Nearly Half Of Australia's Native Plants Are Under Threat From Climate Change

SBS - Sandra Fulloon

Scientists are battling to save Australia's native species, with a nationwide study finding almost half are threatened by rising temperatures and erratic rainfall.



Earlier this year, a nationwide study of 2.5 million Australian herbaria specimens found 47 per cent of the country’s vegetation is potentially at risk from rising temperatures by 2070.
As Australia marks Threatened Species Day on Saturday, chief botanist at the Royal Botanic Garden Sydney, Dr Brett Summerell, says he is worried about the future of Australia’s biodiversity.
“Australia is a biodiversity hotspot since 85 per cent of our flora is endemic, so it occurs naturally nowhere else around the world. So if we lose a species here, it’s gone forever,” Dr Summerell said.
“Rising temperatures and altered rainfall patterns are impacting our flora, and that is leading to increased outbreaks of disease and pest invasions.”

Dead gum trees and casuarinas at Middle Head, affected by Phytophthera mould which thrives in warmer weather. SBS

Some plant die-back on Sydney's Middle Head is caused by phytophthora, which thrives in warmer conditions. 
Phytophthora is a soil-borne water mould that causes enormous economic losses to crops and natural ecosystems worldwide.
“There is a pattern of plant die-back across the country, and it’s caused by things like phytophthora and other pests and pathogens,” he said.
“And it’s becoming very serious everywhere we look.”

Dr Brett Summerell with spring flowering wattle on Sydney's Middle Head. SBS

Dr Summerell holds a PhD from the University of Sydney and has been published extensively on plant pathogens. He said it's vital the country's species are protected.
“The smell of a gum leaf or a banksia or waratah flowering, these are strong aspects of our culture, so it’s up to us to preserve and save our species,” he said.

Rapid transition
In the nationwide study 'Safety margins and adaptive capacity of vegetation to climate change', published in Nature June, Dr Rachael Gallagher from Sydney's Macquarie University found many species are already struggling in warmer temperatures.
“Our study identified 151 species that are already at their upper limit for warming, and further rises present a considerable challenge for those species,” she said.

Dr Rachael Gallagher says up to half of Australia's native plant species at at risk from rising temperatures. SBS

“This is the first time we’ve had a contintental-scale analysis like this of Australia’s vegetation, and its risks under climate change.”
Climate modeling predicts a rise of between two and four degrees in Australia’s mean annual temperature over the next 50 years, she said.
“The rate of climate change is so much faster than we have experienced in the past, it’s a very rapid transition to a very warm environment.”
“As a result of changing climate we run the risk of losing species that we don’t even know exist at this time,” she added.

Species flowering earlier
Scientists studying flowering patterns found many species are also flowering earlier when compared with historic specimens.
Firefighters are also preparing for severe fires in spring, after one of the warmest and driest winters on record. Catastrophic fire conditions are already forecast for parts of Queensland.

Banksia in flower. It's one of Australia's native species adapted to fire. SBS

“When bushfires occur out of ordinary range, only some plants survive,” Dr Summerell said.
If fires are early or late, plants are thrown out of cycle for flowering and setting seed, he said.
Plants growing tropical areas and alpine regions are particularly susceptible to climate change.
“Feldmark grass Rytidosperma pumilum is extremely vulnerable, as it only grows in a three square kilometre area in the high alpine section of Kosciuszko National Park,” Dr Summerell said.

Feldmark grass is Australia's smallest grass and grows only in a small area in the NSW alpine area. SBS

“We expect is that once temperatures rise, woodland will overtake this area and feldmark grass will become critically endangered and move towards extinction.”“Retaining a rich diversity of plants is not only important for the environment. We also rely on plants for food, water, medicine and the air we breathe.”

Breeding resilient species
At the National Herbarium of NSW, scientists are photographing more than 1.4 million specimens, to create an online data bank.
“It’s an amazingly powerful resource,” Dr Summerell said.
Information about plant specimens collected over 250 years will be analysed, to reveal flowering patterns and also examine cellular structures.

Dr Brett Summerell and Dr Rachael Gallagher watch plants being digitised, at the National Herbarium of NSW. SBS

Scientists are also sampling DNA to breed more resilient species, used to restore mine sites or degraded farmland. Threatened species may also be migrated to cooler sites.
Some of the oldest surviving samples were collected from Botany Bay by early explorer and naturalist Joseph Banks on James Cook’s first voyage to Australia on HMS Endeavour in 1770.
The collection of plants are lucky to have survived. Banks retrieved his collection from the sea after the Endeavour ran aground on the Great Barrier Reef, Dr Summerell explained. Samples were dried out on the sails of the ship, and taken to Britain. The specimens were later returned to Australia.

