14/12/2018

Coal! It Will Not Die OMG

The Guardian

Cartoon by First Dog on the Moon
Links

El Nino Events To Become 'Stronger' And More Intense, Study Finds

FairfaxPeter Hannam

Big El Nino events will increase in intensity and frequency as the planet warms, worsening their related extreme weather impacts, new Australian-led research has found.
The study used 17 climate models to examine how sea surface temperatures by this century's end will change assuming greenhouse gas emission increases remain on their current trajectory.
Extreme El Ninos, such as 1997-98 (left) and 2015-16, are likely to become more common in the future because of climate change. Credit: NASA
The team found a 15 per cent increase in temperature variance in a key region of the Pacific, which translates into 50 per cent more extreme El Ninos, said Dr Wenju Cai, a senior climate scientist at the CSIRO and lead author of the paper published on Thursday in Nature.
"They are stronger and more frequent," Dr Cai said, adding the likelihood of intense El Nino events as measured by sea-surface temperatures will increase from about one every 15 years now to every 10 years on average during this century.
The paper's release comes as delegates from almost 200 nations are meeting in the Polish city of Katowice to hammer out a rulebook for greenhouse gas reductions based on pledges made in the 2015 Paris Agreement.
The results add to a string of recent studies pointing to accelerating impacts of climate change, such as the loss of almost all the thick, multi-year Arctic ice, and the discovery by NASA that glaciers in a large region of eastern Antarctica have "woken up" and are melting.

Stratifying oceans
The Nature researchers described the El Ninos - and their reverse, La Ninas - as "the dominant and most consequential climate variation on Earth".
Conditions are primed in the Pacific for an El Nino, with sea-surface temperatures in the eastern equatorial Pacific at about the threshold level that such events can begin, the Bureau of Meteorology says.
All it needs is for the atmosphere to "couple" with the ocean, creating a process that reinforces the up-welling of warm waters as normally easterly tradewinds stall or reverse.
According to projections, the Pacific Ocean, and most others, become more stratified, meaning more heat and therefore energy stays near the surface rather than gets mixed to lower depths.
"Under climate change, the upper levels of the eastern equatorial Pacific [a centre of El Nino formation] are warming faster than the sub-surface waters," Dr Cai said. "In the future, this coupling of the ocean and atmosphere will be stronger."
Big El Ninos of recent decades include 1982-83, 1997-98 and 2015-16. During these events, western parts of the Americas tend to receive unusually heavy rain, while droughts and wildfires are common in western Pacific regions, including Australia.
Mass coral bleaching is also a feature in the Pacific and beyond, the paper noted.
The paper concludes: "With this projected increase, we should expect extreme weather events associated with the [eastern Pacific El Nino], with important implications for 21st century climate, extreme weather and ecosystems."

Links

Australia Turns Back On Allies As It Refuses To Cut Emissions Above Paris Pledge

The Guardian

EU and 27 countries vow to toughen commitments as environment minister’s address at COP24 UN climate change summit accused of flying in face of reality
 People at the COP24 UN climate change conference in Katowice, Poland, where Australia has been criticised for its ‘addiction to coal’. Photograph: Omar Marques/SOPA Images/REX/Shutterstock 
Australia will not commit to larger carbon emissions reductions above its Paris agreement target, despite a coalition of former allies and Pacific neighbours urging greater cuts.
In Paris in 2015 Australia was a part of a bloc of countries called the “High Ambition Coalition”, which includes the UK, the EU, New Zealand, the Marshall Islands and Fiji. Australia is outside that bloc now.
On Wednesday, 27 countries and the EU in the High Ambition Coalition called for significantly increased targets for carbon emissions reductions by 2030, in response to a dramatic 1.5C warming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that has dominated negotiations in Poland this week.
“We call on other governments … to join us in striving to step up ambition by 2020 in response to the special report on 1.5C,” it said.
The environment minister, Melissa Price, gave Australia’s formal address to the UN climate talks on Wednesday, saying Australia would “meet and beat” its 2020 Kyoto protocol target and was on track to achieve its Paris goal.
“We are confident that we will meet our 2030 target, which represents a halving of emissions per person,” she said.
“Around the world, countries are laying the foundation for a low-emissions global economy – Australia is no different. We have policies to align strong economic growth with emissions reduction. We are moving towards a new energy future, while ensuring energy remains affordable and reliable.”
But Price’s speech was silent on commitments beyond Australia’s current 26% to 28% Paris pledge for 2030, despite significant pressure from its former coalition partners to lift its target. The Paris agreement was struck with a commitment built in that countries would regularly review and increase their targets.
Her speech did not mention the government’s nascent policy to underwrite power generation with taxpayer money, including of new and existing coal plants.
Also absent was mention of the IPCC’s 1.5C warming report, recognition of which has become the rallying cry for countries urging greater carbon cuts.
The Paris agreement targets, if met, put the world on a 1.5 to 2C warming path, but the 1.5C report warned that the upper end of that range would significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.
The UN climate talks in Katowice, Poland, have hit a significant impasse, with fierce disagreement over the text for a global “rulebook” to implement the 2015 Paris agreement.
Progress has been slow on several key issues, and divisions have emerged between four fossil fuel powers – the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait – and the rest of the world. Australia is seen as closely allied to the US, having appeared at a US-government pro-fossil fuel event this week.
The UN secretary general, António Guterres, flew back to the talks in Katowice on Wednesday, telling delegates: “We are running out of time. To waste this opportunity would compromise our last best chance to stop runaway climate change. It would not only be immoral, it would be suicidal.”
Price, who has kept a low profile during the conference, told delegates the Paris agreement was demonstration of how the international community could work together to address climate change.
“Australia believes that effective international action requires a clear understanding of what countries are committing to, and whether those commitments can be met,” she said. “Paris is premised on parties working together, collectively and transparently …
“Australia calls on all parties to work together to secure a comprehensive, robust, rulebook. Common rules, will lead to action to achieve our shared goals.”
Price said Australia’s natural resources would provide “the low-emissions fuels of the future”.
“Our liquefied natural gas exports could save importing countries around 130m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent a year.”
Price did not comment on whether Australia would use carryover carbon credits from the soon-to-be-obsolete Kyoto protocol periods to meet its Paris targets, but it appears almost certain to use the controversial practice.
Using carryover credits – which would allow Australia to claim surplus carbon credits banked during the Kyoto period, largely through land use changes – has been derided as “fake action” by climate analysts, and criticised by countries such as New Zealand.
Australia’s address to the climate talks was criticised by observers and analysts in Katowice.
The Australia Institute’s climate and energy program director, Richie Merzian, said the only things Australia had brought to the UN climate talks were rising emissions and fossil fuel exports.
“To demonstrate Australia’s climate credentials, minister Price’s speech relied almost entirely on policies her government tried to kill off or water down,” Merzian said.
“It was rich of minister Price to rehash [former prime minister Malcolm] Turnbull’s $1bn climate finance pledge, after prime minister Morrison trashed and cut support for UN’s key climate finance body, the Green Climate Fund.”
Simon Bradshaw, Oxfam Australia’s climate change policy adviser, said Australia’s statement would undermine the Pacific’s confidence that it was serious about addressing climate change.
“Australia cannot hide the fact that our emissions are rising and that our addiction to coal is undermining our region’s future,” he said.
“In September, Australia joined other members of the Pacific Islands Forum in reaffirming that climate change is the single biggest threat to the livelihoods, security and wellbeing of the peoples of the Pacific. Yet our actions fly in the face of that reality.”

Links

13/12/2018

Radical Environmentalists Are Fighting Climate Change – So Why Are They Persecuted?

The Conversation

Defiant. Shutterstock/Ryan Rodrick Beiler.
Climate change, deforestation, widespread pollution and the sixth mass extinction of biodiversity all define living in our world today – an era that has come to be known as “the Anthropocene”. These crises are underpinned by production and consumption which greatly exceeds global ecological limits, but blame is far from evenly shared.
The world’s 42 wealthiest people own as much as the poorest 3.7 billion, and they generate far greater environmental impacts. Some have therefore proposed using the term “Capitalocene” to describe this era of ecological devastation and growing inequality, reflecting capitalism’s logic of endless growth and the accumulation of wealth in fewer pockets.
As social inequality and ecological breakdown escalate, steady change may no longer be enough to avoid civilisational collapse. Environmentalists cannot rely on timid appeals to power any longer.

Enter ‘radical’ greens
I’ve had the pleasure of getting to know radical environmentalists from numerous groups throughout my doctoral research. I’m especially interested in uncovering their worldviews – how they diagnose the root causes of ecological decline and what motivates them to engage in often high-risk interventions on behalf of the natural world and other species.
They reject human superiority and separateness from other species. They blame such views, in addition to capitalism and endless economic growth, for the dire state of modern ecosystems. Many follow a burning desire for a more viable and inclusive future for all.
Notable radical green groups include Earth First!, Extinction Rebellion, the Hambacher forest occupation, and Sea Shepherd.

Sea Shepherd activists clash with a Japanese whaling ship in Antarctica’s Ross Sea. Adam Lau/EPA
Early Earth First! activists in the US sat in trees and dismantled tractors to prevent old-growth forests from being felled. For years, Sea Shepherd vessels successfully intervened and protected countless whales from Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean. However, last year they ended their anti-whaling campaign due to, among other things, advancements in military grade technology by the Japanese whaling industry.
Activists have occupied the ancient Hambach forest in Western Germany for a remarkable six years in an ongoing effort to keep coal giant RWE at bay. Many were violently evicted by police recently.
Traditional environmental organisations like the WWF tend to focus on making industrial capitalism more sustainable rather than questioning capitalism itself. The radical green movement was born in response to the perceived inability of these mainstream environmental organisations to curb ecological decline. They advocate direct action in the form of civil disobedience, blockades, tree-sits, and even the dismantling of machinery for halting ecological destruction.

The resurgence of the ‘Green Scare’
Criminalising and repressing non-violent activists could fatally delay an effective response to climate change. In the UK, anti-fracking activists were arrested recently after blocking a convoy delivering equipment to the Preston New Road fracking site in Lancashire. They were initially given excessive prison sentences but were eventually released.
Political theorist Steve Vanderheiden referred to such incidents in his 2005 article on the “Green Scare”. The “Green Scare” at its height in the mid-2000s saw the US government mount full-scale persecution of environmental activists. The FBI classed radical environmental groups such as the Earth Liberation Front as the nation’s lead domestic terrorist threat, even though it never targeted living beings.

A pianist plays for activists mourning the death of photojournalist Steffen Meyn, who died falling from a tree-sit in the Hambach Forest occupation. Jonas Nolden/EPA
Even the legal definition of “terrorism” was altered to include property destruction. This sought to target radical greens and their attacks against ecologically harmful infrastructure. Lengthy prison sentences and fines befell “eco-terrorists” caught engaging in direct action deemed threatening to economic interests.
These are desperate times. We’ve lost a staggering 60% of monitored vertebrate life within just 40 years. Climate change will endanger millions through disease, extreme weather, starvation, and rising seas.
Occupying trees or blockading a road to a fracking site is clearly justified resistance during times of widespread injustice. These are the ideas that environmental protectors are attempting to bring to the forefront.
As George Monbiot noted, a “hopeless realism” in the form of piecemeal “tinkering around the edges” has led us to our present predicament. Similar approaches simply won’t fix the mess. Radical responses – direct action and mass political mobilising – might be our only hope for building the better world that is still within our reach.

Links

Global Commitment To Climate Change Dies On The Floor Of A Committee And Australia Is Silent

The Guardian - 



Links

Investors Managing $32 Trillion In Assets Call For Action On Climate Change

ReutersSimon Jessop

Smoke and steam billows from Belchatow Power Station, Europe's largest coal-fired power plant operated by PGE Group, near Belchatow, Poland November 28, 2018. REUTERS/Kacper Pempel/File Photo
LONDON (Reuters) - Global investors managing $32 trillion in assets have called on governments to accelerate steps to combat climate change, as policymakers meet for talks at a United Nations conference in Poland.
A total of 415 investors from across the world including UBS Asset Management and Aberdeen Standard Investments signed the 2018 Global Investor Statement to Governments on Climate Change demanding urgent action.
“The global shift to clean energy is underway, but much more needs to be done by governments to accelerate the low carbon transition and to improve the resilience of our economy, society and the financial system to climate risks,” the statement said.
The intervention is the single largest on the topic to date, the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change said, as talks continue in the Polish city of Katowice to agree how to slow global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius.
That goal was agreed at a 2015 meeting in Paris, but investors said national governments were being too slow in enacting the policies needed to help the world transition to a low-carbon economy.
Failure to act could lead to permanent economic damage three or four times the scale of the impact of the financial crisis, British asset manager Schroders said.
As well as ramping up the involvement of the private sector, governments needed to commit to improving climate-related financial reporting, a move that would help investors better assess the risk and allocate capital to the right companies.
“The reality is that the long-term nature of the challenge has, in our view, met a zombie-like response by many,” said Chris Newton, Executive Director Responsible Investment, IFM Investors.
“This is a recipe for disaster as the impacts of climate change can be sudden, severe and catastrophic.”
Among specific policy requests, the group called for governments to phase out thermal coal, put a “meaningful” price on carbon emissions and gradually get rid of subsidies for fossil fuels.
Under the presidency of Donald Trump, the U.S. government will pull out of the Paris deal and has looked to talk up the country’s coal industry, policies Thomas DiNapoli of the New York State Common Retirement Fund called “misguided”.
“Global efforts to address the very real threat climate risk presents to the economy, financial markets and investment returns are ongoing... (we) remain committed to supporting the Paris Agreement’s climate goals.
“The transition to a low carbon economy presents numerous opportunities to create value and investors who ignore the changing world do so at their own peril,” said DiNapoli, whose fund manages $207 billion in assets.

Links

12/12/2018

Extinction Toll May Be Far Worse Than Thought

Climate News Network - Tim Radford*

Yet again, researchers have confirmed that climate change threatens the natural world with a soaring extinction toll. The danger may be much higher than anyone imagined.
Extinction is for ever – and it may be galloping far faster than we realise. Image by OLHA ZAIKA on Unsplash
LONDON  − Two scientists want the world to think again about the extinction toll, the rate at which species could vanish as the planet warms. They warn that the worst fears so far may have been based on underestimates. Tomorrow’s rates of extinction could be 10 times worse.
That is because the loss of one or two key species could turn into a cascade that could spell the end for whole ecosystems. “Primary extinctions driven by environmental change could be just the tip of an enormous extinction iceberg,” they warn.
In their study, long before the complete loss of one species, other species locked into the same ecosystem started to perish. There is no need to worry about the rare but real hazard of an asteroid impact, or a burst of gamma rays from a nearby exploding star. The message from the simulators is that global average warming of between 5° and 6°C above the level for most of history since the end of the last Ice Age would be enough to wipe out most life on the hypothetical Earths.
“This makes it difficult to be optimistic about the future of species diversity in the ongoing trajectory of global change, let alone in the case of additional external, extraplanetary catastrophes.”
Giovanni Strona of the European Commission’s joint research centre in Ispra, Italy and Corey Bradshaw of Finders University in Adelaide, Australia write in the journal Scientific Reports that they turned to computer simulation to resolve an enduring ecological question: quite what is it that drives biodiversity loss?
“Whenever a species leaves our planet, we lose much more than a name on a list”
The growth in human numbers, and the exploitation of the planet’s surface for economic growth, has destroyed habitats and disrupted ecosystems on a scale without parallel: global warming and climate change will make things worse.
Researchers have confirmed, repeatedly, that ecosystems are under threat; that climate change could be even more damaging than anyone suspected; that half of 976 species in one study were already being extinguished in local ecosystems, even if they survived elsewhere as the thermometer rose.
But most such studies were based on sample examinations of specific patches of woodland, grassland, marsh or lake, or surveys of published literature, and they measured change in a planet that has – since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution – warmed by about 1°C as a consequence of profligate combustion of fossil fuels and the clearance of the great forests. The latest study involved testing life on a planet to destruction.
The two scientists constructed 2,000 “virtual Earths” and populated them with interacting species: that is with a food web composed of competing predators and prey, multiple consumers and consumed. Then they subjected these notional biospheres to extreme environmental change, ranging from runaway global warming driven by ever-greater greenhouse gas emissions to the sudden, intense cooling of a “nuclear winter” in which sunlight is blocked by the dust of global thermonuclear war.
And the experiments, they say, demonstrated, once again, the co-dependency of living things in a stable environment. They set up two scenarios. In one of them a species was subjected to temperature change to the point of extinction. In the other, the researchers triggered a series of co-extinction cascades. They then matched the two outcomes.

More than species
And they found that failure to take into account the complex, entangled interdependencies of living things led to an underestimate, by 10 times, of the magnitude of mass extinction by climate change alone. The message is: don’t just save the giant panda, save the forest.
“Conservationists and decision makers need to move fast beyond a species-specific approach, and look with increasing attention at interaction networks as a fundamental conservation target,” Dr Strona said. “Whenever a species leaves our planet, we lose much more than a name on a list.”
Other such simulations have delivered catastrophic conclusions: one examination of runaway global warming left the Earth uninhabitable, while another found that in the most dreadful outcomes, at least one life form, the tardigrade, might survive.
Any computer model of life on Earth must have its weaknesses, if only because the unknown and unnamed list of creatures is at least 10 times greater than those already catalogued in the world’s botanical gardens, zoos and natural history museums. That is, biologists still don’t know nearly enough about the diversity of life on Earth. There are, the researchers concede, “obvious limitations in our ambitions model.”
But, said Dr Strona: “Our results are consistent with real-world patterns for which we have empirical evidence. This makes us confident that the many assumptions we had to take in order to build a functional model are sound. On the other hand, it would be misleading to just focus on raw numbers.”

*Tim Radford, a founding editor of Climate News Network, worked for The Guardian for 32 years, for most of that time as science editor. He has been covering climate change since 1988.

Links

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative