Striking For A Better Future

Pro Bono - Wendy Williams

Around the world millions of students are preparing to put down their pens and walk out of class to demand action on climate change. Daisy Jeffrey is one of those students.

17-year-old Sydney student Daisy Jeffrey is one of the lead organisers of the School Strike For Climate (SS4C) here in Australia.
The School Strike For Climate is an international movement of school students, most of whom have never met in person, but who have been united over a concern for our planet.
Inspired by Swedish schoolgirl Greta Thunberg, who staged a protest in August 2018 outside the Swedish Riksdag, the movement has grown to become the biggest ever global climate action.
There are now more than 2,500 strikes planned across 120 countries this Friday – three days before world leaders meet in New York for the United Nations Emergency Climate Summit.
Students across Australia – in every capital city and in dozens of regional towns and centres  – will be joined by workers, First Nations people, parents, unions and more at strikes.
In Australia the grassroots movement is calling for three things:

1. No new coal, oil and gas projects, including the Adani mine.
2. 100 per cent renewable energy generation and exports by 2030.
3. Fund a just transition and job creation for all fossil-fuel workers and communities.

Organisers say everyone is invited. Everyone is needed.
Ahead of this week’s climate strike, Jeffrey talks to Pro Bono News about her decision to strike, why students have been forced into taking action, and how people can get involved.

How did you get involved with the SS4C?
I found out about it maybe a week before it happened and I didn’t realise that you could get involved online. So I brought about half my school. My school has only got 160 kids, but I brought along quite a few kids to the strike. And then I got put in touch by someone who knew the main organiser for Sydney at that stage. So I became involved on the day. And then a week later, I ended up speaking at this massive Stop Adani rally at the town hall. So it’s just been a pretty insane rollercoaster.

What has it been like to go from being a Year 11 student focused on your studies to being thrust to the front of a movement?
Well, for me, and I think you’d get the same response from a lot of kids who are in the strike movement, it felt terrifying before, like I was suffocating, not being able to do anything or not feeling like I had any power over my own future or what the lives of future generations were going to look like.
To have the chance to get involved and actually fight for a better future has been time consuming and difficult, but it just feels like some of that stress has been slightly alleviated.

And how are you finding balancing studying and being involved in the strike?
It’s really difficult! And particularly when it’s such an important cause, you kind of feel like you want to be around all hours of the night to make sure that everything is being handled correctly. But I survive on coffee.

What does your role look like in organising SS4C?
So what we have at this point, at least here in Sydney, and I think Melbourne and Adelaide have similar systems, is a main communication system. We’re about to set up a real national structure. At the moment we have a national network. And basically everyone is on it, but only really lead representatives communicate on there. Then you have your core teams in your cities. And here in Sydney, we have a core team of about 10 people and then a broader Sydney team of about 50. That broader Sydney team was only put together a few weeks ago, and it was because we knew other kids were really interested in being involved and so we wanted to bring them into the movement and to give them that opportunity to actually learn about different forms of activism and leadership and how to handle interviews or generally doing posturing or social media and different ways of going about making a difference, and outreach. So that’s been a really interesting process in the lead up to the strike, putting that together.
And as far as actually putting together a strike, it just involves a whole lot of paperwork. Hours and hours of talking with the police, the council, and particularly with The Domain because it’s privately owned. So that’s probably the least fun part of it.
Largely, the campaign is done through social media, when it comes to actually advertising the strike. And this time round, we’ve had a lot of communication with the unions surrounding our third demand, which is the demand for a just transition policy. So there’s been a lot of that and we’re hoping to get a strong union turnout on the day.
It’s just been a really incredible process. And this time we’re also inviting adults to come out, not only in support of the youth, but in support of First Nations’ climate justice and worker’s rights as we transition to renewable energy.

What is it that you’d like to see?
I just want to see adequate climate action. That’s all we’re asking for.
At the moment, we have a deputy prime minister who has basically said that he doesn’t believe in climate change. We have a prime minister who’s going to be in New York but not going to the climate summit. And, it is so far below inadequate. It’s astounding.
So in Australia, we really have no choice other than to go out on strike, because we just need to see this action as soon as possible. We don’t have time to wait until the next election. And unfortunately, I don’t think Labor would have made much more of a difference, but I think they would have made a difference. And unfortunately, this government just does nothing.

Why do you think it is important for students to be leading this movement?
We’ve taken the charge because it’s our future. To be honest, we’ve enjoyed the rallies and whatnot and we’ve enjoyed getting to know each other, but none of us want to be doing this. It’s something we feel like we’ve been forced into. We’re in a position where we have no alternative because the generations before us, particularly the older generations, have such a refusal to do anything. And our future is in the hands of a small number of massive corporations and governments, and neither are really doing anything to combat climate change.

How can people get involved and support you?
Get involved by finding us on social media. We’re pretty easy to find. And just send us a message, we’ll put you in touch with the relevant people and you can get involved. And if you don’t have the capacity to be at a strike, share it on social media with your friends, maybe do a little bit of posturing or just send an email around.
Or even just lower your carbon footprint. Individual change is not going to solve the climate crisis, but it must come hand-in-hand with system change. And even making those small changes yourself and encouraging your friends and family to lower their carbon footprint is still making a difference.
I feel like this is an overused line, but we don’t need one or two people doing things perfectly. We need billions of people doing things imperfectly. And that’s the only way we’re going to be able to make a difference.

What do you like to do in your free time?
Tough question! I suppose I’m quite into hanging out with people and Netflix. I’m your ordinary teen. This just happens to be taking up 100 per cent of my life at the moment.

Links

• School Strike For Climate
• School strike for climate - Wikipedia
• Here’s Where The Massive Global Climate Strikes Are Going Down In Australia
• Global Climate Strike → Sep. 20–27
• Millions to down tools and pens on September 20 for #ClimateStrike
• School Strike 4 Climate AU

Faster Pace Of Climate Change Is 'Scary', Former Chief Scientist Says

BBC - Roger Harrabin

The increased frequency and intensity of wildfires may be one outcome of climate change. Getty Images

Extreme events linked to climate change, such as the heatwave in Europe this year, are occurring sooner than expected, an ex-chief scientist says.
Prof Sir David King says he's been scared by the number of extreme events, and he called for the UK to advance its climate targets by 10 years.
But the UN's weather chief said using words like “scared” could make young people depressed and anxious.
Campaigners argue that people won't act unless they feel fearful.
Speaking to the BBC, Prof King, a former chief scientific adviser to the government, said: “It’s appropriate to be scared. We predicted temperatures would rise, but we didn’t foresee these sorts of extreme events we’re getting so soon.”
Several other scientists contacted by the BBC supported his emotive language.
The physicist Prof Jo Haigh from Imperial College London said: “David King is right to be scared – I’m scared too."
“We do the analysis, we think what’s going to happen, then publish in a very scientific way.
"Then we have a human response to that… and it is scary.”
Petteri Taalas, who is secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said he fully supported UN climate goals, but he criticised radical green campaigners for forecasting the end of the world.
It’s the latest chapter in the long debate over how to communicate climate science to the public.

Greta Thunberg thinks that action comes from people feeling a sense of panic. European Photopress Agency

Will emotive language leave young people depressed?
Dr Taalas agrees polar ice is melting faster than expected, but he’s concerned that public fear could lead to paralysis – and also to mental health problems amongst the young.
“We are fully behind climate science and fully behind the (upcoming) New York climate summit", he said.
“But I want to stick to the facts, which are quite convincing and dramatic enough. We should avoid interpreting them too much.
“When I was young we were afraid of nuclear war. We seriously thought it’s better not to have children.
“I’m feeling the same sentiment among young people at the moment. So we have to be a bit careful with our communication style.”
The polar scientist Andrew Shepherd from Leeds agreed with him that scientists should normally avoid emotional terms.
He said: "I would not use the term (scary) in general, but it is certainly surprising to see record (or near record) losses of ice. The year 2019 has been a bad year for Earth's ice."
However, some scientists appear to believe that their communications in the past have been failing to provoke an emotional response that would convince the public to act.

Do scientists agree climate change is scary?
We tested Prof King's views with the main authors of the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), published in 2014.
The consensus among those who replied was that climate models had accurately forecast the rise in global mean temperature.

NASA

But the models hadn’t been sufficiently sophisticated to foresee events like this year’s extreme European heatwave or the slow-moving Hurricane Dorian – described by Nasa as “extraordinary” and “a nightmare scenario”.
Others mentioned severe ice melting at the poles; Tasmania suffering record droughts and floods in consecutive years; record wildfires in the Arctic and an unprecedented two large cyclones in Mozambique in one year.

Changes 'anticipated for decades'
Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, told us he’d been anticipating changes like these for four decades, although he hadn't been certain when they would arrive.
“I have a sense of the numbing inevitability of it all,” he said.
“It's like seeing a locomotive coming at you for 40 years - you could see it coming and were waving the warning flags but were powerless to stop it.”
Few of the scientists we contacted had faith that governments would do what was needed to rescue the climate in time.
They’re alarmed that global warming of just over 1C so far has already created a new normal in which historic temperature records will inevitably be broken more often. This is the predictable side of climate change.
Prof King argues that some changes were not well forecast.

What is the science behind extreme weather events?
The loss of land ice in Antarctica, for instance, is at the upper range of predictions in the IPCC AR5. And there are record ice losses in Greenland
Then there’s this year’s French heatwave.

Extreme and sustained temperatures in France in July led to droughts in some areas. Getty Images

Dr Friederike Otto from Oxford University is an expert in the attribution of extreme events to climate change.
She told us that in a pre-climate change world, a heatwave like this might strike once in 1,000 years.
In a post-warming world, the heatwave was still a one in 100 year phenomenon. In other words, natural variability is amplifying human-induced climate heating.
“With European heatwaves, we have realised that climate change is a total game-changer,” she said. It has increased the likelihood (of events) by orders of magnitude.
“It’s changing the baseline on which to make decisions. How do we deal with summer? It is very hard to predict,” Dr Otto explained.
Researchers had not yet had time to investigate the links between all of the major extreme weather events and climate change, she said.
With some phenomena such as droughts and floods there was no clear evidence yet of any involvement from climate change. And it was impossible to be sure that the slow progress of Dorian was caused by climate change.

'We can’t wait for scientific certainty'
Prof King said the world could not wait for scientific certainty on events like Hurricane Dorian. “Scientists like to be certain,” he said.
“But these events are all about probabilities. What is the likelihood that (Dorian) is a climate change event? I’m going to say ‘very high’.
“I can’t say that with 100% certainty, but what I can say is that the energy from the hurricane comes from the warm ocean and if that ocean gets warmer we must expect more energy in hurricanes.”
He continued: “If you got in a plane with a one in 100 chance of crashing you would be appropriately scared.
“But we are experimenting with the climate in a way that throws up probabilities of very severe consequences of much more than that.”

Hurricane Dorian was packing sustained winds of 295km/h (185mph) when it made landfall. Getty Images

Should the UK bring climate targets earlier?
Prof King said the situation was so grave that the UK should bring forward its date for cutting emissions of greenhouse gases to almost zero from 2050 to 2040.
Some of the IPCC scientists we contacted didn’t share his urge to engage with the public on an emotional level.
Others agreed with him.
Prof John Church from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia told us: "Some things appear to be happening faster than projected. This may be partially related to the interaction of climate change and natural variability as well as the uncertainty in our understanding and projections.
“In my own area of sea level change, things are happening near the upper end of the projections.
“What is scary is our lack of appropriate response. Our continued lack of action is committing the world to major and essentially irreversible change.”

Nations 'going backwards' on climate change
Scientists have typically feared being labelled as alarmist or of being accused of campaigning if they express personal views on the issue.
But the recent rash of extremes has drawn some of them out.
Even cautious academics like Dennis Hartmann from the University of Washington in Seattle can’t hide their feelings completely.
He told me: “I do not use the ‘scary’ word.
"I prefer to talk about moving on to an economy in harmony with the natural world, but still providing a better life to humans.
“This is entirely possible. It is disheartening to me personally that we are moving faster in the opposite direction in most of the world.
“Much of what we are doing in increasing atmospheric CO2, extinction of species and destruction of ecosystems is nearly irreversible.
“So maybe it is time to be frightened.”

Links
UK commits to 'net zero' emissions by 2050
Climate change: Where we are in seven charts
What is climate change?
'Dirty secret' gas boosts climate warming

Why Declaring A National Climate Emergency Would Neither Be Realistic Or Effective

The Conversation - David Holmes

The Greens and independent MPs are pushing for Australia to declare a national ‘climate emergency’, in line with several other nations. Darren England/AAP

Predictably, both major political parties are resisting calls this week for a parliamentary conscience vote to declare a climate emergency in Australia.
The resistance is unsurprising because both the Coalition and Labor are still captive to the fossil fuel industry. Both fear alienating voters who believe that a mining job is somehow worth far more than a renewables job, though this is perhaps more true for Labor than the LNP.
A majority of Australians accept that climate change is happening, although, like the minister for natural disasters, David Littleproud, a surprising number don’t necessarily believe it is caused by humans. Moreover, when climate change is made an economic issue, many voters are less likely to support tougher action if they perceive this is going to impact on their cost of living.
Despite the fact he lost his own seat in the recent federal election, former PM Tony Abbott said the Coalition’s overall victory made this point abundantly clear.

Where climate change is a moral issue, we Liberals do it tough. But where climate change is an economic issue […] tonight shows we do very, very well.

Climate change vs the economy
There is no better illustration of Abbott’s zealous observation than in Queensland during the 2019 election.
Former Greens leader Bob Brown, believing he could turn the controversial Adani coal mine into another Franklin River dam, led a convoy of climate activists through Queensland towns. But pushing climate change as a moral issue became an insult to the coal communities there.

Bob Brown’s anti-Adani protests didn’t play well in some Queensland communities. Rohan Thomson/AAP

Labor also talked tough on climate change, with former leader Bill Shorten declaring in the final week of the May campaign:

It is not the Australian way to avoid and duck the hard fights. We will take this [climate change] emergency seriously.

At the same time, Labor vacillated over Adani. The party’s prevarication over climate led to much confusion, and when the votes were counted, it did not win a seat north of metro Brisbane.
Fast-forward to today, and the painful loss of the election has ensured that Labor isn’t taking any chances on coal.
In fact, shadow Foreign Minister Penny Wong didn’t hesitate last month when she said,

coal remains an important industry for Australia and it remains part of the global energy mix.

And Labor may now be preparing to walk away from its ambitious climate target of cutting emissions by 45% by 2030, in favour of a focus on a net-zero pollution target for 2050.
Greens leader Richard Di Natale accused Labor of “caving in to the coal, oil and gas lobby” if it abandons its 2030 emissions reduction target, and added,

Labor will have lost whatever remaining credibility it has on the climate crisis.

