Renewable energy and proper climate policy are key to dropping emissions, carbon consultancy chief says
Emissions from transport are at record levels.
Photograph: Scott Barbour/Getty Images
Australia’s emissions over the past year were the highest on record,
when relatively unreliable emissions from land use are excluded,
according to estimates by the carbon consultancy NDEVR Environmental. Greenhouse gas emissions
continued to rise in recent quarters, with the most recent the second
highest for any quarter since 2011, despite electricity emissions being
driven down by wind generation.
The government’s official public release of data on emissions is now
six months behind and NDEVR Environmental’s estimations attempt to
mirror that methodology. Released in partnership with Guardian
Australia, the results have proven very accurate when compared with data
eventually released by the federal government.
The ever-increasing emissions are taking Australia further from both
its carbon-reduction commitments made in Paris and the much bigger
reductions demanded by the science-based targets, recommended by the
government’s Climate Change Authority.
NDEVR found emissions in the most recent quarter soared to levels only seen once in the past six years.
That came despite massive jumps in wind-generated electricity in
Victoria and New South Wales, which more than doubled, pushing down
emissions from the National Electricity Market.
But emissions from transport were at record levels, with jumps in the use of diesel and aviation fuel.
Emissions in all other sectors either remained stable or increased slightly.
Matt Drum, founder of NDEVR, said their results show carbon emissions
are not going to drop until proper climate policy is in place.
He said the drop in emissions from electricity was driven by market
forces, not policy. “If you don’t foster renewable energy, it’s only
going to get worse,” Drum said.
In both 2015 and 2016, the government quietly released data
showing rising emissions on the days before Christmas, with this year’s
data still not released just two weeks out from Christmas.
And, for the past two years,
documents released under freedom of information laws have shown the
government has had the data for months before releasing it.
“They might drop it just before Christmas again but it’s not much of a
Christmas present for Australia’s emission profile and it goes to show
that Australia’s climate policy needs a lot of work,” Drum said.
Last week, the Climate Council called on the government to end what it called “climate censorship”.
“At a time when Australia’s federal climate and energy policy remains
in limbo, it has never been more important for transparent pollution
information,” the Climate Council chief executive, Amanda McKenzie,
said. “Continuing to keep the information hidden just raises questions
about what there is to hide.
“For several years, there’s been a consistent delay from the
Department of the Environment and Energy’s national greenhouse gas
inventory on releasing vital emissions data. This raises serious
questions over the federal government’s transparency on Australia’s
pollution levels.”
Golden eagles in North America may
have the timing of their migration shifted out of step with a seasonal
boom in food they need to raise their young, according to scientists.
A
project to track the impact of climate change on migrating animals has
revealed that adult golden eagles are unable to shift the timing of
their migration.
Lead researcher Scott LaPoint from Columbia University presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
He
explained that day length, or photoperiod, appeared to give the great
birds the cue to go "as far and as fast as possible".
When
analysing tracking data, composed of 20 years' worth of tagging birds
with satellite tags and following their seasonal migrations, Dr LaPoint
noticed an unusual pattern. Younger raptors would shift the timing of
their journey, seemingly adapting to weather conditions and climate.
"But the adults get this photoperiod trigger and it's 'Time to go!'," he told BBC News.
"I would have expected an older, wiser bird to better time their migration," he added.
"But,
with this [daylight] trigger, they don't have the luxury of deciding.
They need to get [to their nesting site] as soon as possible to initiate
a clutch.
"They want to get their chicks as independent as possible by October, November."
Birds
younger than five years are sub-adult. They do not reproduce, so they
are able to wait for good thermals to take them on a less
energy-intensive journey north.
Northern-breeding golden eagles can travel thousands of miles to their wintering grounds.
And they have adapted to have their departure coincide with the first lasting snowfall or freeze and decreasing prey abundance.
If
they're coming up at the same time every year, and if there's a change
in that ecosystem due to climate change - whether that's a shifting of
when spring arrives, or more extreme weather events - that time of
arrival could be less optimal, said Dr LaPoint.
"We're potentially disrupting this synchrony. And if the birds aren't able to adapt, I'm not sure what to expect."
