
Steffen is an emeritus professor at the Australian National University and head of Australia's Climate Council. He was previously executive director of the International Geosphere Biosphere Programme, where he worked with 50 countries on global change science.
"I've spent a lot of my career working internationally," Steffen said. "And it's very rare that I would see something like this happening. Perhaps in the old Soviet Union you would see this sort of thing happening, where governments would quash information because they didn't like it. But not in western democracies. I haven't seen it happen before."
The news comes less than a year after the Australian government successfully lobbied UNESCO to not list the Great Barrier Reef in its list of "World Heritage Sites in Danger".
The removals occurred in early 2016, during a period when there was significant pressure on the Australian government in relation to both climate change and world heritage sites.
At the time, news of the government's science research agency CSIRO sacking 100 climate scientists due to government budget cuts had just emerged; parts of the Tasmanian world heritage forests were on fire for the first time in recorded history; and a global coral bleaching event was beginning to hit the Great Barrier Reef – another event driven by global warming.
The environment department spokesperson told Guardian Australia: "The department was concerned that the framing of the report confused two issues – the world heritage status of the sites and risks arising from climate change and tourism."
The report said the case studies were chosen partly because of their geographic representation, their importance for tourism and the robustness of evidence around the impact of climate change on them.
Burnt alpine vegetation at the Lake Mackenzie fire in Tasmania
Burnt alpine vegetation at the Lake Mackenzie fire in Tasmania. Photograph: Rob Blakers for the Guardian
A recent study found the conditions that cause the current bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef was made at least 175 times more likely by climate change and, on the current trajectory, would become the average conditions within 20 years.
Without mentioning the Great Barrier Reef, the report notes: "Research suggests that preserving more than 10% of the world's corals would require limiting warming to 1.5C or less, and protecting 50% would mean halting warming at 1.2C (Frieler et al. 2012)."
The full statement from the environment department said:
"The World Heritage Centre initiated contact with the Department of the Environment in early 2016 for our views on aspects of this report.
The department expressed concern that giving the report the title 'Destinations at risk' had the potential to cause considerable confusion. In particular, the world heritage committee had only six months earlier decided not to include the Great Barrier Reef on the in-danger list and commended Australia for the Reef 2050 Plan.
The department was concerned that the framing of the report confused two issues – the world heritage status of the sites and risks arising from climate change and tourism. It is the world heritage committee, not its secretariat (the World Heritage Centre), which is properly charged with examining the status of world heritage sites.
Recent experience in Australia had shown that negative commentary about the status of world heritage properties impacted on tourism.
The department indicated it did not support any of Australia's world heritage properties being included in such a publication for the reasons outlined above.
The Department of the Environment conveyed these concerns through Australia's ambassador to UNESCO.
The department did not brief the minister on this issue."
Links

26/05/2016

Green Really Is The New Black As Big Oil Gets A Taste For Renewables

The Guardian

Shell, Total, Statoil, even Exxon - they're all at it. But are the recent moves into solar and wind power lip service, fashion, or a real shift away from fossil fuels?
A Shell oil refinery in Singapore: the Anglo-Dutch group has set up a New Energies division. Photograph: Edgar Su/Reuters
The world's largest oil companies have in recent weeks announced a series of "green" investments – in wind farms, electric battery storage systems and carbon capture and storage (CCS). These unexpected moves come hot on the heels of revelations by Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest crude exporter, that it plans to sell off parts of its national oil company and diversify its economy away from petroleum.
They also come in the aftermath of a United Nations climate change agreement and before annual general meetings for Shell and Exxon Mobil this week, meetings at which shareholders will demand that more be done to tackle climate change.
So has the fossil fuel industry finally woken up to the dangers posed to their futures by a move to a low-carbon world, or is this all "greenwash" – relatively insignificant investments designed to shake off critics?
Or does it just make good business sense for Big Oil to do this at a time when oil prices are low, renewable projects look like steady long-term investments, and green businesses can be snapped up on the cheap?
Some of the moves certainly have serious amounts of cash behind them. Total of France, for instance, announced two weeks ago that it planned to spend nearly €1bn on buying 100-year-old battery manufacturer Saft. Chairman and chief executive Patrick PouyannĆ© said the deal would "allow us to complement our portfolio with electricity storage solutions, a key component of the future growth of renewable energy".
PouyannĆ© had said in April that electricity would be "the energy of the 21st century" and that he wanted his company to take advantage of the entire electricity value chain, including batteries, solar power and biogas generation. Total announced last year that it was spending €200m on transforming an unprofitable oil refinery into a biofuel plant, and separately that it would start to invest $500m a year in renewables.
Total made its first real drive into renewable energy five years ago, with its $1.4bn acquisition of SunPower, one of the largest solar panel makers in the US. Total has also since set up a division, called New Energies, for these low-carbon technologies.
Shell has done the same. No public announcement has yet been made but, behind the scenes, the Anglo-Dutch group has also established a New Energies arm, under the control of executive board member Maarten Wetselaar.
North America’s largest solar farm, built by SunPower, which is 60% owned by Total. Photograph: Olivia Hampton/AFP/Getty Images