The politics of a national emergency
In many city councils and certain electorates across Australia, declaring a climate emergency has been a clever strategy both for political consumption and to mobilise behavioural change on a local scale.
But on a national scale, where climate change is so heavily politicised, the declaration of a climate change emergency would be an unmitigated disaster for the major parties, and for the cause of effectively communicating climate change.
This is not to say that climate change isn’t anything short of an emergency. It absolutely is.
The monstrous amounts of energy going into the oceans right now guarantees continued global warming that is fast heading towards the equivalent of the climatic violence of the Eemian period of 118,000 years ago.
And among the countless tipping points we are seeing unfold before us, the shock of a premature fire season in NSW and Queensland, with winter barely over, is just one way in which climate change is having an impact at a local level.

I just tabled a petition of 125,000 people asking the Parliament to declare a #ClimateEmergency.

We have to act like our country is on fire, because it literally is! The Parliament must recognise the crisis we're in and declare a climate emergency #auspol pic.twitter.com/ukMEpeatKB

— Mehreen Faruqi (@MehreenFaruqi) September 10, 2019

In some ways, there is no better time to raise awareness of climate change than during extreme weather events, as people are looking for explanations as to why they are occurring and how they can be so severe.
But to declare a national climate emergency, pushed so strongly by the Greens and independents, is not only politically difficult in Australia at the moment, it is also a hopeless communications strategy.

Communicating a climate emergency
Here are six reasons why declaring a climate emergency is so deeply problematic.

1. Without bipartisan support, which is likely to be the case, it will further entrench the politicisation of climate change in Australia. Australians are already divided on anthropogenic climate change, and are increasingly afflicted by issue fatigue. This is precisely because climate change is thrashed about as a political issue (which turns on opinion) rather than a matter of physics (which turns on facts).
2. If such a conscience vote fails in parliament, it will marginalise any well-intentioned instigators as a partisan minority.
3. If ever such a conscience vote succeeded, it would merely come to serve as a symbolic cover for inaction in the face of steadily rising emissions.
4. Without meaningful decarbonisation policies, such a declaration would become a twisted apologia for such inaction, as long as political parties are able to spin national accounting carbon emissions figures.
5. Recent research by the Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub found that the term “climate emergency” didn’t resonate with Australians as much as other phrases, such as climate change, global warming, extreme weather, climate crisis, and complex weather. Only 6.93% of Brisbane respondents and 4.03% of Melbourne respondents preferred “climate emergency” to the other terms.
6. By far the most overwhelming problem with such a declaration is that politicians are the least trusted sources of information on climate change.

To regain trust on climate change, politicians need to lead with genuinely effective policies and decisions, rather than the foil of a hollow sentiment that has no legal or economic status.
In the meantime, there needs to be better public understanding of the science behind climate change, delivered by trusted sources, that allows people to come to terms with the true urgency of the crisis.

Links

• Interactive: Everything you need to know about Adani – from cost, environmental impact and jobs to its possible future
• The fossil-fuelled political economy of Australian elections
• John Hewson Urges Liberal Conscience Vote On Climate Emergency
• World 'Gravely' Unprepared For Effects Of Climate Crisis – Report
• Climate Change: 'Invest $1.8 Trillion To Adapt'
• Climate Change, Poverty And Human Rights: An Emergency Without Precedent
• Australian Medical Association Declares Climate Change A Health Emergency
• Pope Urges Politicians To Take 'Drastic Measures' On Climate Change
• The Making Of An Emergency
• Wollongong Council Declares 'Climate Emergency'
• Australia’s Climate Stance Is Inflicting Criminal Damage On Humanity
• The Terrible Truth Of Climate Change
• Sydney declares a climate emergency – what does that mean in practice?

Fear Of Drought, Flood And Fires Leads Farmers To Plea For Urgent Action On Climate Change

ABC Rural - Tim Fookes

Farmer Robert Lee wants to see more action taken about the impact climate change is having on agriculture. (ABC Rural: Tim Fookes)

Key points A group of farmers concerned about the future has formed a lobby group, Farmers for Climate Action About 200 farmers from around NSW attended a conference this week to lobby for more action on climate change A climate scientist says farmers bring new perspectives that people may not have considered

Extreme weather variabilities have farmers like Robert Lee, who has just watched more of his cattle leave for greener pastures, on edge.
The farmer from Larras Lee, in central west New South Wales, has lived through drought before, but not like this.
"The cattle I had were about to start calving, and I just haven't got enough to feed them," he said.
"I was proud of those cows that have gone this week; I bred them, and I regret I have to sell them."
Having already destocked, Mr Lee knows of other farmers destocking because there is a better opportunity for them in southern NSW and Victoria where they have had rain.
"The agents tell me how embarrassed they are with the amount of rain they've had in Victoria," Mr Lee said.
"But it's great to hear that some people have had [rain] and have got some grass to take on stock that we can't handle.

"With the way the climate is, with warmer-than-average temperatures and lower rainfall, I have to be much more nimble with how much stock I have."

Drought conditions in NSW is pushing farmers to demand urgent action on climate change. (ABC News: Caitlyn Gribbin)

Farmers for climate activism
Mr Lee is not alone in his concerns over the climate and has become a member of the lobby group, Farmers for Climate Action.
It involves people from rural Australia pushing for more action on the effects that climate change is having on agriculture.
A conference this week in Orange attracted nearly 200 people to discuss ways of lobbying for more action on the effects a warming, dryer climate is having on those who make a living on the land.
Two thirds of those at the conference were farmers who had travelled from around NSW to attend.

Cootamundra farmer John Angus is urging farmers to pressure for more climate change action. (ABC Rural: Tim Fookes)

Among those who made the trip was John Angus, an agronomist with the CSIRO for 40 years who now farms near Cootamundra.

"It's bloody inspiring to see so many farmers concerned about what is going on," he said.

"We can make a difference [and] if we can suppress the methane emissions from grazing animals, it will make a big improvement.
"Due to climate change, the production of crops will become more difficult, because cropping leads to a reduction of soil carbon of two to three percent a year, and that can't be avoided."

Urgent action needed
The drought affecting much of Queensland and New South Wales has added to the concern some farmers have that not enough is being done to prevent extreme weather conditions.
While the issue of climate change can still be a tough sell for some, for those who say the science is irrefutable, there needs to be a more concerted effort to focus on doing what is possible to combat the risk of drought and floods.

Farmers are being encouraged to put up signs showing their support for climate change action. (ABC Rural: Tim Fookes)

"In the last five years there has been a general sway in terms of the view of climate change," said Steven Crimp, a climate applications scientist at the Australian National University.

"When farmers talk about the impact of climate change, it's particularly valuable.

"They bring in new ideas and new points of discussion on the ways of farmers that people may not have thought of before."

Impact on farming
With rising average temperatures and more variable rainfall, those on the land will bear the brunt of more frequent drought.
In the past 100 years of records, the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has found a one degree Celsius rise in temperature, leading to more extreme weather events.

Australian farmers need to be given climate information to enable them to make good decisions says one expert. (ABC Wide Bay: Brad Marsellos, file photo)

"We've seen an increase in heat events and while we have seen drought events in the past, this one is severe," Lynette Bettio, a senior BOM climatologist said.
"We are seeing these record high temperatures with the drought, so that's increasing its intensity.

"Our farmers are at the forefront of dealing with this [and] are already some of the most adaptable in the world, given Australia's variable climate.

"But they need to be given the information about the climate so they can make the decisions they need to."

Getting heads around science
Harden farmer Peter Holding was among those to organise the Farmers for Climate Action conference.
"I've farmed for 40 years and the last 20, it's just been getting drier and drier," he said.
"I live in an area of southern NSW that supposedly got one drought every 10 years, but we rarely have a good year anymore; it's just not normal.
"I don't know why some people continue to put out fallacious arguments about the effect of climate change because they do enormous damage to the farming community by being wrong."
As Mr Holding looked across the room full of farmers concerned about the current situation and future, he was of the belief they could make a difference at a national and individual level.
"It gives us confidence and hope that the discussion around climate change is becoming more logical as people get their head around the science," he said.

Links

• How climate change is affecting what we grow and eat
• Military and government figures have been wargaming to prepare for climate change — they're worried
• Are farmers getting climate change support?
• Push to mass farm puffy pink seaweed that stops cows burping methane
• Watch: Australia's drought crisis on iView
• Water supplies drying up as drought continues to ravage rural Australia
• Where has drought aid been allocated and what difference is it making?
• How can I help? The dos and don'ts of drought donation
• What you need to know about droughts
• The big dry: 'See us, hear us, help us'

Green With Rage: Women Climate Change Leaders Face Online Attacks

The Conversation - Tracey Raney | Mackenzie Gregory

Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna has had to hire security due to sexist vitriol aimed at her in public. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

Women leaders who support climate action are being attacked online with increasing regularity. These attacks should be viewed as a problem not only for the planet, but also to the goals of achieving gender equality and more inclusive, democratic politics.
Catherine McKenna, Canada’s environment and climate change minister, recently announced that she’s had to hire security to protect herself and her family while in public. With an election now on, it’s likely she’ll face further abuse in the weeks to come.
McKenna hired security after she was out with her children and a driver rolled down his window and shouted: “F-k you, Climate Barbie.” This sexist taunt was popularized by Conservative MP Gerry Ritz, who once used the slur in reference to McKenna on Twitter.
It resulted in a tsunami of #Climatebarbie hashtags and variations of the slur ever since. Ritz has since apologized and deleted the original tweet.

A worldwide problem
Unfortunately, vitriol directed at women leaders who support climate action is becoming more frequent in Canada and beyond.
Maxime Bernier, leader of the Peoples’ Party of Canada, recently tweeted at 16-year-old activist Greta Thunberg, calling her:

“…clearly mentally unstable. Not only autistic, but obsessive-compulsive, eating disorder, depression and lethargy, and she lives in a constant state of fear.”

Other “green” women leaders have spoken out about the sexism they have experienced, including Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, Tzeporah Berman from Stand.Earth and Catherine Abreu from the Climate Action Network.
Following the proposal of the New Green Deal by U.S. congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, critics attacked her intelligence and her personal and professional background. National Review writer Charles Cooke referred to her as an “unmarried, childless bartender” who “somehow has the temerity to fancy herself a congressional representative.” He claimed the New Green Deal she supports is:

“ …an untrammeled Dear Santa letter without form, purpose, borders, or basis in reality.”

When New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern spoke about climate change, an Australian “shock jock” broadcaster said someone should “shove a sock down [her] throat.”

Nothing new
Violence and threats of violence against women leaders are certainly not new. According to research by Rutgers University professor Mona Lena Krook and University of Florida professor Juliana Restrepo Sanỉn, women in politics experience violence, sexism and sexual harassment because of the threat they pose working in a male-dominated field.
Sexist attacks and threats of violence therefore serve to discredit women’s ideas and delegitimize their power, with the ultimate goal of excluding them from the public sphere.
Other research shows that the higher their position of power, the more threatening women become.
Although male politicians are also attacked online, recent research in the United Kingdom reveals that the effects of online attacks are particularly difficult for women politicians to deal with. That’s because women MPs are more likely to fear for their safety compared to their male colleagues.
Attacks against women climate leaders specifically can be further explained by the relationship between misogyny and climate denialism.

Misogyny at work
Unlike sexism, an ideology that promotes patriarchal social relations, misogyny is an enforcement mechanism that seeks to punish women who challenge the traditional patriarchal order, according to Cornell University professor Kate Manne.
Climate denialism has also been linked to traditional assumptions of masculinity. Research shows that climate deniers are more likely to adhere to older forms of industrial modern masculinity that helped to push society towards “industrialization, mechanism and capitalism.”
Accordingly, some climate deniers prefer this older form of masculinity over a newer “eco-modern masculinity” of care and compassion for the environment.
A 2019 study found that some men will avoid certain environmental actions, such as recycling or using reusable shopping bags, in order to maintain “an outward-facing heterosexual identity.”
These versions of heterosexual masculinity appear to be predicated upon the domination and exploitation, rather than the preservation, of the environment.

A double threat
Women leaders who promote climate policies are therefore doubly threatening to those who hold misogynistic attitudes. First, simply by being women in a powerful position and, second, by espousing policies that directly challenge traditional norms of masculinity.
“Green rage” directed at women climate leaders thus serves the function of safeguarding male dominance by punishing women who challenge the patriarchal social order. The result is a toxic brew of masculinity directed at women climate leaders by way of sexist attacks and threats of violence.

Even Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, 16, has faced misogynistic online abuse, including from Canada’s Maxime Bernier. (AP Photo/Jeenah Moon)

Social media reactions to McKenna’s announcement that she now requires security for her and her family reveal how deeply embedded misogynistic attitudes are about women today.
After she tweeted about how difficult it is for women working on climate issues, some tweeters expressed support and sympathy. But many others denied that gender played a role in the attacks against her. Others continued to degrade her with sexist language, using hashtags #hypocriteBarbie and, once again, #climateBarbie.
Canadians go to the polls soon and the climate crisis is bound to be a heated campaign issue in the weeks to come.
Understanding the complex and challenging terrain women leaders must navigate is an important requirement of an informed electorate.
While some women politicians like McKenna have attempted to tackle head on the problem of online attacks against them, it should not be left to women alone to combat this issue. Dismantling patriarchal assumptions about gender is not just good for women, it is also good for men — and for the planet.

Links

• Women Take The Lead On Climate Change
• The Misogyny Of Climate Deniers
• Can Women Save Planet Earth? 4 Women Fighting Climate Change Say They Can — And Must
• From Antarctica To Costa Rica, Women Team Up To Build A Climate-Safe Future
• Woman Fest Founder Plans Training Camp For Climate Rebels
• 25 Female Climate Leaders Shaping 2019
• These Women Are Changing The Landscape Of Antarctic Research
• Sydney Wins Bid To Host Major Climate Conference For Women In 2020
• Young Women More Likely To Care About Climate Change: Study
• Climate Change Is Everyone's Problem. Women Are Ready To Solve It
• Mary Robinson Launches New Feminist Fight Against Climate Change
• Climate Change A 'Man-Made Problem With A Feminist Solution' Says Robinson
• Margaret Atwood: Women Will Bear Brunt Of Dystopian Climate Future
• Where Women Lead On Climate Change
• Indigenous Women Show The Way For Banks To Divest From Fossil Fuels
• Climate Change 'Impacts Women More Than Men'
• Women Key To Fight Against Climate Change
• When Environmental Crises Hit Homes, Women Suffer The Most
• To Stop Climate Change, Educate Girls And Give Them Birth Control
• Lack Of Women In Energy ‘Holding Back Fight Against Climate Change’
• Bringing Women Together To Fight Climate Change
• Another barrier for women in politics: Violence