A specimen collected by botanist Joseph Banks, from Botany Bay in 1770. Supplied

The digitising work is expected to continue until 2021.
Dr Summerell said it will form a valuable and accessible resource for scientists studying the impacts of rising temperatures on plants worldwide.
Scientists say preserving species diversity is crucial for healthy bush and cultivated land. Farms need paddock trees and areas of native vegetation as habitat for native birds and mammals.
"And there are other benefits of keeping trees: they lower the water table and provide shade for stock. So keeping a mix of flora can have important flow-on benefits for species protection and crop or grazing land,” she said.

Scientists at the National Herbarium of NSW are battling to save threatened plant species. SBS

People can report die-back to The Dead Tree Detective, a project at Western Sydney University.
Nurseries advise people to plant hardy, drought-tolerant species, with water restrictions active in some states.
"More people are asking for native plants so we're selling a lot of grass trees, grevilleas, and beautiful flowering gums," Jack Thorburn from Sydney nursery Honeysuckle Garden said.
"We also advise people to treat the soil with a wetting agent and mulch often."
Dr Gallagher called urgent action to protect Australian flora, in particular, to protecting endemic plant species that occur nowhere else in the world, she said.

Links

This Is No Time For Hunches – We Need Evidence And Expertise In Science

The Guardian - Ian Chubb

Nobody argues that science is perfect, but it has been an essential part of making us what we are 

‘The challenge is to use the evidence to develop policy that will sustain the best parts of the Great Barrier Reef while giving any “green shoots” a chance to survive, even in the face of global warming.’ Photograph:  David Gray/Reuters

Ian Chubb Ian Chubb is the former Australian chief scientist. He is chair of the Reef Water Quality Independent Science Panel

There will always be people who call for additional review or scrutiny of science when the results of a rigorous process don’t yield the outcomes they want.
Effectively they want incontrovertible evidence, and anything less is unacceptable to them.
Incontrovertible evidence is rare in science, so it is easy to pick some cherry and use it to seed controversy and delay action.
History shows how effective the strategy has been. It also shows why the notion of the precautionary principle is so important. The principle requires that precautionary measures should be taken if the risk or threats of harm to (say) the environment are significant. It can mean taking action in the face of uncertainty. But when the available evidence is developed through a rigorous scientific process (and especially when it draws on multiple lines of evidence), suitable precautionary actions can be introduced with confidence.
Take the 2017 scientific consensus statement on “Land use impacts on Great Barrier Reef water quality and ecosystem condition” to illustrate the point. The consensus statement is a comprehensive analysis of the science underpinning the processes and management actions designed to improve water quality and their outcomes. It follows a statement released in 2013 which in turn followed one from 2008.
To arrive at the most recent scientific consensus statement, some 1,600 relevant peer-reviewed papers and reports, published over the past few decades, were identified. Each had been circulating and available to the scientific community and other interested readers for more than 30 years. They were produced by some hundreds of authors from diverse institutions in Australia and overseas. They had been published in multiple outlets. They were subject to the usual intense scrutiny that follows publication.
The point of the consensus statement was to determine whether there was evidence converging on any particular point. The papers and reports were therefore picked apart and the results analysed by about 50 authors with internationally recognised expertise in Great Barrier Reef and coastal science, particularly water quality science and management.
For three of the chapters in particular, the authors drew on additional experts; and all chapters were seen by external reviewers. The whole process was carried out under the watchful scrutiny of the Reef Water Quality Independent Science Panel.

The final output is a multidisciplinary analysis and covers the condition of coastal and marine ecosystems, sources of pollutants, risk, catchment scale management priorities, governance, monitoring and modelling aspects, and gaps in knowledge to be addressed.
And there was a convergence. There is a consensus:

Key Great Barrier Reef ecosystems continue to be in poor condition. This is largely due to the collective impact of land run-off associated with past and ongoing catchment development, coastal development activities, extreme weather events and climate change impacts such as the 2016 and 2017 coral bleaching events.Current initiatives will not meet the water quality targets. To accelerate the change in on-ground management, improvements to governance, program design, delivery and evaluation systems are urgently needed. This will require greater incorporation of social and economic factors, better targeting and prioritisation, exploration of alternative management options and increased support and resources.