Ben van Beurden, the Shell group chief executive, is expected to talk about the new division at the company's annual capital markets day on 7 June, but it is known to encompass existing hydrogen, biofuels and electricity activities. Shell's New Energies arm will have a $200m annual budget for acquisitions. Last month, the group made a bid, with partners, to build two windfarms off the coast of the Netherlands that could generate enough electricity to power 825,000 households.
Its Big Oil rival, Statoil of Norway, has also been active in the sector: it last month outlined plans to spend €1.2bn, in partnership with E.ON, on the German Arkona windfarm in the Baltic sea.
"This investment is in line with our strategy to gradually complement our oil and gas portfolio with profitable renewable energy and other low-carbon solutions," said Eldar SƦtre, Statoil's president and chief executive.
Statoil has also just been granted a seabed lease that will allow it to build the world's largest floating windfarm, Hywind, off the coast of Scotland. A new battery storage solution for offshore wind energy will be piloted from the same project, and Statoil has also followed the trend and established a New Energy division for wind power and CCS. The Norwegian state operator has also just established a new fund, Statoil Energy Ventures, which will invest up to $200m over four to seven years.
An artist's impression of the world's largest floating windfarm, planned off the coast of Scotland.
An artist's impression of the world's largest floating windfarm, planned off the coast of Scotland.
Irene Rummelhoff, executive vice-president for New Energy Solutions at Statoil, said she was convinced global warming was a very serious problem and her company wanted to help find a solution. "We strongly believe oil and gas will still be needed in future but we also know we have to do things differently and are working to reduce the carbon footprint of these operations," she said.
"Equally we are building a renewable energy business, not because we have to, but because we want to. There is tremendous growth in that sector and we want to be part of that.
"It makes sense to utilise our project-management skills from oil and gas to offshore wind which is why we are operating Sheringham Shoals and Dudgeon Sands off the UK. We are also looking at more carbon capture schemes and at solar [worldwide]."
Even Exxon Mobil, often dismissed by climate change activists as the most conservative oil company of them all, has recently unveiled plans to investigate CCS more fully in a new partnership with a fuel cell company.
But some of the sums being invested are quite small: the Shell New Energies, for example, has a capital expenditure budget of just under 0.5% of its total. And oil companies do have form for shouting loudly about moving into renewables only to beat a hasty retreat.
BP in particular was pilloried for promising to go "beyond petroleum" – then running down its alternative energy division. Shell used to have a very big solar business, but this was scaled down several years ago.
Environmentalists are increasing the pressure on oil companies by accusing them of trying to slow the march to low-carbon energy, if not of being the climate-change deniers some were of old.
There are even claims that Big Oil has been deliberately infiltrating renewable energy lobby groups so that it can push its agenda of keeping gas, in particular, as a "transition fuel" of the future – something the companies deny.
Exxon gas station
Exxon is dismissed as conservative, but has recently become involved with CCS. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images
But academics such as Paul Stevens, an energy expert at thinktank Chatham House, have warned that large oil companies must transform their business or face a "short, brutal" end within 10 years. Jeremy Leggett, a former petroleum geologist who went on to found photovoltaics group SolarCentury, thinks the oil companies are taking precautions as the world moves towards low-carbon energy. "The oil and gas majors are in a fascinating place," he said. "They're starting to use clean-energy investments to hedge their bets that markets for oil and gas will exist decades from now.
"These investments are of varying degrees of seriousness. I would put Total at the top of the league table at the moment. But, unlike many of the big utilities, none of the majors has yet grasped the nettle and told stakeholders that the game is up. That oil and gas will be over by year X, and strategy is now being based on back-mapping from that year."
The Brussels-based SolarPower Europe lobby group also believes that of all the oil majors, Total of France is on a steady path to become the "green giant" of the future.
James Watson, chief executive of SolarPower Europe, says: "We take Total's moves seriously. From our perspective, it has been a long-time player in solar, it was a founding member of SolarPower Europe back in 1985. It acquired SunPower back in 2011 and recently announced that it wants to be one of the top three solar players by early next decade.
"I suspect that it has also been pushing for the French government to drive solar – and we saw recently the announcement by the French government that they will triple the amount of deployed solar in France by 2022. This could make France the leading annual installer in Europe up to that point.
"Shell has a stake in the Japanese solar company Solar Frontier, but has yet to do anything in Europe. We know its boss sees solar as the backbone of energy in the future, but at an undefined time. Having no date does not suggest a strong commitment."
Oil analysts themselves say it makes sense for oil companies to invest in renewables at a time when the value of green firms is also depressed by the low oil price. One leading City figure saw lots of reason for this: "Assets are relatively cheap; it's a good time to diversify; and you can keep some of the low-carbon critics at bay. Also, the oil companies have a herd mentality: once one of them does it, you can expect the rest to follow. You could say green is in fashion."