Littleproud's Gaffe And PM's Reluctance Only Reinforce Australia's Climate Reputation

The Guardian - Adam Morton

Most major players, including China, remain committed to the Paris process in a way Australia apparently is not

David Littleproud's flip flop on climate science

On one level it appeared just another week in Australian climate politics. A ridiculous statement by a government minister made headlines; the crossbench pushed for stronger action; the prime minister’s office quietly suggested he may not fulfil the next step of the Paris agreement, a deal he has repeatedly promised voters he would honour.
Meanwhile, much of the media coverage of climate policy focused on what the opposition might do if it wins power in three years’ time.
But the repercussions from decisions made public this week may reverberate longer than was immediately obvious.
First, the ridiculous. David Littleproud, the minister responsible for drought and natural disasters, made international news after telling Guardian Australia he did not know if climate change was manmade. By Thursday, he was saying he had always accepted the science on the role humans play in the climate changing. He blamed his initial statement on a TV interview being cut short, neglecting to acknowledge it first appeared in an email responding to questions from this publication.
The minister’s position was backed to varying degrees by cabinet colleagues who played down the need to focus on the link between the climate crisis and bushfires ravaging Queensland and New South Wales or, in the case of the resources minister, Matt Canavan, volunteered that the government supported “sensible responses” to the issue that included supporting coal and gas developments.
If this all sounds wearyingly familiar and anti-science, it is worth noting Littleproud’s past comments back his claim that he more or less accepts mainstream science and the need to respond, if not the urgency scientists say is necessary. Beyond reinforcing Australia’s reputation as a global laggard on the climate emergency, his misstep was extraordinary mostly for illustrating the extent to which relative centrists within the Coalition are tying themselves in knots to avoid the wrath of the hard right.
But put Littleproud’s gaffe aside. Confirmation by my colleague Katharine Murphy that Scott Morrison will not attend a climate summit convened by the UN secretary general later this month, despite landing in the US that week to meet Donald Trump, is more significant – and not just for surface-level appearance reasons.
Morrison was not offered a speaking slot at the summit because he turned down António Guterres’ call for leaders to come to New York armed with concrete plans to boost national climate commitments next year. The foreign minister, Marise Payne, will attend in his place. While it has received relatively little attention beyond the Guardian, international observers are interpreting it as a sign Australia is backing away from its pledge under the Paris agreement.
It’s worth looking at what Australia signed up to in France in 2015. The overarching goal agreement is to limit global heating to well below 2C and as close to 1.5C as possible. To get there, countries included a “ratchet-up” mechanism. Every five years, they would update their commitments (known, in the UN’s typically alienating language, as “nationally determined contributions”) informed by the latest science.
Everyone in Paris knew the initial targets set for 2030 were nothing like enough. Everyone knew the success of the pact would depend on countries lifting their commitments sooner rather than later. The point was reinforced last year when the world’s climate scientists, under the banner of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released a major report examining what would be necessary to limit heating to 1.5C.The report, which was requested by leaders in Paris, was stark. As Guterres has noted, it suggests a global 45% cut in emissions is needed by 2030 to keep the 1.5C goal within reach – a significant ask, but one in which analysts have found Australia could play its part.
Armed with that information, leaders are now supposed to be doing their part: ramping up commitments for the first five-yearly update of the Paris agreement next year.
As one of the world’s 15 biggest emitters and a wealthy developed country, what Australia does is noticed. But in a comment to the Guardian this week, Morrison’s office offered nothing to suggest a change was on the cards as promised. “Australia has already outlined our policies to tackle climate change including cutting our emissions by 26-28% and investing directly into climate resilience projects through our regional partners,” a spokesman said.
Australia has an infamous history of fudging on its climate targets, dating back to the first stage of the Kyoto Protocol, when it demanded a target that allowed it to increase pollution by 8%. It also pushed for the inclusion of land-use changes in its baseline year of 1990, an historically high year for Australian carbon pollution from rampant land clearing in Queensland.
As land clearing had already reduced in the years that followed, it meant Australia could meet its goal while it continued to dramatically expand fossil fuel operations. It set up a situation where it could claim to be playing its part while doing no such thing.
That approach has continued. Australia has changed baseline years to make cuts appear deeper than they are and set targets that ignore scientific advice. Its has set low emissions reduction targets and then wants to claim extra credit towards its next target for beating the first goal. The credits go to Australia, not the atmosphere.
As has been well documented, Australia’s national emissions have risen four years straight. Multiple analyses have found existing climate change policies are not enough to meet the current 2030 target.
It would be foolish to be Pollyannaish about the state of international action to combat climate change. Global emissions increased last year after plateauing for a couple of years in the middle of the decade. The national governments of the biggest emitters, China and the US, either give mixed messages or are actively opposed to taking action.
But most major players, China included, remain committed to the Paris process in a way Australia is not. High-level discussions between China and the European Union about increasing their emissions commitments are ongoing. India is watching those talks closely ahead of announcing its position next year. More than 60 countries have signed up to give a presentation at the NYC climate summit, according to an early list seen by the Guardian.
Amid this, Australia’s plans are unclear at best. It has committed to develop a long-term strategy, but not explained what this will mean. It is possible it could still take an increased 2030 target to the UN climate conference in Glasgow next year. But it has said nothing to indicate this is likely.
Why does this matter? Beyond it going against Australia’s pledge in 2015, it makes deeper cuts in the future that much harder. Bill Hare, the chief executive and senior scientist with Climate Analytics, says it is well established scientifically that inadequate emissions reductions by 2030 leaves little to no chance of reaching zero emissions by 2050, the underlying goal implied by the Paris deal.
Visiting bushfire-damaged Queensland on Friday, Morrison followed a familiar formula: he accepted that climate change was a factor in what he was witnessing and claimed Australia was acting. “We have already responded and we will continue to respond, to take action on climate change. I do not accept any suggestion that we do not,” he said.
It is a proven technique: straight denial despite all the evidence running the other way. But talk to international observers of climate efforts and the view is different. Australia is seen as a roadblock, more focused on expanding its coal and gas exports than supporting a global solution. As efforts build ahead of Glasgow next year, Morrison may find it is not just the Pacific pushing back.

Links

• Australian natural disasters minister's complete about face: 'I believe in climate science'
• Scott Morrison won't attend UN climate summit despite being in the US
• UN chief calls for 2050 zero emissions plans – but Australia remains tightlipped
• Australia's annual carbon emissions reach record highAustralia’s carbon emissions highest on record, data shows
• Australia turns back on allies as it refuses to cut emissions above Paris pledge
• PM claims Australia will meet Paris target 'in a canter' despite emissions climbing
• Renewable energy spike led to sharp drop in emissions in Australia, study shows

Danish Project Aims To Plant 1m Trees Across Nation In TV Fundraiser

The Guardian - Gregory Robinson

Telethon asking viewers to give £2.4m for forests project to help tackle climate crisis

The prime minister of Denmark, Mette Frederiksen, will plant one of the first trees in the live telethon. Photograph: Mads Claus Rasmussen/AFP/Getty Images

People in Denmark will be able to “plant trees” from the comfort of their sofa in what is believed to be the world’s first TV fundraiser for forests.

On Saturday the national broadcaster TV2 will air Denmark Plants Trees, a two-and-a-half hour live benefit event which will ask viewers to donate funds to plant 1m trees across the country.
Planting trees helps to reduce levels of CO₂ and is seen as a central part of the climate crisis solution.
The telethon will take place in the middle of Gisselfeld Klosters Skove forest with the prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, planting one of the first trees.

Martin Sundstrøm, a producer for the event, said viewers would be encouraged to raise 20m kroner (£2.4m) to help the Danish Society for Nature Conservation plant 1m trees, while 10% of the money raised would go to WWF to help save tropical forests.
Nicolai Hansson, the editor of TV2, said: “We know we won’t solve the climate crisis just by planting trees, but hopefully people will feel that it’s something tangible that they can be an active part of and enjoy afterwards when they visit the new forests and watch them grow and flourish.”
Those who donate to the cause will become a member of a new “folk forests” initiative, which will be created close to Danish cities. The project has 600 hectares (1482 acres) of land ready, and more will be added in the future.
“All potential areas have been evaluated and prioritised based on suitability by forest experts from the Danish Society for Nature Conservation,” Sundstrøm said. “After Saturday there will be a number of tree planting events all over Denmark. The first events will be this autumn and then in spring 2020 a larger number of events will take place depending on how much we raise. If we raise the funds to plant one million trees we expect around 30 events.”
Sundstrøm said he hoped to see Denmark Plants Trees lead to similar events in other countries. “I hope events like this might spread to other countries in order to engage the public, like Live Aid did in 1985.”
Sara Lom, CEO of the UK’s Tree Council charity, said she would welcome a tree planting telethon in the UK. “To plant enough trees to help tackle climate change we will need everyone to get involved – and fast,” said Lom. “A national TV telethon – or a tree-athon if you will – would be a wonderful way of engaging people around the country to raise money to plant and care for more trees.”

Links

• Tree planting 'has mind-blowing potential' to tackle climate crisis
• World losing area of forest the size of the UK each year, report finds
• How climate’s impact on land threatens civilisation – and how to fix it
• Brazilian Amazon deforestation surges to break August records
• Brazilian minister booed at climate event as outcry grows over Amazon fires
• Jair Bolsonaro claims NGOs behind Amazon forest fire surge – but provides no evidence
• Ethiopia plants 350m trees in a day to help tackle climate crisis
• ‘Death by a thousand cuts’: vast expanse of rainforest lost in 2018