Two recently published reports add further weight to the evidence: The Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan Report Card 2017 and 2018 and the Outlook Report produced by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority both point in the same direction – the reef ecosystem overall is deteriorating. There are encouraging patches showing signs of regeneration; and some of the Great Barrier Reef is in excellent condition.
The challenge is to use the evidence to develop policy that will sustain the best parts of the Great Barrier Reef while giving any “green shoots” a chance to survive, even in the face of global warming.
The balance of evidence is important. The scientific consensus statement (2017) involves the work of some hundreds of independent scientists.
There is a small handful of scientists who have argued that the overwhelming majority are wrong, notwithstanding that the most prominent concedes that he is “not the authority on the issue”.
If there is evidence that leads to an alternative conclusion, it should be put into the public domain and be subjected to the same scrutiny as the work critiqued in the consensus statement. There has been plenty of time for the work to be done. This is no time for hunches; it is time for evidence.
When scientists seek to understand the world they make predictions and then test them. And they publish their results through appropriate channels.
Nobody argues that science is perfect. Mistakes can be made and sometimes are. The evidence provided by science at any point in time, however, is the accumulated knowledge that survives after rigorous challenge, scrutiny and testing.
We can be confident that decisions made on the basis of evidence derived from the processes of science will continue to provide benefits across society. It has done so for decades notwithstanding well documented diversionary tactics.
As a nation, science has been an essential part of making us what we are. There is no reason to stop now.

Links

• AgForce backs calls for review of consensus science on Great Barrier Reef
• Great Barrier Reef expert panel says Peter Ridd misrepresenting science
• 40 Years Ago, Scientists Predicted Climate Change. And Hey, They Were Right
• Wanted: Citizen Climate Scientists For Nationwide Study
• How Can Climate Policy Stay On Top Of A Growing Mountain Of Data?
• The Scientific Method And Climate Change: How Scientists Know
• How A Fossil Fuel Geoscientist Joined The Fight Against Climate Change
• Global Science Leaders Call For Further Action On Climate Change Ahead Of CHOGM 2018
• New Climate Model Promises To Help Avoid Dangerous Global Warming
• In-Depth: Scientists Discuss How To Improve Climate Models

Could Rooftop Gardens Save Our Cities From Climate Change?

ABC News - Shelley Lloyd

A 'sustainable shopping centre' planned for Melbourne includes a 2,000sqm urban farm on the rooftop. (Supplied: Frasers Property)

Key points: Rooftop gardens are considered a storey of a building, so it is not financially viable to have one as a garden instead of sellable space Research shows rooftop gardens promote physical activity and psychological wellbeing and have a positive impact on air pollution, noise levels and temperature regulation Town planners want the Brisbane City Council to legislate to enforce rooftop gardens in all new apartments

Rooftop gardens could help cool our cities amid climate change, but archaic planning laws are holding back a green revolution.Australian cities are heating up, with an alarming report this year finding temperature increases from climate change and urban growth will make Brisbane "a difficult place" to live by 2050.
Scientists blame what is called the urban heat island effect, which means cities are hotter than nearby rural areas due to development.
But it is not too late to turn it around, and plants could be the solution.
Green rooftops could help to take the heat out of the city, but Brisbane's property developers and planners said local laws were holding them back.
Cities like Singapore and New York have long embraced sky gardens and while Brisbane is late to the garden party, there are dozens of developments in the pipeline that would use clever ways to provide greenspace, when room on the ground is at a premium.
In September 2018, then-Brisbane lord mayor Graham Quirk announced the Council would amend the Brisbane City Plan to formalise the Council's support for rooftop gardens and green spaces, but 12 months on, that had not happened.
Currently a rooftop garden is considered a storey of the building, so if a developer has planning permission for a certain number of storeys, it is not financially viable to have one as a garden instead of sellable space.

Developers hamstrung by poor planning laws
Brisbane town planner Mia Hickey said the majority of large-scale inner-city apartment developments in Brisbane wanted to incorporate rooftop spaces, but were hamstrung by the poor planning laws.
"There are definitely some developers who are shying away from adding rooftop gardens for this reason," she said.

"It's not a good look when they [council] said they were going to do this [change planning laws] and it hasn't been done."

Rooftop yoga is held on the Lucent at Newstead. (Supplied: Cavcorp)

Ms Hickey said research showed rooftop gardens promoted physical activity, psychological wellbeing, and had a positive impact on air pollution, noise levels and temperature regulation.
"It's no longer just OK to put a half-shaded BBQ area up there with a little bit of grass," she said.
"We're now starting to see developments that incorporate resort-style amenities that are winning awards."

The rooftop pool and gardens at the Lucent development at Newstead. (Supplied: Cavcorp)

Newstead rooftop garden a 'sky retreat'
Lucent, a 17-storey residential tower at trendy Newstead in inner-city Brisbane, is one of those, winning local, state and national design awards.
The tower, completed in November 2017, included a 1,600 square metre rooftop area with expansive views over Brisbane.
The luxury development by Cavcorp described its rooftop garden as a "sky retreat" complete with "lifestyle-enhancing amenities".
It claims to have Australia's longest infinity pool, along with a detox sauna and spa, yoga lawn, Zen gardens and even a golf green on the rooftop.
With more families abandoning the suburbs in favour of inner-city living, Ms Hickey said even those on more restricted budgets were demanding rooftop garden space.

Proposed Maison development at inner-city New Farm in Brisbane. (Supplied: Frank Developments)

Consumers looking for the 'up-yard'
"It's just as important as the local school catchment," Ms Hickey said.

"It's no longer about the size of the backyard, but about the size and amenities of the rooftop, or as I like to call it — 'the up-yard'."

There are numerous inner-city apartment proposals with ambitious rooftop gardens on the drawing boards.
Cbus Property is building a 47-storey apartment block at 443 Queen Street in Brisbane's CBD.
Claiming to be Australia's first "subtropical-designed" building, construction is underway on the riverside development.
The building will have a "breathable facade" with gardens on every floor as well as on the rooftop, aiming to reduce energy consumption by up to 60 per cent.
At New Farm in Brisbane, the Maison project by Frank Developments will have cascading gardens on every floor of the proposed five-storey development.
The development, yet to receive Brisbane City Council (BCC) approval, claimed it would be one of the most heavily landscaped buildings in the city, with more than 86 per cent of the site to be planted, when the current council requirement was just 10 per cent.
Further afield, a Victorian property developer has plans for a "sustainable shopping centre" at Burwood in suburban Melbourne.
Frasers Property group is building a 2,000 square-metre urban farm on the shopping centre's rooftop, which it said is a first for Australia.

Artist's impression of inside of planned 'sustainable shopping centre' at Burwood in Melbourne. (Supplied: Frasers Property )

Failure to move quickly hampering rooftop landscaping
The Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA) agreed the BCC's failure to move quickly is hampering rooftop landscaping in Queensland.
UDIA Qld CEO Kirsty Chessher-Brown said currently there was "really no incentive for our members to be able to do this — it's actually disincentivised".
"The current situation is that our members can provide communal space on rooftops, but the minute that any roof structure is added to that rooftop space, it's then considered to be an additional storey to the building.
"That then impacts on our members' ability to comply with acceptable rules for building heights.

"If our [UDIA] members do put a structure on the roof, which is incredibly important for our climate, we see our members lose a complete storey, which could obviously be habitable space."

She said these spaces provided "really critical opportunities for landscaping".
"People can provide community or productive gardens and the real lure is being able to reduce some of the heat-island affect, traditionally associated with built-up environments," she said.
Ms Chessher-Brown said there was also a need for further incentives for developers.
"The next step is to replicate other programs in place across the world including Singapore, where there's actually a program to encourage developers to consider greater landscaping and use of planting on rooftop spaces," she said.

An artist's impression of a 47-storey Cbus Property apartment development at 443 Queen Street. (Supplied: Binyan Studios)

Legislation needed for developers to do rooftop gardens
In 2009, Singapore introduced its Landscaping for Urban Spaces and High-Rises (LUSH) Program, which encouraged developers to provide green roofs in all new developments and gave financial incentives for those that went beyond the minimum requirements.
The Property Council of Australia (PCA) is more forgiving of the council for the delay.
Acting Queensland deputy executive director Nathan Percy said the PCA supported the action contained in the BCC Brisbane Future Blueprint to make it easier for new developments to include rooftop gardens.
"We are working with Brisbane City Council on the implementation of this action, but it is important to remember that planning amendments do take time," he said.

"As Brisbane grows, we need to ensure that we continue to deliver spaces that allow people to enjoy our subtropical climate and rooftop gardens are one way that we can achieve this."

In a statement, BCCs planning chairman, Matthew Bourke, acknowledged there was a need for rooftop gardens but admitted it would take until the end of the year to make changes.
"Brisbane is a great place to live, work and relax, and we are increasingly seeing residents and visitors enjoying the city's vistas and subtropical weather from the rooftops of inner-city dwellings," he said.
"Increasing green spaces means a healthier and more sustainable city and Brisbane City Council has proposed an amendment to make it easier to include rooftop gardens for new developments as part of its review of City Plan.
"Investigations, research and drafting of the amendment package is underway and Council plans to be able to send it to the State Government for review soon, before opening up the proposed amendment for public consultation in late 2019."

The view from the rooftop garden of the Valencia Residences at Kangaroo Point. (Supplied: Aria Property Group)

Links

• 'This isn't a path we want to be on': Temperature rises will make city life difficult, report finds
• We Have The Blueprint For Liveable, Low-Carbon Cities. We Just Need To Use It
• How 300 Years Of Urbanization And Farming Transformed The Planet
• Four Ways Our Cities Can Cut Transport Emissions In A Hurry: Avoid, Shift, Share And Improve
• More Than 100 Cities Now Mostly Powered By Renewable Energy, Data Shows
• This Is How Climate Change Will Shift The World’s Cities
• How To Fix Climate Change: Put Cities, Not Countries, In Charge
• These Six Utopian Cities Of The Future Will Help You Re-Imagine Life On Earth

Brenda The Civil Disobedience Penguin Asks: What Will You Give Up To Save The Planet?

The Guardian - First Dog On The Moon

There is a lot of work to do and you soft flipperless humans

are going to have to ask yourselves some difficult questions

Cartoon by First Dog on the Moon

LARGE IMAGE

Links

• Some ‘Sinister Tactics’ Those Brave Protesters In Queensland Could Have Used But Also Didn’t 
• It's a global death sentence to keep eating like this: dinnertime at the Foreclaws
• In Not At All Intimidating News: Adani Wants The Names Of Scientists Investigating It 
• What Did You Do In The Climate Wars Daddy?
• How Do You Hug A Climate Scientist? Follow These Simple Rules And Don't Make It Weird 
• Adani: It All Looks Dodgy As Hell And None Of It Has Been Explained Properly
• As We Struggle To Save The Planet From Climate Collapse, Let's Dance (Dramatic Glockenspiel)
• The Billionaire's Guide To Surviving Global Warming – With Ian The Climate Denialist Potato
• 'Last Year I Gave The Kids Briquettes And Everyone Yelled At Me!' Christmas With Ian 
• The Children Are Rioting In The Streets! They Are Deadly Serious And Perhaps Our Last Hope
• This Is A Call To Arms On Climate Change. And By Arms I Mean Flippers!

Nice Try Mr Taylor, But Australia’s Gas Exports Don’t Help Solve Climate Change

The Conversation - Tim Baxter

Energy Minister Angus Taylor has sought to downplay quarterly figures showing Australia’s emissions are still rising, attributing the result to the production of gas for export. AAP

The latest report card on Australia’s greenhouse gas production is the same old news: emissions are up again. We’ve heard it before, but the news should never stop being confronting.
It’s 2019. The first assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which outlined the serious consequences of unmitigated climate change, was released the better part of 30 years ago. But Australia is still going backwards.
Emissions from one of the sunniest and windiest countries on the planet, blessed with every possible advantage when it comes to emissions reduction potential, are still rising. How do you justify that?

Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor. AAP

Energy and Emission Reduction Minister Angus Taylor tried to justify it by blaming gas. He said if you ignore the greenhouse gases released when producing gas for export, Australia is doing well because emissions in the March quarter fell by 0.3%.It’s a bit like suggesting that if you ignore the cancer, smoking is completely fine. It’s untrue, and ignores the bigger part of the problem.

How does producing gas for export release fossil fuel emissions?
A mammoth share of the coal and gas that Australia produces goes to the international market.
The combustion of these fuels is not counted in Australia’s ledger, though. This is because the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change counts emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in the country where they are burned.

A protest sign at the site of a proposed liquid natural gas plant at James Price Point in Broome. AAP

But climate change is unconcerned with our accounting rules. And Australia is the fifth largest contributor to climate change in terms of fossil fuels extracted.
But the extraction process itself also releases fossil fuels in Australia’s backyard, both through the energy used in the extraction and through leaks. These emissions are included on Australia’s ledger.
Gas is principally made up of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 30-80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. When it leaks, it has an outsized impact on the climate - and these emissions are growing fast.

Putting our gas emissions in perspective
It is disingenuous to use the production of gas exports to explain away Australia’s poor performance on emissions reduction.
In the 2018 financial year, around one in seven tonnes of greenhouse gas emitted from Australia was released in the process of making even more greenhouse gas, from both gas and coal extraction.
That means that six in every seven tonnes of greenhouse gas Australia emits can largely be attributed to the the total absence of a national climate policy.

Author supplied. Data source: DoEE, Australia's Emissions Projections 2018

Author supplied. Data source: DoEE, Australia's Emissions Projections 2018

This policy failure has big implications. Article 4.1 of the Paris Agreement says the world must reach net-zero emissions over the entire period from 2050 to 2100. (And the IPCC says emissions must come down even faster than that if planetary warming is to stay below the critical 1.5℃ threshold).
Even if, disregarding export gas production, Australia cut emissions by 0.3% a year, at that rate net-zero emissions won’t be reached for another 333 years.
So while fossil fuel extraction is making things worse, our emissions elsewhere are hardly able to reach the net zero goal in the Paris agreement.

Gas is not the silver bullet for any other nation
The minister and his department also made much of the idea that our gas is reducing emissions overseas. The quarterly report even contained a “special topic” talking up the benefits of Australia’s gas exports.
The logic is that by exporting gas, which is allegedly cleaner than coal, we are replacing a high emitting source with a relatively low emitting source. That logic does not hold and is not scientifically robust.
First, and most obviously, Australia exports massive amounts of coal as well as gas. We are responsible for one-fifth of the world’s thermal coal exports and more than one-half of the world’s metallurgical coal exports. It is talking out both sides of your mouth to suggest that we are reducing worldwide emissions because we are responsible for almost a quarter of the world’s exported gas, while we simultaneously export a massive amount of coal.

Origin Energy’s Australia Pacific liquefied natural gas facility at Curtis Island in north Queensland. AAP

Second, the department and Mr Taylor relied heavily on a study by the CSIRO’s Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance (GISERA) to talk up the relative benefits of our gas exports. That study, a life-cycle assessment of the emissions from Curtis Island’s liquified natural gas processing facilities, expressly avoided testing the assumption that our gas is in fact replacing coal overseas.
We may not know the whole story, but we do know it is not true in one of the largest purchasers of Australian gas, Japan. Since the Fukushima accident in 2011 took much of Japan’s zero-emissions nuclear energy out of the mix, it has been replaced by Australian gas, which is far worse for the climate.
Third, even if our gas is substituting coal, the benefits are very small. The same GISERA study indicated that “climate benefits of natural gas replacing coal are lost where fugitive emissions [leaking gas] … are greater than 3%”.
Readers might remember this apparent example of fugitive emissions in Australia. The video shows former New South Wales Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham setting fire to the Condamine River in 2016.


Former NSW MP Jeremy Buckingham sets the Condamine River on fire.

It burned because of methane bubbling up through it, purportedly from nearby unconventional gas extraction. These emissions, the result of leaks through natural fractures in the Earth, are difficult to predict and model. They are not accurately measured in Australia, and may make gas far worse for the climate than even coal.
Even if the results of all this uncertainty come out in favour of gas, limiting global warming requires that we urgently stop burning both coal and gas. While there are substantial proven reserves around the world, much of this will have to remain unburned if we hope to avoid the worst of climate change.
The evidence of climate change is increasingly clear, yet Australia’s emissions continue to increase. Our political leaders are spinning the data and failing to act, putting our children’s future, our economy and the natural environment at risk.

Links

• New Analysis: Australia Ranks Third for Fossil Fuel Export
• Australia's National Greenhouse Gas Inventory March 2019 Quarterly Update released
• Quarterly Update of Australia's National Greenhouse Gas Inventory for March 2019
• A Review of Current and Future Methane Emissions
• Jeremy Buckingham sets Condamine river on fire, blaming fracking – video 
• Whole of Life Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment of a Coal Seam Gas to Liquefied Natural Gas Project in the Surat Basin, Queensland, Australia (pdf)
• Resources and Energy Quarterly (pdf)
• Japan is the world’s third-largest coal-importing country
• Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardize 1.5 °C climate target
• Want to beat climate change? Protect our natural forests
• Australia should explore nuclear waste before we try domestic nuclear power

Trump's Rollback Of Climate Change Regulations Will Be Felt Far Beyond His Presidency

CNN - Drew Kann


Trump angered environmentalists from the get-go. Video by Lacey Russell and Alex King, CNN

In almost every corner of his administration, President Donald Trump has veered sharply from the policies of his predecessor -- and even past Republicans.
But his rollback of regulations designed to limit global warming is one of the clearest ways he has worked to erase a cornerstone of President Barack Obama's legacy.
From promising to leave the landmark Paris climate accord to relaxing restrictions on power plant emissions, Trump has attempted to remove many of the guardrails installed by the Obama administration to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases.
These rollbacks come at a critical time. Earth just endured its hottest month on record, and Greenland's massive ice sheet is melting an alarming rate.
Last fall, the world's top climate scientists warned that we have barely more than a decade to drastically cut global carbon emissions, to avoid facing the worst consequences of the climate crisis -- droughts, wildfires and food shortages impacting hundreds of millions of people.
Regardless of what happens in the 2020 presidential election, critics say Trump has already cemented an environmental legacy that will be felt by generations to come.
"He is locking in permanent, irreversible damage to our environment through his irresponsible environmental policies, including his efforts to block progress on climate change," said Dr. Michael E. Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University and the director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center. "Once we go beyond key tipping points -- the melting of the major ice sheets -- there is no going back."
Here's a look at some of Trump's most consequential climate policy rollbacks:

Weakening fuel economy standards
Last year, the New York Times reported that the Trump administration was seeking to relax fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions benchmarks, a shift that would stamp out one of Obama's signature climate initiatives.
If the proposed change goes into effect, it could have profound consequences for the planet: Transportation emits more greenhouse gases than any other sector of the US economy, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
But California and several other states have sued to block the change, and there are signs that even some automakers are not on board with Trump's rollbacks.

Replacing the Clean Power Plan
In a boost to electrical utilities and the struggling coal industry, Trump's move to replace Obama's Clean Power Plan (CPP) could have serious consequences for the health of humans and the planet.
The CPP placed flexible limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and according to analysis by Obama's EPA, would have reduced CO2 emissions from power generators by 32 percent compared to 2005 levels by 2030.

A coal plant near Baltimore spews emissions.

Trump's replacement for the CPP is called the Affordable Clean Energy rule and allows states to set their own emissions standards for coal-fueled power plants. Earlier this year, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler touted the plan, saying it gives power companies "the regulatory certainty they need to continue to reduce emissions and provide affordable and reliable energy for all Americans."
But the new rule could cost American lives. By EPA's own analysis, Trump's rule could result in 1,400 more premature deaths by 2030 than under the CPP. Many states and cities are also suing to block the new regulations from going into effect.

Opening public lands and waters offshore to oil and gas drilling
Many scientists warn that keeping fossil fuels in the ground is critical to tackling the climate crisis. But the Trump administration has moved the US in the opposite direction, opening vast stretches of land and water offshore to oil and gas drilling.
In 2017, the administration shrank two of Utah's national monuments -- Grand-Staircase Escalante National Monument and Bear Ears -- by 51% and 85% respectively. The moves took land areas spanning twice the size of Rhode Island out of protected status and was part of the largest reduction of public lands in US history, according to a study published in the journal Science. The changes open the areas removed from the national monuments to oil and gas development, but both decisions face challenges in court.

The vast wilderness of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve is seen from a plane.

The administration has also pushed to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration, as well as waters offshore along the East and Pacific coasts, and the Arctic.
"The pipeline projects potentially lock in long term extraction of natural gas and petroleum, and therefore have a very long legacy that will extend beyond the next administration," Mann said.

Pulling out of the Paris climate agreement
Trump's 2017 decision to pull the US out of the landmark Paris climate accord that was agreed to by nearly all of the world's countries was a major blow to the global response to the climate crisis.
The decision sent a message to the rest of the world that the US -- which can legally leave the agreement as early as 2020 -- would not be leading the global fight against climate change. And studies have shown the decision has had global implications: a report last year found that Trump's decision has made it easier for other countries to renege on their climate commitments.

Loosening restrictions on methane emissions
Just last week, Trump's EPA announced that it would no longer require oil and gas companies to install monitors that detect methane leaks from new wells, tanks and pipelines.

A fracking rig near Waynesburg, Pa. is shown in 2012.

At a time when the US has become the world's biggest natural gas and oil producer, the move is significant because of the potency of methane's heat trapping capabilities. Though the gas doesn't last in the atmosphere as long as CO2, one ton of methane has 84 to 87 times more global warming potential than the same amount of CO2 over a 20-year period.

Delaying ratification of a treaty on hydrofluorocarbons
Another key global agreement to limit planet-warming gases went into effect earlier this year, but Trump has yet to send it to the Senate to ratify it.
The treaty is called the Kigali Amendment, and it deals with a little-known but highly potent class of greenhouse gases called hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are used in refrigerators and air conditioners. The gases are sometimes called "super greenhouse gases" because of their capacity to trap huge amounts of heat in the atmosphere - they have more than 1,000 times greater warming potential than carbon dioxide.
The climate change solutions organization Project Drawdown has found that phasing out these chemicals would be the most impactful solution to stop global warming -- more than eating less meat, driving electric cars or switching to renewable energy.

Links

• Trump on Paris accord: 'We're getting out'
• NYT: EPA expected to roll back fuel economy rules for cars
• States sue to block EPA's coal power plant emissions rollback
• July confirmed as hottest month recorded
• Greenland's ice sheet just lost 11 billion tons of ice -- in one day
• Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change, experts warn
• CNN Climate Change

Huon Pine Trees Live For 3,000 Years But Climate Change Could Wipe Them Out In The Next 50

ABC News - Felicity Ogilvie

Huon pine has been around for thousands of years. (ABC News: Felicity Ogilvie)

Key points Huon pines are the second oldest living trees in the world Experts fear in 50 to 100 years the tree could go extinct Scientists are taking samples of tree cores to study how the climate has changed

The rare Huon pine, which has existed on Earth for thousands of years, could go extinct due to the effects of climate change, experts warn.
uon pines are the oldest living trees in Australia and the second oldest in the world — only the North American bristle cone lives longer.
Huon pines can live for 3,000 years, meaning some were seedlings before the Greeks invented democracy and well before Julius Caesar was born.
Professor Tim Brodribb from the University of Tasmania is one of those concerned about what carbon dioxide emissions could mean for the giant tree.
"If the emissions continue to rise as they are at the moment, then this species [Huon pine] and a lot of species in Tasmania will be extinct in 100 years for sure," he said.

"The timescale [could be] 100 years or 50 years, depends on how our carbon dynamics work."

Professor Brodribb recently visited a Huon pine forest on Tasmania's West Coast with University of Melbourne scientist Kathy Allen.

Professor Tim Broadribb is concerned about what carbon dioxide emissions could mean for the giant tree. (ABC News: Felicity Ogilvie)

Dr Allen has been using an instrument called a dendrometer to take data every 15 minutes to see how the trees grow.
She is also taking samples of the tree cores to study how the climate has changed.

Kathy Allen takes data every 15 minutes to see how the trees grow. (ABC News: Felicity Ogilvie)

She has observed that in the past 1,000 years, there were only a few hot summers — but that has changed since the 1950s.
"The change you're seeing since the 1950s record is unprecedented," she said.
Professor Brodribb also said the West Coast — where Huon pines grow — is facing a triple threat of increasing temperature, decreasing rainfall and more bushfires.
The old trees are rarely cut down but the timber is rot-proof, enabling sawmillers to salvage logs from the forest floor and river beds.

Sawmiller Bern Bradshaw thinks scientists have got it wrong. (ABC News: Felicity Ogilvie)

Sawmiller Bern Bradshaw, 90, has been working with Huon pines most of his life.
He thinks the scientists have got it wrong and that the trees will survive climate change.
Mr Bradshaw also looked at the tree rings of Huon pine logs.

"I think it's just coped with very warm weather and its also coped with very cold weather," he said.

But his colleague Dianne Coon is terrified about what could happen to the tourism industry and the timber industry in a region that is reliant on tourists taking cruises up the Gordon River to see giant Huon pines.
"If we are to lose something that takes so long to grow and embodies so much history it would be a shame on us all," she said.

Huon pines grow on the West Coast. (ABC News: Felicity Ogilvie)

Links

• 500yo forest giant among trees reduced to 'pile of ash' by summer bushfires
• How much has Tasmania's climate changed in the 100 years to now?
• Predicted changes to Tasmania’s climate
• Climate Futures for Tasmania
• Climate change in Tasmania
• Tasmanian Climate Change Stories
• Climate Futures for Tasmania