Links

Australian Climate Job Cuts Leave Hole In Southern Hemisphere Research

NatureDyani Lewis

Details of redundancies at CSIRO alarm global climate community.
AFP/Stringer/Getty Images
A laboratory that analyses ice cores from Law Dome, Antarctica (pictured) may be curtailed as a result of layoffs from CSIRO, Australia's national science agency. Job losses at Australia's national science agency will threaten the monitoring and analysis of the Southern Hemisphere's seas, air and climate, scientists say.
Staff at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), which employs thousands of scientists across Australia, were told over the past week where long-awaited job cuts in climate science are likely to fall. Many CSIRO researchers who spoke to Nature about the lay-offs requested anonymity so as not to breach the organization's communications policy, which tells researchers not to discuss funding or management decisions. But the information that is trickling out means that scientists are already evaluating the likely impact on research – although a consultation process means that it may be months before an expected 140 lay-offs in climate research are complete.
"It's significant beyond the numbers because of our overall uniqueness," says oceanographer Peter Craig, who worked for CSIRO for 30 years but retired from the agency at the end of March. "The rest of the world does rely on us for both measurements and interpretation of what's going on on this side of the world."
CSIRO scientists in Melbourne who analyse ice cores from an ice cap called Law Dome in Antarctica – a group colloquially known as the 'Ice Lab' – fear their programme is one that might be curtailed.
Because the Law Dome accumulates ice very rapidly and traps low levels of impurities as it grows, its cores constitute the most reliable record of greenhouse-gas emissions over the past 2,000 years, says Malte Meinshausen, a climate modeller at the University of Melbourne and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. Climate models that predict how many degrees of warming will occur under different greenhouse-gas emissions scenarios rely heavily on its record, Meinshausen says.
David Etheridge, head of ice core research, says that he has not been told he will lose his job, but that other scientists who do ice core analysis are facing redundancy. CSIRO has said that the Ice Lab will remain open, but Etheridge believes that cuts will have negative consequences for palaeo-climate research and the climate models that rely on it.

Aerosol fear
CSIRO researchers also fear that Australia's contributions to the world's largest ground-based network of aerosol sensors, called AERONET — a NASA-led project to verify the sometimes ambiguous aerosol measurements made by satellite — are in jeopardy. On 1 May, Brent Holben, who leads the AERONET project in Greenbelt, Maryland, wrote to CSIRO to urge that it reconsider its cuts. He said that they would cause the loss of aerosol measurements over a large region of the Southern Hemisphere.
Asked for a statement, the agency said: "CSIRO is working with partners to identify the most efficient way of delivering this work."

Sea-level expertise
Notable among individual staff set to lose their jobs is John Church, an expert on sea-level rise who has worked for CSIRO for 38 years and who coordinated a chapter on sea-level change for the most recent assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released in 2014.
Church was at sea on the research vessel RV Investigator when he learnt last week that, as he had expected, he would be made redundant.
"John has probably done more to lay a really firm scientific foundation under the issue of sea-level rise than anyone else in the world," says Steve Rintoul, a fellow oceanographer at the CSIRO. "The signal that this sends to both staff within and outside of CSIRO is really horrible."
The RV Investigator's voyage from the Southern Ocean to the Equator is currently mapping deep-ocean temperature and chemistry under the international GO-SHIP program, and is also deploying Argo and biogeochemistry floats that gather data at the ocean surface. CSIRO says that neither the frequency of the ship's expeditions nor the associated data analysis will be adversely affected. But researchers who did not want to be named said that, with the cuts, they doubted that such extensive surveys would be possible in the future, or that other Australian agencies could fill the gaps in expertise if oceanography groups were disbanded.
Layoffs in CSIRO's oceanography groups may dampen the productivity of the Australian research vessel RV Investigator. (CSIRO. CC-BY-3.0)
CSIRO had first announced in February that it planned to shed hundreds of jobs as part of a strategic shift away from basic climate science; in April, it confirmed that this included almost 140 lay-offs in its 'Oceans and Atmosphere' and 'Land and Water' divisions.
The CSIRO cuts are "inexplicable", says Thomas Stocker at the University of Berne, who co-chaired the IPCC's Working Group I (which examines the physical science of climate change) between 2008 and 2015. He is particularly concerned about the cuts to the sea-level research group. "It's simply not understandable for me that the stewards of a country that is so fundamentally exposed to sea-level rise is able to basically terminate research activity in their own country," he says.
Negotiations since February have staved off cuts in some programmes, says one senior scientist at CSIRO's Aspendale site in Melbourne. For example, CSIRO ratcheted back cuts for a team that analyses air pollution from data drawn from the remote Cape Grim Observatory in Tasmania, so that Australia could continue to meet obligations to international agreements such as the Montreal Protocol, which governments signed in 1987 to protect the stratospheric ozone layer from damage by chlorofluorocarbons.
But it seems that the bulk of the cuts will not be reversed. Although more than 3,000 scientists have urged Australian politicians and CSIRO management in an open letter to reconsider the proposed lay-offs, the government has distanced itself, saying that they are an agency-level decision. With national elections set for 2 July, the opposing Labor party has said that if it were elected, it would direct the CSIRO's board to stop the lay-offs. However, it would not reappoint scientists who accept redundancies before then.

Links

La Trobe University Commits To Full Fossil Fuel Divestment

New Matilda - Thom Mitchell

A creative action at Melbourne University earlier this month. Fossil Free University of Melbourne.
La Trobe University has become the first in Australia to commit to full divestment from fossil fuels, according to an email circulated to University staff earlier this morning and seen by New Matilda.
Vice Chancellor Professor John Dewar said that over the next five years La Trobe will "divest from the top 200 publicly-traded fossil fuel companies ranked by the carbon content of their fossil fuel reserves".
"We are the first university in Australia to make a commitment to complete divestment in this way," Prof Dewar said. "We can be proud of our status as the leading sustainable university in Australia, and a leader internationally."
He said the University was also committed to being open and transparent and that, "Accordingly, we will also disclose the carbon exposure of our investments and provide annual reports of our divestment progress over the next five years".
Fossil Free campaigner and current La Trobe student Michaela Carter welcomed the decision, saying it "vindicates years of work to get the university to take a responsible attitude toward their investment portfolio".
Academic staff have also lauded the move. "I am really proud of my university for choosing to divest from fossil fuel investments," said Ben Habib, Lecturer in Politics & International Relations and Course Coordinator of Master of International Relations.
He said the decision "reinforces the demonstrated commitment of the many academics, professional staff and students across the University community to strong climate action". Vice-Chancellor Dewar also took the opportunity to "thank the students and staff that have been advocating for this change".
(IMAGE: Thom Mitchell.)
IMAGE: Thom Mitchell.

Prof Dewar said that the decision would not compromise returns on the University's investments. "Divesting in fossil fuels will not inhibit our ability to achieve the annual returns on investments that we need to ensure that the University remains in a robust financial position," the Vice-Chancellor said.
Despite increasing pressure from students and staff, Universities have copped flack for distancing themselves from fossil fuels in the past. When the Australian National University made a decision to partially divest in 2014 they were pounded with criticism from former Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the conservative press.
Other Universities to pursue partial divestment include the University of Sydney, Monash and Swinburne.
Those that have not yet divested now run an increasing repetitional risk as they fall behind the ethical investment pack, as a report leaked to New Matilda earlier this month reveals.
In the report, financial consultants Mercer warned the University of New South Wales that if it did not proactively begin to respond to the demands of staff and students it would leave itself vulnerable to a fast-building fossil fuel divestment campaign. It also suggested there was little financial risk associated with the decision to divest.
La Trobe University is expected to make a public announcement on its decision later this afternoon, but the news has already reached climate advocacy group 350.org.
 National Campus Divestment Coordinator Ray Yoshida said the group is "thrilled" with the development.
"They have shown other universities that it is possible, and I look forward to other institutions following their lead," Yoshida said. "Universities have a very clear choice – do they keep funding dirty fossil fuels that drives climate change, or do they show true leadership, as La Trobe has done, and prove that there is an alternative."
Institutions with $3.4 trillion under management have so-far committed to some form of divestment as mainstream economists increasingly warn of potential 'stranded assets' in coal, oil, and gas stocks.

Links

25/05/2016

Climate Change: Waiting For Catastrophe Means We Will Be Too Late To Act

Fairfax - Ian Dunlop*

Growth created since the Industrial Revolution depended on the availability of cheap energy from fossil fuels, but cheap ...
Growth created since the Industrial Revolution depended on the availability of cheap energy from fossil fuels, but cheap fossil fuels have dried up. Photo: Rob Homer
Why is nobody in authority talking about the issues which are really defining the future of this country? Politicians and corporations create much sound and fury around tax reform, industrial relations and, ad nauseam, the election – all important but essentially second-order issues. Beyond the Australian goldfish bowl, the greatest structural change in human history is rapidly unfolding bringing unprecedented risks and opportunities. Yet our leaders are oblivious, intent upon minimising our opportunities and maximising our risks.
In the 1970s, the combined effect of population growth and consumption began to exceed the capacity of planetary ecosystems to meet human demands. To the point where today we need the annual biophysical capacity of 1.6 planets to survive. This unsustainable pressure is now hitting global limits which we can no longer circumvent, manifesting itself in two immediate pressure points.
First, increasing energy costs. Economic growth and wealth created since the Industrial Revolution totally depended on the availability of cheap energy in the shape of fossil fuels, first coal, then oil, then gas. But cheap fossil fuels have dried up. Their cost has increased steadily as we used up the "low-hanging fruit" and now rely on more expensive sources such as deepwater oil, tar sands, shale and coal seam fracking.
This was a primary cause of the 2008 global financial crisis, for once oil exceeds around $100 per barrel, which is a pre-requisite for their development, Western economies go into recession, resulting in the falling demand and low prices we see today. Except this is happening around a declining energy surplus trend in that the surplus available to run society net of the increasing energy needed to extract these sources, is dropping rapidly, making it impossible to maintain conventional economic growth, which has already slowed.
Second, our underestimation of the speed and extent of climate change, as witnessed by irreversible tipping points now being triggered in the Arctic, Antarctic and the oceans, not least the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. To avoid its worst impacts we must wean ourselves off all fossil fuel use far faster than proposed in the recent Paris climate agreement. This view is instantly dismissed officially, but it will soon be accepted as the impact of extreme weather events, such as the massive Fort McMurray wild fire raging in Canada, accelerates. Some continued use of fossil fuels to build the new low-carbon economy is inevitable, but much less than industry and government maintain.
–The most dangerous aspect of our climate and energy dilemma is that, due to the inertia of the climate system, the actions we take today are locking in irreversible catastrophic climate outcomes decades ahead, long before we see them. Solutions require enlightened long-term thinking, based on the latest science, and a preparedness to act in the public interest; the antithesis of the blind, short-termist, anti-science, ideology which drives mainstream Australian politics and corporate decision-making. Waiting for catastrophe to happen before acting, which is what we are currently doing, ensures it will be too late to act.
We are being taken for fools by our politicians and corporate leaders as they place personal aggrandisement and self-interest ahead of our future.
Climate change is a genuinely existential issue which unless rapidly addressed, will result in a substantial reduction in global population with immeasurable suffering, the beginnings of which can already be seen in the climate-driven refugee crisis engulfing Europe. Australia, as the driest continent on Earth is not immune. We have left it too late to solve this dilemma with a graduated response; emergency action, akin to placing the economy on a war-footing, is essential if we wish to avoid the worst outcomes.
This is not irrational alarmism, but an objective view of the latest science and evidence, a view which is increasingly aired by responsible leaders worldwide. It is a matter of national survival which conventional left and right-wing politics is incapable of addressing, as recent history and the irrelevance of the election campaign demonstrate only too well.
The corollary of these existential risks is that their solution represents the greatest development and investment opportunity we have ever seen in creating the low-carbon world. But it must be a 21st-century world focused on genuine sustainability and quality of life, not on rebooting the unsustainable 20th-century free-market version which has got us in to the current mess. We hear much rhetoric about "transition", "innovation", "jobs and growth" but no clarity on "transition to what?", "innovation to what end?" and "what sort of jobs and growth?". At present, policies of both the left and right are committed to delivering the latter world, not the former.
We have solutions, but they will not see the light of day without a fundamental rethink of our national strategy. There are good people across the political spectrum capable of acting in the public interest if they can break the shackles of outdated ideologies. Time to dispense with party politics, encourage these folk to step forward and form nothing less than a government of national unity. That is what the community must demand on election day.

*Ian Dunlop was formerly an international oil, gas and coal industry executive, chair of the Australian Coal Association and CEO of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. He is a member of the Club of Rome.

Links

El Nino Over, Bom Says, So Winter Rain Could Be On The Way

ABC News

A boy sitting on drought affected land in central-west Queensland
El Nino has contributed to drought conditions over much of Queensland. (ABC News: Chrissy Arthur, file photo)
The latest El Nino cycle is over, which could lead to a wet winter, according to the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM).
Key points:
  • El Nino events cause extensive warming of the Pacific Ocean
  • This leads to lower-than-average rainfall and periods of higher temperatures across Australia
  • El Nino events occur every three to six years
The bureau's modelling shows ocean surface temperatures across the tropical Pacific have cooled to neutral levels over the past fortnight.
Waters beneath the surface have also cooled.
Forecaster Michael Knepp said conditions were back to neutral and the bureau was now on La Nina watch.
During La Nina events, rainfall in winter and spring is above average over northern, central and eastern Australia.
"[There's] a greater than 50 per cent chance that we might be in La Nina conditions later in the year," Mr Knepp said.
"That's not a certain thing, just something to keep an eye on over the next few months."
International climate models indicate the tropical Pacific Ocean will continue to cool.
Six of eight models suggest La Nina is likely to form during winter.
Mr Knepp said more rainfall could be expected across the region if predictions were correct, but the outlook accuracy at this time of year was low.

El Nino contributes to drought conditions
El Nino has contributed to drought conditions over the majority of Queensland. Currently, 85 per cent of Queensland is drought declared.
Queensland grazier Peter Whip said the prolonged drought had been devastating for farmers.
Mr Whip, whose property is south of Longreach, said winter rainfall was better than nothing.
"You either want a lot or none," he said.
"It can actually do more harm than good because if we have got a little bit of dry feed from the summer rain.
"Sometimes with that winter rain, if we get 50 points, it can actually wreck the feed you've got."

Rainfall deficiency across Australia
The bureau said almost the entire western half of Victoria was experiencing severe rainfall deficiency.
The rainfall deficiency in Tasmania covers much of the state.
Areas of serious to severe deficiency remain through inland Queensland and into northern New South Wales.
Large areas of South Australia and Western Australia are also experiencing serious rainfall deficiency.
El Nino has been impacting on Australia for a year.
Australian has been in the grip of El Nino for a year. (Supplied: Bureau of Meterology)
Links

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative