Australian Headlines Are Designed To Scare People Into Not Acting On Climate Change

The Guardian - Erwin Jackson

As we head into another cycle of climate change politics beware the economic doomsayers

 Whenever Australia starts to have a serious conversation about addressing climate change headlines appear in newspapers of an economic apocalypse. Photograph: folkeandersen.com/Alamy Stock Photo/Alamy Stock Photo

Whenever Australia starts to have a serious conversation about addressing climate change, headlines appear in newspapers of an economic apocalypse. This happened again in the Australian this week based on work by a long-standing economic modeller of climate policy, Brian Fisher.
So, what do economic modelling exercises tell us of the impact of reducing Australia’s contribution to global warming, and more importantly, what do they not? Should we cower in fear of action or embrace the inevitable change and manage the human and economic costs of transition?
Firstly, economic modelling results are not predictions. They are based on hypothetical future worlds. Economists try to capture the dynamics of economic systems in their models to understand the relative impact of different policy options. This means they are always wrong because economists can’t predict the future. Economic modellers are not the crystal ball gazers we read about in fantasy books.
Leading energy commentator and founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Michael Liebreich, sums this up nicely. His graph shows what US government energy models have been projecting over the years compared with what is happening in the real world. Over and over again models have failed to capture how fast the cost of clean energy has been falling and the scale at which it would be deployed.
This does not mean the economic models are not useful, it just means they should be used to test the relative impact of different policy options and not be presented as predictions of the future. They have a long history of overestimating the costs of environmental regulations because people and markets can innovate faster than they often expect.
Secondly, the way economic modelling results are presented is very important. Industry groups in particular like to attach themselves to particular results and scream that thousands of jobs will be lost, or wages will be slashed. This is designed to scare people into not acting on climate change by making them feel insecure in their lives. The headlines in the Australian did just this.
It is also dishonest because they also don’t clearly put the results in the context of the broader change in the economy. (David Gruen, one of Australia’s top economic officials gave a great speech about this in 2008 to illustrate how long this silliness has been going on.)
To illustrate my point, the economic impacts Fischer has projected for different emissions targets are in the same ballpark of those projected for work commissioned by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade a few years ago. This work also presented results in a similar way to the Australian. However, what is also showed is that the economy, jobs, income, etc continued to grow regardless. We keep getting richer and have more jobs, we just do so at a slightly slower rate.
Thirdly, because Australia exports a lot of coal and other emissions-intensive products to other countries, what they do matters an awful lot to the Australian economy. As other nations reduce emissions, demand for these products falls regardless of what we do. It has been established for some time that a significant part of the economic impacts of climate change on Australia comes from things we can’t control and this is generally presented in the results (see here for an example). While he does not report this, Brian Fisher knows this because he spearheaded economic analysis in the 1990s that was targeted at convincing Japan, one of our major coal markets, it would be too costly for them to reduce emissions.
Lastly, whenever these headlines are blasted across the papers one point is always lost: these results don’t include the cost of climate change itself. This summer, we have again seen a glimmer of what climate change will mean for Australia. Recent economic analysis indicates the benefits of limiting global warming far outweigh the cost of doing so, in one case by 70-1 (a good summary is here). (Again, this is something Fisher has considered in the past as he once said it would be cheaper to move people from the Pacific and put them in condos on the Gold Coast than act on climate change.)
So, as we head into another cycle of climate change politics in Canberra, beware the economic doomsayers and the threats from industry groups that credible action will be a “wrecking ball” to the economy. To be glib, no one said saving the Earth would be free. Acting on climate change will have costs but the costs of not acting will be far, far larger. Better that we come together and manage a fair and effective transition than continuing to delay and pay a much, much greater bill later.

• Erwin Jackson is director of policy at Investor Group on Climate Change.

Links

• 11 Things Climate Change 'Dismissive' People Say On Social Media
• Here Are Two Big Things That Were Wrong With Climate Change Coverage In 2018
• Vaccinate Public Against Science Misinformation, Researchers Urge
• How The Fossil Fuel Industry Got The Media To Think Climate Change Was Debatable
• The Australian's Continued Support Of Climate Change Denialism
• Climate Change: Using Satire To Communicate Science
• Climate Change Is No Joking Matter. Except, This Week, It Was.
• News Corp’s Contempt For Climate Science Revealed In Its Coverage Of Last Week’s IPCC Report

'Everyone Loves Solar': Climate Action Heats Up As NSW Election Issue

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

NSW voters, including conservative ones, want the state government to step up action on climate change, including boosting renewable energy, two separate polling sets show.
A statewide Essential survey conducted February 6-11 for the Nature Conservation Council of 544 respondents found 51 per cent were more likely to back a party boosting clean energy and 18 per cent less likely. Among those identifying as Liberal or National supporters, the ratio was 43 per cent in favour and a quarter against.

Solar farms are rolling out at a record rate and voters would support much larger levels of renewable energy, surveys have found. Credit: Rolfo Brenner

Three separate uComms surveys for Greenpeace, each of more than 600 respondents conducted in marginal seats of Ballina, Coogee, and Penrith, found higher support for renewable energy.
In Penrith, for instance, 60 per cent of Liberal voters said they were more likely to support a party investing in renewables and 30.7 per cent less likely. In Coogee, 52.1 per cent of Liberal voters were more likely to back a party with such policies, and 38.6 per cent against.
In Ballina, 65 per cent of National supporters agreed rooftop solar and batteries would cut household power bills for homeowners and renters, while 32.8 per cent disagreed.
The polling comes amid another torrid period of extremes. NSW smashed heat records in January, with temperatures almost six degrees about average and two degrees above the previous record set in bushfire-scorched January 1939.
Much of the state remains in severe drought – with 2019 off to a dry start amid rainfall levels typically less than a fifth of normal levels – sending reservoir levels tumbling and contributing to a series of mass fish kills and algal bloom outbreaks in the Darling and other rivers.
While climate scientists have yet to determine the role climate change is having, the background warming of more than a degree over the past century across Australia is raising the likelihood of heatwaves. Climate models also point to a long-term drying trend across southern Australia, including NSW, with more to come.

'No policy'
The onus to demonstrate action to tackle climate change appears to fall heavier on the Coalition if the polling and last December's federal byelection for the Sydney seat of Wentworth are any guide, Kate Smolski, chief executive of the Nature Conservation Council, said.
"Voters deserted the Liberals in Wentworth over climate change, and [this month's] poll shows that it's a statewide phenomenon," Ms Smolski said.
"This is bad news for the Berejiklian government, which after eight years of Coalition rule still doesn't have a climate change policy or a renewable energy target."
Liberal ministers declined to comment to the Sun-Herald, but Niall Blair, the deputy Nationals leader who has lately been at the frontline facing communities hit by drought and fish kills, has been outspoken about the need to act on climate.
"Many people in our communities are really seeing something they haven't seen before," Mr Blair said. "They can clearly see what's happening on their own properties."
Labor is banking of wooing voters with its plan to add 7 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity and expand the take-up of solar panels by half a million homes.
"That's the biggest roll-out of renewable energy in Australian history," Adam Searle, Labor's climate and energy spokesman, said.
If implemented, clean energy's share would triple to 40 per cent by 2030 from less than 13 per cent now, he says.

The other two-thirds
But the energy sector accounts for roughly a third of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. While both major parties have an ambition to achieve carbon neutrality in NSW by 2050, they have offered few policies.
By contrast, the Greens plan to introduce a carbon change bill, including a broad carbon price, to reach the net-zero emissions goal by 2040.
"We need targets with teeth if we are going to actually decarbonise," Cate Faehrmann, Greens environment spokeswoman, said. "That is why I have developed legislation which sets binding targets to reach net-zero emissions by 2040 and gives ordinary citizens the power to prosecute government ministers who are not serious about meeting these targets."
Jeremy Buckingham, the former Greens and now independent MP, said policies are needed to tackle emissions from agriculture, industry and transport.
"Everyone loves solar panels, so we get policies focused on popular renewable energy, but with only a few years left to act, we need comprehensive policies to decarbonise all sectors rapidly, even if they are politically challenging," he said.

Links

• Poorer households switching to solar faster than the rich
• 'Sands are shifting': NSW agriculture minister to push climate cause
• NSW Renewables
• Clean Energy Council calls for NSW renewables target, as another state election looms
• Clean Energy Council: NSW needs strong Renewable Energy Target to match Victoria’s

New South Wales Energy Sector Is “Ageing And Unprepared”

RenewEconomy - Joshua S Hill

Climate Council Report key findings:  New South Wales was once a world leader on climate action, but over the past five years it has become a laggard.  New South Wales introduced the world’s first emissions trading scheme in 2003, which over 10 years reduced greenhouse gas pollution by an estimated 144 million tonnes. The scheme concluded in 2012.  Over the past five years South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania have led the country on renewable energy progress, while New South Wales has consistently remained at the back of the pack.  New South Wales used to have strong emissions reduction targets to reduce greenhouse gas pollution but these targets were dropped; the state planned to introduce a renewable energy target, but it was never implemented. New South Wales is responsible for more greenhouse gas pollution than any other state or territory and continues to rely on heavily polluting coal and unreliable gas power stations.  New South Wales has Australia’s oldest coal fleet and is home to five operating coal power stations; collectively they produced 82% of the state’s electricity in 2017.  It is risky to rely on old coal power stations because they become increasingly unreliable with age.  New South Wales has excellent wind and solar resources; however, they account for just 6% of the electricity generated in New South Wales.  Current climate policies in New South Wales are inadequate, although local councils are stepping up in the face of state government inaction. New South Wales does not have a comprehensive policy or target to encourage new renewable energy generation, nor does it have policies to enable the state to reach its net zero emissions target in 2050.  In the past 12 months the state has taken some positive steps to encourage renewable energy and storage technologies, further action is required.  There is massive potential in New South Wales for new jobs and investment in a renewable energy future.  Local councils like Lismore, Newcastle and Musswellbrook are all leaders on climate action.  New South Wales is highly exposed to the impacts of climate change. Climate change, driven by the burning of coal, oil and gas, is already affecting New South Wales.  Extreme heatwaves led to a 10% increase in both deaths and ambulance callouts in New South Wales between 2005 and 2015.  Damages from extreme weather events cost New South Wales $3.6 billion per year and this figure is likely to rise as these events, driven by climate change, become more frequent and severe.  The cheapest and fastest way for New South Wales to reduce its greenhouse gas pollution would be to progressively replace the state’s coal power stations with renewable energy like wind and solar, with storage.

A new report from Australia’s Climate Council has revealed how, years on from once being a world leader on climate action, the state of New South Wales is now lagging far behind the rest of the country and is responsible for more greenhouse gas pollution than any other state or territory as it continues to rely heavily on coal and gas power generation.
New South Wales history as a climate leader is long in the past now – it introduced the world’s first emissions trading scheme all the way back in 2003 which, according to estimates, reduced greenhouse gas pollution by 144 million tonnes over 10 years before concluding in 2012.
The state also used to boast strong emissions reduction targets, but these targets have since been dropped.
Further, NSW had once planned to introduce a renewable energy target, another promise which was simply left by the wayside.
In the end, therefore, New South Wales has no comprehensive policy or target to encourage new renewable energy generation and it also has no policies in place to push towards reaching its net zero emissions by 2050.
All this policy inaction and ineptitude over the past decade has led to the state generating more greenhouse gas emissions than any other state or territory in Australia, as it continues to rely heavily on coal-fired and gas power generation.
This is further highlighted by the fact that New South Wales is home to the oldest coal fleet in the country – five operating coal power stations that, collectively, produced 82% of New South Wales’ electricity in 2017.
Resulting from an over-reliance on old fossil fuel-powered generation technologies is a lack of policies to support the development of more wind and solar projects in NSW beyond 2020, creating tremendous risk that the state will be caught short as coal-fired power stations are closed or fail unexpectedly during extreme weather events.
“NSW has an energy system stuck in the dark ages, and as soon as the heatwaves hit, the old coal clunkers have a tendency to fall over like dominoes,” said Climate Councillor and former president of BP Australasia, Greg Bourne.
“NSW has Australia’s largest and oldest coal fleet. It’s risky business to rely on coal power stations which become increasingly unreliable with age. Last year they broke down more than 20 times.”
New South Wales is already affected by extreme heatwaves which have led to a 10% increase in both deaths and ambulance call-outs between 2005 and 2015, and damages from extreme weather events have now begun to cost the state $3.6 billion annually – a figure likely to only increase in coming years, driven by climate change-related extreme weather events which will become more frequent and severe.
“From sea level rise affecting coastal towns, to extreme heat in western Sydney and increasing bushfire risk across the state, climate change is a major threat in NSW,” Bourne continued.
“NSW once had a vision to protect communities from worsening climate change. It established the world’s first emissions trading scheme in 2003 but dropped it nine years later.
The state once had strong targets to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, but these were ditched too.
“States like Victoria, Queensland and South Australia are surging forward, leaving NSW far behind. South Australia is on track to reach 73% renewable electricity in less than two years, while across Australia, almost 10,000 new jobs are being created in the renewable energy industry.”
The lack of action is further compounded by the state’s excellent wind and solar resources, but which only contribute 6% of the electricity generated
“Despite having excellent wind and solar resources, renewable energy in NSW accounts for just 6% of the electricity generated, compared to South Australia which has 4%,” said Climate Councillor and energy expert, Professor Andrew Stock.
“In the past 12 months, NSW has made progress on renewables and storage technologies, but much more needs to be done if we are going to tackle climate change.
“Whichever party is elected to lead NSW at the upcoming election, it will need to step up,” he said.
This political failure is further underscored by the fact that 83% of the New South Wales public supports the development of more renewable energy, and over twenty local councils are supporting new solar farms to help residents reduce their power bills.
Given the potential for wind and solar generation in New South Wales, the lack of policy action to develop new renewable energy fails to capitalise on the massive potential for new jobs and investment.

Links

• Climate Council: Ageing and Unprepared: Energy in New South Wales (pdf)
• New South Wales’ Ageing Coal Clunkers
• NSW: Energy System Stuck in the Dark Ages
• NSW is Australia’s most polluting state

The Forgotten Climate Change Crises: Decline In Bogong Moth Numbers Leaves Pygmy Mountain Possums Starving

The Guardian - Graham Readfearn

Exclusive: climate change linked to ‘astonishing’ drop in bogong moth numbers, the key food source for possums while breeding 

The mountain pygmy possum population is threatened again because of the dramatic decline in bogong moths. Photograph: Zoos Victoria/AFP/Getty Images

Numbers of unique Australian moths that migrate in their billions to alpine areas have crashed, ecologists say, putting extra pressure on the endangered mountain pygmy possum.
Scientists believe the “astonishing” drop in bogong moth numbers is linked to climate change and recent droughts in areas where the moths breed.
At the same time checks on the endangered mountain pygmy possum, which exists only in Australia’s alpine regions, have revealed dead litters in the pouches of females. The moths are a key food source for the possums as they wake from hibernation.
In 2018, scientists revealed bogong moths were the only known insect to use the earth’s magnetic field to help them navigate from grasslands in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland – sometimes at distances of 1,000km. Around two billion moths are estimated to make the journey.
The ecologist Dr Ken Green has been monitoring bogong moths for 40 years. He said: “Last summer numbers were atrocious. It was not just really bad, it was the worst I had ever seen. Now this year it’s got even worse.”
The moths find caves and cracks in boulders to hide away in a torpor state. A cave at Mount Gingera, near Canberra, has been known to house millions of the moths but last month Green and colleagues counted just three individuals. Searches of about 50 known sites have turned up similar catastrophic absences.
“They haven’t just declined. They’ve gone,” he said. “We have done mountains from down to the Victorian border all the way to Canberra. We have checked every cave we know.”
A site at South Ramshead in the Snowy Mountains in New South Wales had just 1,000 moths last year. “That is very, very low,” says Green.
“This year we found just six moths. Last week we went back and there were none.”
Green believes the cause of the crash is drought in the moth’s breeding areas. The Bureau of Meteorology has said the drought was exceptional in those areas, but noted there had been similar dry periods in the 1960s and earlier.

Impact on the endangered mountain pygmy possums
Dean Heinze, an associate at Latrobe University, has been monitoring and researching mountain pygmy possums since the early 1990s. The possum populations are spread across Kosciuszko national park in New South Wales, and in Victoria at Mount Bogong, Mount Higginbotham and Mount Buller.

Scientists think the ‘astonishing’ drop in bogong moth numbers is linked to climate change, with extensive droughts in recent years in locations where the moths breed before migrating to alpine regions. Photograph: Auscape International/Alamy

As the possums emerge from hibernation in September and October, the moths are a key food source as they breed and raise young.
“Bogong moths are an incredible food source and very high in protein. Last year we found that some populations of possums were losing litters. It’s happening again this year. We think that the fewer moths means the possums are carrying less weight and losing the litters.”
In recent weeks Heinze has visited about 12 locations in Victoria and discovered dead litters in female pouches at “most of the sites.”
“It’s a widespread event,” he said. “I inspect the reproductive system of the animal and I look in their pouch to see how many young there are. I have been opening pouches and discovering dead and decomposing young ... For some, the young have been dead for days.
“The concern is that over time, if this happens more frequently we will see declines in the adult population as well. And this is the second year that they have lost litters. The litmus test will be next season.”
Around Mount Buller in Victoria, the possum habitat is fragmented by ski resorts. Captive breeding and release programs have been used to keep numbers up.
“We have put a huge effort into the population at Mount Buller,” says Heinze. “We have brought the population back from the brink and now we have this happening. I’m optimistic, but if we get more of this then it doesn’t look good. Here we are dealing with a species that only occurs in the alps, but what’s impacting it is happening hundreds of kilometres away.”
In 2016, a national recovery plan was agreed for the possum, outlining multiple threats including habitat degradation, predation by invasive cats and foxes and climate change.
A study published in October 2018 and led by scientists at the New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage looked at the climate change threats to the possums and the moths. The study suggested the moths had a “reduced survival in a warmer world” and this would “likely further affect survival” of the possums.
Prof Lesley Hughes, an ecologist at Macquarie University and councillor at the Climate Council of Australia, said the potential role of climate change in the decline of the moths and possums were what ecologists and climate scientists had predicted.
“Unfortunately the general predictions of the ecological risks of climate change are now turning into observations for particular species. And it should be no surprise we are seeing these impacts in the alpine zone, long recognised as one of the most vulnerable ecosystems to climate risks.
“Sometimes these changes can appear to happen abruptly – one year there are millions of moths and the next almost none. This shows how particular extreme events, such as droughts or severe bushfires, can suddenly tip a species over the edge, with flow-on effects to others in the ecosystem.”
The environment minister, Melissa Price, said she was aware of the reports of low bogong moth numbers and the government was working with a leading possum researcher “to understand the potential toll that reduced number of moths may be having on the species”.
The removal of feral cats and foxes in Kosciusko national park was helping possum protection, she said, and two government-backed projects were tackling weed infestations, building resilience to climate change, and managing loss of genetic diversity among possums in the Victorian Alpine region.
Victoria’s Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning spokesperson Adrian Moorrees said the reduction in moths “is likely to be due to recent droughts” in NSW and Queensland.
He said tools and processes were being developed “to better monitor and predict the impact of bogong moth populations on endangered mountain pygmy possums.”
A spokesperson for the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage said no litter deaths were reported in NSW possum populations, but the drought was believed to have impacted most species.
He said when moth numbers were low, possums turned to other food sources, including insects, fruits and nectar, adding “OEH will continue to implement the species recovery plans for the mountain pygmy possum.”

Links

• Zoos Victoria unveils $30m plan to save 20 Australian species from extinction
• Plummeting insect numbers 'threaten collapse of nature'
• 'Our Little Brown Rat': First Climate Change-Caused Mammal Extinction
• The Biggest Issues For Wildlife And Endangered Species In 2019
• Worst Mass Extinction Event In Earth’s History Was Caused By Global Warming Analogous To Current Climate Crisis
• Climate Change Also Wiped Out Life On Earth 252 Million Years Ago
• Extinction Toll May Be Far Worse Than Thought
• The 'Great Dying': Rapid Warming Caused Largest Extinction Event Ever, Report Says
• How Plants And Animals Are Teaching Scientists To Fight Climate Change
• Penguin Island's Penguins In Battle For Survival Against Climate Change, Human Threats

Scott Morrison's Pea-And-Thimble Trick

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

Did you notice that the Morrison government has slashed Australia's Paris climate target in half, a detail that somehow escaped scrutiny in the flurry of climate policies announced this week?
No? Well, neither did most of the country.

Backing black: Then federal Treasurer Scott Morrison brought a lump of coal to question time in February 2017. Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

On paper, Australia remains committed to cutting 2005-level emissions 26 per cent by 2030.
According to environment department officials called to Senate estimates last week, that means the nation has to reduce - abate - a total of 695 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent in the decade of 2021-2030.
But as we also had confirmed last week, the government plans to use credits earned during the current Kyoto Protocol - the global climate accord Kevin Rudd signed Australia up to in 2007 - to count against the Paris target.
Indeed, the "Climate Solutions Package" released on Monday makes no effort to hide the use of these Kyoto "carryover" credits - even if they're oddly bundled with the unrelated Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro plan.

Source: Morrison Government

So, booking those credits, Australia's 695 million tonnes of abatement task shrinks to just 328 million tonnes. Our Paris goal has just magically become 12.25 per cent, or less than half the 26 per cent "headline" reduction. Again, on paper, the presumed cost of getting off fossil fuels suddenly got a lot smaller. How good is that?
Actually not so good.
For one thing, the Paris accord was meant to be a reset for all nations, in order to more aggressively reduce the greenhouse gas emissions than under Kyoto. Whatever surplus credits nations had built up were not intended to count. That's why Germany, the UK and Sweden were among nations to cancel surplus credits they built up during the Kyoto period.
Second, nations like Russia and Ukraine are eying similar get-out-climate-actions cards.
Third, delays of real action means Australia's emissions, rising since 2014 are likely to continue to do so. Delays in taking decarbonising the economy means missed opportunities and possibly higher costs later.

'Rot forever'
Prime Minister Scott Morrison touts the pea-and-thimble game as a national triumph.
"Australia has been successful," he told 7.30 on Monday.
"We took a...750-million tonne deficit on what was required to meet our 2020 [Kyoto] targets when we were first elected, and that is going to be turned around to a 367-million tonne surplus," he said.
"So we've had a 1.1 billion-tonne turnaround under our management as a result of the climate change action policies we put in place."
Setting aside the utility of those "action policies" - and the jury has a lot ot weigh - the celebration of this "success" is actually premature.
For one thing, the public, once alerted, may not be so accepting of this particular "climate solution".
And analysts such as Malte Meinshausen - who heads the Australian-German Climate and Energy College at Melbourne University and served as a negotiator at climate talks - say United Nations rules reject the use of carry-over credits from the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol (2008-2012) to count for Paris.
"Under Kyoto Protocol rules, there are deliberately no carry-over rules for any credits that sit in the [Previous period surplus reserve]," Associate Professor Meinshausen says.
"Thus, the credits that are shifted after [the first phase of Kyoto] into the [reserve] sit there and rot there forever, but cannot be carried over into any subsequent commitment period."
By his estimate, that would immediately annul the 128 million tonnes - or about a third - of the surplus Morrison is counting.

'Survival'
The second period of Kyoto runs until 2020, and the use of remaining "credits' can't be banked on either.
The Paris rulebook is still be drawn up, but as New Zealand's climate minister James Shaw said last December, the use of such a "surplus" was against the spirit of the Paris accord.
The European Union will also likely want a clarification.
Whether a stink gets kicked up or not depends a lot on federal Labor.
It has dismissed "accounting tricks" but also said it would "take advice" if it won office in May as whether the credits can be used.
However, as Anote Tong, the former president of Kiribati told me on Tuesday, climate change is an "existential risk" for Pacific nations such as his as storms intensify and sea levels rise. Accounting changes don't reduce that threat.
"We need to step forward with genuine commitment," he said.
"We're not talking, really, numbers. We're talking about the survival of people."

Links

• 'Fake action': Australia's secret path to hitting Paris climate goals
• 'Woefully inadequate': Morrison government to use Paris climate short-cut
• On climate change, Scott Morrison is embracing politics as the art of the possible
• Industry calls for Morrison to go further on climate policy
• Scott Morrison pledges $2 billion, 10-year boost to Direct Action fund in election climate pitch
• When the polls are tight the Coalition pretends to care about climate
• Government funds power project that relies on massive coal plant closures
• Tackling climate change a 'financial necessity' says top Australian banking regulator

The Government Thinks We’re Idiots And Is Not Serious About Reducing Emissions

The Guardian - Greg Jericho

Tackling climate change is tough and Scott Morrison’s latest policy is an insult

We don’t need this current putrid policy from the government. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images 

After Scott Morrison’s announcement of his new climate change policy we know two things – the government still thinks we’re idiots, and they are still not serious about reducing emissions.
I guess we should be grateful that at least the government now realises it needs to look as if it gives a damn about reducing emissions, because for a while they couldn’t even be bothered to do that.
But stuff it. I’m done with giving out prizes for pretence. I’m done with being satisfied with something not even worthy of being called a fourth-best policy. I’m done with the lies.
Do not for one second think this is a policy designed to reduce emissions. It is a political Band-Aid while the actual wound to our economy from its greenhouse gas dependency is open and festering.
It is a fraud, and not even a new one.
It’s the same bulldust that the Liberal National party has been selling the public for nigh on a decade with a different badge. Gone is the Emissions Reduction Fund; say hello to the “Climate Solutions Fund”.
This fund of $2bn over 10 years is not just a rebranding of Tony Abbot’s Direct Action, it is actually a diminishment of it. At $200m a year on average it is less than half the money a year that was spent on Direct Action – a policy that was so laughably bad that a government with any level of shame would quietly have dumped it and pretended it never happened.
Yet, here we are. Nine years after Lenore Taylor ripped apart the Liberal party’s policy of reliance on “soil magic”, we have the prime minister still thinking such measures of carbon sequestration are worth pursuing and will achieve anything close to what is required.
But before we go further, let’s bring out the graphs again.
First the one showing annual greenhouse gas emissions going back to 2004. You’ve seen it before, it shows that yes, a price on carbon reduces emissions:



The next one shows the most recent projections for our emissions. These are the government’s own figures. And they show we are a long way from being on target to reduce emissions by either 26% or 28% below 2005 levels:



So we have that reality, but the prime minister says we will meet the target “in a canter”. Why? Because our target will also include “carryover credits” which comes from exceeding our Kyoto reduction commitment.
That might be defensible if our Kyoto commitment did not already include some dodgy work involving the counting of land use, land-use change and forestry, which allowed us to reach our target even if we actually increased our emissions.
It means we are using dodgy counting of previous dodgy counting to meet our targets.
The University of Melbourne’s Dylan McConnell estimates over half of the reduction will come via this trick accounting method, while 15% will come via “technology improvements and other sources of abatement” which is code for, “dunno, but here’s hoping someone does something good, in spite of our efforts”.
But you don’t really need to be told the ins and outs of this policy. You know it is a terrible joke on us all – the suggestion that we can do what is needed on climate change by spending a mere $200m a year.
With annual GDP of around $1,950bn, that represents just 0.01% this year, and because our GDP will grow, by 2030, $200m will be a mere 0.006% of GDP.
Now let us look at our emissions compared with other nations in the OECD:



Yes, the United States emits a lot more than we do, but when you look at per capita and per GDP you see how integral greenhouse gas emissions are to our economy. Australia is basically the most carbon-dependent economy in the OECD.
Yet the government would have you believe it can all be done painlessly. Just write a cheque for a mere $200m a year – less than is spent on SBS each year, and we’re done?
Do you really think that governments around the world have been avoiding action on climate change for the past three decades because they would have to spend this pathetic amount?
If that was all that was needed, we wouldn’t even be worrying. It would have been done.
The reality is cutting emissions is going to be tough. We are finally paying the bill for 200 years of gorging on carbon for free; and the bill is large.
We need to be honest about this. If it was easy – anywhere near as easy as what Scott Morrison or Tony Abbott or Josh Frydenberg would have you believe – it would have already been done. The reason it hasn’t is because it is bloody hard.
But it needs to happen and I have a few graphs to illustrate why.
First, the average annual temperature over the past 60 years:



Remember when all the climate-change deniers (for deniers they are) said 1998 was the hottest year and the planet had not warmed since then? Well the temperature anomaly of the past five years have averaged almost 40% more than what was reached in that year.
What if we extrapolated out the 20-year trend since 1998 into the future? If we use an absurdly conservative linear trend we reach 2C above pre-industrial levels by 2066 – just 47 years time.
But if we use a more realistic exponential trend line, we get there by 2049. A point at which my 15-year-old daughter would be the same age I am now:



Enough with the lies and fraudulent policy. It is beyond time for politicians to be honest with us. Action on climate change will be tough, and we need to stop pretending it can be done with ease.
What we don’t need is this current putrid policy from the government. They have shown they cannot get serious about the issue; it’s time they got out of the way.

Links

• We can no longer rely on coal for our future prosperity. We must plan for life without it
• If the Coalition has had a climate epiphany, I'm Beyoncé
• Scott Morrison heads to Tasmania to support 'battery of the nation' plan
• Rio Tinto gets $2m from emissions reduction fund to switch to diesel 
• Emissions reduction fund to pay for fossil fuel plant that would be built anyway 
• The emissions reduction fund was deeply flawed – and no rebranding will change this
• Labor given new legal advice that it could revoke Adani approvals 
• Scott Morrison to reboot Tony Abbott's emissions reduction fund with $2bn

Evidence For Man-Made Global Warming Hits 'Gold Standard': Scientists

Reuters - Alister Doyle

OSLO - Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty, adding pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit rising temperatures, scientists said on Monday.

Ocean water is pushed up by the bottom of a pinnacle iceberg as it falls back during a large calving event at the Helheim glacier near Tasiilaq, Greenland, June 22, 2018. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson/File Photo

“Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals,” the U.S.-led team wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change of satellite measurements of rising temperatures over the past 40 years.
They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming.
Such a “gold standard” was applied in 2012, for instance, to confirm the discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle, a basic building block of the universe.
Benjamin Santer, lead author of Monday’s study at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said he hoped the findings would win over skeptics and spur action.
“The narrative out there that scientists don’t know the cause of climate change is wrong,” he told Reuters. “We do.”
Mainstream scientists say the burning of fossil fuels is causing more floods, droughts, heat waves and rising sea levels.
U.S. President Donald Trump has often cast doubt on global warming and plans to pull out of the 197-nation Paris climate agreement which seeks to end the fossil fuel era this century by shifting to cleaner energies such as wind and solar power.
Sixty-two percent of Americans polled in 2018 believed that climate change has a human cause, up from 47 percent in 2013, according to the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.

Satellite Data
Monday’s findings, by researchers in the United States, Canada and Scotland, said evidence for global warming reached the five sigma level by 2005 in two of three sets of satellite data widely used by researchers, and in 2016 in the third.
Professor John Christy, of the University of Alabama in Huntsville which runs the third set of data, said there were still many gaps in understanding climate change. His data show a slower pace of warming than the other two sets.
“You may see a certain fingerprint that indicates human influence, but that the actual intensity of the influence is minor (as our satellite data indicate),” he told Reuters.
Separately in 2013, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that it is “extremely likely”, or at least 95 percent probable, that human activities have been the main cause of climate change since the 1950s.
Peter Stott of the British Met Office, who was among the scientists drawing that conclusion and was not involved in Monday’s study, said he would favor raising the probability one notch to “virtually certain”, or 99-100 percent.
“The alternative explanation of natural factors dominating has got even less likely,” he told Reuters.
The last four years have been the hottest since records began in the 19th century.
The IPCC will next publish a formal assessment of the probabilities in 2021.
“I would be reluctant to raise to 99-100 percent, but there is no doubt there is more evidence of change in the global signals over a wider suite of ocean indices and atmospheric indices,” said Professor Nathan Bindoff, a climate scientist at the University of Tasmania.

Links

• Celebrating the anniversary of three key events in climate change science
• Global warming could zap Earth's clouds, bake us even more
• Trump administration to create panel to deny climate change facts almost all scientists agree on
• Five Carbon Capture Techniques That Could Help Mitigate Global Warming
• Business and the effects of global warming - After the deluge
• What is global warming, explained