Kittiwakes and gannets are among seabirds that have joined endangered
species on IUCN red list as food stocks dwindle, says study
‘Disastrous chick survival rates’: a black-legged kittiwake rests on a rock ledge in Scotland, UK.
Photograph: Alamy
Overfishing and climate change are pushing some of the world’s most
iconic seabirds to the brink of extinction, according to a new report.
The study reveals that kittiwakes and gannets are among a number of
seabirds that have now joined the red list of under-threat birds drawn
up by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Dr Ian Burfield, global science coordinator at Birdlife International
which carried out the study for IUCN, said the threat to these birds
pointed to a wider environmental challenge.
“Birds are well studied and great indicators of the health of the
wider environment. A species at higher risk of extinction is a worrying
alarm call that action needs to be taken now.”
The study found that overfishing and changes in the Pacific and north
Atlantic caused by climate change have affected the availability of
sand eels which black-legged kittiwakes feed on during the breeding
season.
This has caused “disastrous chick survival rates”, it says, with
nesting kittiwake numbers plummeting by 87% since 2000 on the Orkney and
Shetland Islands, and by 96% on the Hebridean island of St Kilda.
‘Alarming decline’: Atlantic puffins on Eastern Egg Rock, a small
island off the coast of Maine, US. Photograph: Robert F Bukaty/AP
Globally, the species is thought to have declined by about 40% since
the 1970s, justifying its move from the “least concern” category to
“vulnerable” on the Red List.
“The alarming decline of the black-legged kittiwake and other North
Atlantic and Arctic seabirds, such as the Atlantic puffin, provides a
painful lesson in what happens when nations take an ‘out of sight, out
of mind’ approach to conservation,” said Marguerite Tarzia, European
marine conservation officer for BirdLife International.
The study also found that the number of Cape gannets – which breed
around Namibia and South Africa – has dropped 50% since the 1950s as
food stocks dwindle from overfishing and climate change.
The study also found that the yellow-breasted bunting, once
super-abundant, has declined by 80% since 2002, putting it in the
highest category, “critically endangered”. It blames illegal trapping in
China.
The snowy owl population in the North American Arctic is much smaller than previously thought. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo
In the North American Arctic, the report found the snowy owl
population is much smaller than previously thought and in rapid decline.
It said climate change, which has caused snow to melt and reduce rodent
cover, was one the key factors.
However, the study did find some positive trends. The Dalmatian
pelican has seen its numbers increase in Europe thanks to the
introduction of artificial nesting rafts and disturbance prevention. In
New Zealand two species of kiwi are more numerous to the control of
predators and a programme of egg rearing.
Burfield said: “Thankfully success in kiwi and pelican conservation
shows that, when well resourced and supported, conservation efforts
really do pay off.”
Clean coal may be a marketing term that you can still read in the
Murdoch press and hear on the ABC, but the technology remains nothing
more than a fantasy – and a point of distraction and a lacquered prop
for the fossil fuel industry and its proponents.
The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) has published a damning assessment
of Australia’s carbon capture and storage program, noting that more
than $450 million has been invested by the government over the past
decade, and nothing achieved.
Not a single tonne of CO2 has been saved, no technology is ready for
deployment, and the ANAO report slams the government for having no
strategic direction, no oversight over the projects, and little
accounting for the spending.
Australia’s CCS programs were launched by former prime minister Kevin
Rudd in 2007 and 2009 as part of his climate package, and the vision
then – despite enormous skepticism that the technology was a crock – was
to have 20 plants up and running by 2020, so Australia could “lead the
world”.
The technology was championed by Labor energy minister Martin
Ferguson and the Coalition’s Ian Macfarlane. Ferguson warned the “lights
would go out” without it. Both Ferguson and Macfarlane now work for
major fossil fuel lobby groups and are still campaigning relentlessly
against renewables.
The ANAO report focuses on two of the federal government’s “clean
coal” initiatives – the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Flagships
program, and the National Low Emissions Coal Initiative (NLECI).
“Key performance measures for the programs provide limited insight
into the extent to which the programs are achieving the … strategic
objective of accelerating the deployment of technologies to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions,” ANAO notes.
Indeed, at one point, the only performance measure monitored by the
department of science and industry was the number of programs, not what
the programs were actually doing or, as it turns out, not doing.
The NLECI was assigned $500 million and given the task of
demonstrating “clean coal” technologies, including CCS, by 2015, and
making them available for commercial deployment by 2020.
It spent $233 million, but nothing happened, and it was a farce from
the get-go. ANAO notes it had no program guidelines or risk management
plans in place.
Three of the five initiatives didn’t happen because of technology and
cost issues; there was no clear rationale in selection of replacement
projects and there is no detailed assessment of what, if anything has
been achieved.
The CCS Flagships program fared little better. The government
originally proclaimed it would result in “at least 20 large-scale,
integrated CCS demonstration projects” being launched globally by 2010,
for broad deployment of CCS by 2020.
It was initially promised $2 billion, but this was gradually wound
back, presumably as successive governments recognised what a complete
boondoggle the technology was.
CCS Flagships ended up spending $217 million and another $42 million
is committed. According to ANAO “none of the CCS Flagships projects met
the original timeframe or reached the stage of deployable technology as
originally envisaged in the program design.
“It is therefore unclear whether the program is capable of delivering
on its strategic policy objective as the program is due to close in
2020 and all funding is currently committed.”
Nearly every paragraph of the report is a damning assessment of what is clearly government and bureaucratic incompetence.
Some examples:
“Program guidelines were not subsequently developed to provide advice
to departmental staff on project selection, decision making processes,
and applicant requirements.”
“Specific conflict of interest arrangements were not in place at the commencement of the program.”
“Despite the program being in operation since 2008, the first risk
management plan for the program was not completed until the first
quarter of 2011–12.”
Projects in NSW were closed early because, farcically, it turns out there were no storage options.
On the flagships, the government must have had a sense that most
projects would fail, so it wanted to fund as many as possible. Some $4
billion was considered before being reduced to $2 billion.
In the end, a fraction of that was spent, there was “no over-arching strategy”, and nothing succeeded.
The projects funded, including the notorious Zerogen project, have
all failed. “None of the projects have met the original timeframe of the
program. Reasons for this include: technical feasibility; absence of
suitable storage options; and financial feasibility,” ANAO notes.
The most extraordinary part of the report goes to the assessment of
whether it was all worthwhile. Clearly not, but you wouldn’t know that
from the program details.
As ANAO notes:
Currently, there is no transparent framework in place to
publicly report program outcomes. The department has established one
performance measure for each program, related to the number of projects
supported (NLECI) and the number of companies supported (CCS Flagships).
However, these measures provide limited insight into whether the
program is achieving its strategic policy objectives.
Amazingly, the department is congratulated for having “exceeded”
this, the one and only key performance indicators, because it supported
more projects than it planned. Little matter that they were all complete
duds.
“As shown in Table 4.7, for the period 2014–15 to 2015–16, the
department has met, and for the CCS Flagships program in 2015–16
exceeded, the performance targets set for the program,” ANAO notes,
before going on to suggest that the number of projects may not provide
insight enough.
“The CCS Flagships program has not been evaluated despite over eight years of operation,” it notes.
That’s not surprising. It is probably too much to expect of the
government department to admit – like many coal industry executives –
that clean coal is a myth, and a waste of everyone’s time and money.
It takes the breath away.
California is burning – a sentence we’ve heard far too often this year. Sydney is currently on bushfire alert, as firefighters battle a fire in the Hunter Valley region and temperatures are set to top 40℃.
A cocktail of factors, from climate change to centuries of ignoring
indigenous burning practises, means that catastrophic fires are likely
to become more common.
One of Australia’s favourite fire prevention measures is prescribed
burning – using carefully controlled fires to clear out flammable
materials. We’re almost obsessed with it. Indeed, it seems the outcome
of every major inquiry is that we need to do more of it.
The Royal Commission inquiry that followed Victoria’s 2009 Black Saturday fires recommended that 5% of all public land in Victoria be treated per year – a doctrine that was subsequently dropped due to impracticality.
Yet our research, published today
in the International Journal of Wildland Fire, modelled thousands of
fires in Tasmania and found that nearly a third of the state would have
to be burned to effectively lower the risk of bushfires.
The question of how much to burn and where is a puzzle we must solve,
especially given the inherent risk, issues caused by smoke smoke and shrinking weather windows for safe burning due to climate change.
Why use computer simulations?
The major problem fire science faces is gathering data.
Landscape-scale experiments involving extreme fire are rare, for obvious
reasons of risk and cost. When a major bushfire happens, all the
resources go into putting it out and protecting people. Nobody has the
time to painstakingly collect data on how fast it is moving and what it
is burning. We are therefore restricted to a few limited data sources to
reconstruct the behaviour and impact of fire: we can analyse the scar on the landscape after a fire, look at case studies, or run simulations of computer models.
Most research on the effectiveness of prescribed burning has been at a
local scale. We need to start thinking bigger: how can we mitigate the
effect of multiple large fires in a region like Tasmania or Southeastern
Australia? What is the cumulative effect of different prescribed
burning strategies?
To answer these questions, we create models using mathematical
equations to simulate the behaviour of fires across actual landscapes.
These models include the effects of vegetation type, terrain and fuel
loads, under specific weather conditions. If we simulate thousands of
these fires we can get an idea of where fire risk is the highest, and
how effective prescribed burning is at reducing that risk.
The island of Tasmania offers the perfect study system.
Self-contained, with a wide array of vegetation types and fire regimes,
it offers an ideal opportunity to see how fire behaves across a diverse
landscape. Perhaps more interestingly, the island contains large areas
of flammable landscape surrounding globally unique
ecosystems and numerous towns and villages. Obviously, we cannot set
fire to all of Tasmania in real life, but computer simulations make it
possible!
So, encouraged by the Tasmanian Fire Service, who initiated our
research, we simulated tens of thousands of fires across Tasmania under a
range of prescribed burning scenarios.
Prescribed fire can be effective, in theory
The first scenario we looked at was the best-case scenario: what
happens if we perform prescribed burning on all the vegetation that can
handle it, given theoretically unlimited resources? It is possible this
approximates the sustained and skillful burning by Tasmanian Aboriginal peoples.
Wildfire simulations following this scenario suggested that such an
approach would be extremely effective. Importantly, we saw significant
reductions in fire activity even in areas where prescribed burning is
impossible (for example, due to the presence of people).
Unfortunately, this best-case approach, while interesting from a
theoretical perspective, would require prescribed burning over more than
30% of Tasmania in one year.
We also analysed the effects of 12 more realistic scenarios. These
realistic plans were less than half as efficient as the best-case
scenario at reducing fire activity.
On average, 3 hectares of prescribed burning would reduce wildfire extent by roughly 1ha in grasslands and dry forests.
In other flammable Tasmanian vegetation types like buttongrass
sedgelands and heathlands, the reduction in wildfire was even smaller.
This is obviously better than no prescribed burning, but it highlights
the fact that this is a relatively inefficient tool, and given the costs
and potential drawbacks, should be used only where it is most needed.
This is a fundamental conundrum of prescribed burning: though it is
quite effective in theory, the extent to which we would need to
implement it to affect fire behaviour across the entire state is
completely unachievable.
Therefore, it is imperative that we not just blindly burn a
pre-ordained fraction of the landscape. Rather, we must carefully design
localised prescribed burning interventions to reduce risk to
communities.
We need a multi-tool approach
Our study has shown that while prescribed burning can be quite
effective in certain scenarios, it has serious constraints.
Additionally, while we analysed these scenarios under bad fire weather,
we were not able to analyse the kind of catastrophic days in which the
effect of prescribed burning is seriously reduced, with howling dry winds and stupefying heat.
Unfortunately, due to climate change, we are going to see a lot more catastrophic days in the future in Tasmania and indeed globally.
In Hobart this is of particular concern, as the city is surrounded by
tall, wet eucalypt forests that have had fifty years grow dense
understoreys since the 1967 Black Tuesday fires. These have the potential to cause some of the most intense fires on the planet should conditions get dry enough. Prescribed burning is impossible in these forests.
To combat fire risk we must take a multi-pronged approach that includes innovative strategies, such as designing new spatial patterns for prescribed burning, manually removing fuels from areas in which prescribed burning is not possible, improving the standards for buildings and defensible spaces, and most importantly, engaging the community in all of this.
Only by attacking this problem from multiple angles, and through
close collaboration with the community and all levels of government, can
we effectively face our fiery future.
The Guardian - First Dog on the Moon Ian the Climate Denialist Potato surprises his loved ones with a festive
report on climate emissions. Or would they rather get an inflatable
Greg Hunt doll?
A group of youth plaintiffs prepare to march to a news conference outside the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Dec. 11, 2017. Image: Eric Risberg/AP/REX/Shutterstock
A landmark case involving a group of 21 young Americans who are suing the federal government for its failure to protect them from the adverse consequences of climate change is inching closer to a trial date.
The case, known as Juliana v. United States, was scheduled
to go to trial in Oregon beginning on Feb. 5. That court date has been
postponed due to a rare request from the federal government to have an
Appeals Court step in and halt the proceedings.
On Monday, a panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
heard arguments regarding the Trump administration's move to squash the
case using a little-used legal tactic known as a writ of mandamus. If granted, the writ would have the Appeals Court review a 2016 U.S. District Court decision not to dismiss
the case. If the Appeals Court grants the writ, it could halt the case
in its tracks, preventing a trial by declaring that the District Court
made one or more errors in its consideration of the case.
However, questions from the three-judge Appeals Court panel to the
Justice Department indicated they are skeptical of the need to review
the District Court's decision. The Justice Department argued that this
case, which seeks a remedy involving government action to address global
warming, is "unprecedented" for its claims and broad scope, among other
factors.
The case already broke new legal ground when a District Court judge
declared the plaintiffs have a constitutional right to a stable climate.
Among the issues to be determined at trial is whether the
government's actions — including its use of federal lands for energy
extraction over the past several decades (the years when scientists'
understanding of global warming solidified) — violated the plaintiff's
constitutional rights.
Global average temperature anomalies from 2012-2016, compared to the 20th-century average.
The case asks the judicial branch to help determine the remedy to
ensure the plaintiff's rights are no longer being violated. This could
mean that the courts tell the government what its climate policy should
be, which traditionally is the purview of the legislative and executive
branches of government, not the courts. (That breach is one of the
arguments put forward by the Justice Department to halt the case.)
"This court is on a collision course with the Executive Branch," said Eric Grant, a deputy assistant attorney general.
However, Julia Olson, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs who works
for Our Children's Trust, an advocacy group, rejected that argument. She
was accompanied in the courtroom by her co-counsel, as well as 18 of
the 21 plaintiffs.
“Plaintiffs seek a judicial safeguard against the continued
degradation of their rights," she said — but this safeguard could come
from the appropriate branch of government, meaning that the plaintiffs
are not asking the courts to set climate policy. Rather, a possible
remedy would be for the court to demand that the government enact
policies to cut global warming pollutants, leaving the specific details
up to Congress and federal agencies.
“What the complaint alleges is that the federal defendants
collectively and through the fossil fuel energy system are affirmatively
depriving these young people of their rights to life, liberty, and
property,” Olson said.
In response to judges' questions about whether the plaintiffs have
legal standing to sue on the basis of being deprived of a stable
climate, Olson said yes, because they will experience a rapidly
deteriorating climate system for the rest of their lives unless action
is taken soon.
“Children are disproportionately experiencing the impacts of climate
change,” Olson said. She noted that children will bear the brunt of the
impacts of global warming, giving them standing in their case.
“Your honor, these children will live far longer than you, they will
live till the end of the century, when the seas are projected by these
federal defendants to be 10 feet higher,” she said.
Eighteen of the 21 youth-plaintiffs who were before the 9th Circuit in San Francisco challenging the U.S. Government for not protecting them from climate change.
“The significance of the harm, the monumental threat that these
injuries pose to these plaintiffs is very distinguishable from the rest
of the country.”
Once the Ninth Circuit rules on the writ of mandamus, the case will
either proceed to trial in District Court in Oregon, or head down
another unprecedented path.
Many experts have consistently underestimated the likelihood that
this suit would reach this far, considering how other judicial
approaches to address climate change have failed.
If the 21 young people succeed in getting a judge to order the Trump
administration to alter its pro-drilling, climate denial policies, they
will have succeeded where no environmental activists or international
allies have, simply by alleging a constitutional violation of their
rights.
While this is an unlikely outcome, it gets more and more plausible with each passing legal proceeding.
