The ACT Is Set To Run On 100 Per Cent Net Renewable Energy. What Does That Mean?

Sydney Morning Herald - Nick Bonyhady

The Australian Capital Territory has accomplished an Australian first. Is it now covered in wind farms and solar panels? And are other states following?

ACT Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability Shane Rattenbury at Crookwell 2 wind farm. Credit: Sitthixay Ditthavong

It's the first Australian jurisdiction to legalise medicinal cannabis, the first to enshrine animals rights such as freedom of movement in law and now, as of October, it is set to be the first major place outside Europe to transition to 100 per cent net renewable energy.
Spring has been busy in the Australian Capital Territory.

What about that 100 per cent renewables gong? It's an impressive statement at a time when there is still widespread debate about how Australia should tackle climate change and federal energy policy has produced an impasse that helped see off Malcolm Turnbull twice as Liberal leader.

But if it conjures an image of the national capital overrun with solar panels and a windmill in every back yard, the reality is very different and much more complex.
So what does "100 per cent net renewables" mean? Will it help fight climate change? And will be all soon be following suit?

What does "100 per cent net renewable energy" mean?
Let's break it down. The renewable energy part is fairly simple: it refers to energy that is naturally replenished and does not run out. The 100 per cent means that there is enough of it to meet Canberra's energy needs. It's the net where things get complicated.
If it was a gross target that Canberra had met, it would indeed be running entirely on energy from wind and solar farms. That would require better transmission lines to the ACT, more local generation and huge batteries to make up for varying power output from renewable sources.

By contrast, a net target means the ACT has bought an amount of renewable energy equal to what it needs from suppliers around the country but, because the ACT is connected to the national grid, the energy it actually uses comes from power stations all over the country.

Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor, a critic of the ACT's scheme, says "93.6 per cent of the ACT’s electricity comes from the NSW grid, which continues to be dependent on coal and gas". According to the Department of the Environment and Energy, "coal and gas account for about 85 per cent of electricity generation" nationally.
But while the ACT is still powered mostly by coal and gas, the renewable energy it has bought is being used in place of coal and gas by consumers in other parts of the country. In short, the ACT and its suppliers are putting the same amount of renewable energy into the national grid as the total amount of energy used in the ACT by homes and businesses.
Shane Rattenbury, the ACT's minister for climate change, likens what the ACT is doing to depositing money in a bank and withdrawing it from an ATM. "You don't receive the same note you deposited but you still have $100," Mr Rattenbury says.

Where does all that renewable power come from?
The ACT is known for its national cultural institutions, a man-made lake and good odds of sighting a prominent politician at the local IGA but not for generating power. While there are some small solar farms on the outskirts of Canberra, most of the ACT's renewable power is generated outside the territory.

There are three ways the ACT has secured renewable power:

• About 77 per cent comes from large-scale contracts the ACT has signed directly with renewable, primarily wind, producers in Victoria, NSW and South Australia.
• Another 21 per cent is what the ACT has bought from renewable energy producers operating within the National Energy Target, a Commonwealth scheme to encourage the production of more renewable energy.
• Households in the ACT with rooftop solar contribute the remaining 2 per cent.

Source: ACT Government

Does it matter?

Electricity accounts for more of Australia's emissions than any other source, at about a third of the country's total, figures from the federal Department of the Environment and Energy show. However, only about 0.2 per cent of national emissions from all sources come from the ACT.
That suggests the ACT's accomplishment will have a minimal impact on national greenhouse gas emissions alone.

But it is part of a broader story. Hugh Saddler, an honorary associate professor at the ANU who also works in the renewable sector, says having guaranteed government demand lets renewable developers access cheap financing to build more wind and solar farms.

And he says that, with the federal large-scale renewable energy target for 2020 nearing fulfilment, government investment is becoming more important for the sector.

How big a step is this?
The ACT is not the first state or country to go 100 per cent net renewable. A report by the Australia Institute, a progressive think tank, notes that regions in Spain, Austria and Germany have done the same. The rural German district of Rhein-Hunsrück was the first of the current wave, in 2012.
Several other countries are also already reliant on renewable power, including Ethiopia, which uses hydro power, as does Iceland in conjunction with geothermal power generation. But Dan Cass, who wrote the Australia Institute report, says those countries' transitions "predate climate challenges and recent renewable development".
The ACT's transition to renewable energy, Mr Rattenbury says, shows how cities, regions and countries "can roll out renewables in a cost-effective way … getting the best deal for consumers".

Iceland has been running on renewables for years – its water comes out of the ground piping hot. Credit: Alamy

What difference does it make to Canberrans' hip pockets?
The ACT government initially estimated that achieving its renewable energy target would cost households at most $5.50 per week next year before later declining.
But the actual cost might be different because the ACT buys most of its renewable power at fixed prices. When the actual power it uses from the grid is cheaper than the fixed price, it pays the renewable provider the difference. When the grid power is more expensive – on a hot summer day, for example – the renewable provider compensates the ACT.
Associate Professor Bruce Mountain, director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre, says he would be unsurprised if customers in the ACT were currently paying substantially less than $5.50 because market power prices are so high.

Hornsdale wind farm in South Australia.

How did the ACT reach its target?

The ACT legislated a 100 per cent renewable target in 2016, with the goal of hitting it by 2020. It then conducted a series of reverse auctions for renewable power. In a reverse auction, the cheapest bid (in addition to other criteria) rather than the most expensive, wins.

The last of the renewable energy supplies contracted under that process, at the Hornsdale wind farm in South Australia, commences in October, meaning the ACT will achieve its goal as planned.

Are other states following the ACT's lead?
There was wide variation in how much renewable energy each state generated last year, according to a report by the Clean Energy Council, a renewable energy industry body.
Tasmania produced the most renewable energy as a share of production and raw amount but NSW generated the second-highest raw amount, despite being lower in percentage terms. Associate Professor Mountain says, "Of the new wind and solar clean energy sources, in absolute amounts, Queensland, NSW and Victoria will be neck and neck by 2022."


But generation is different to consumption, which is where the ACT claims its 100 per cent net renewable crown. On consumption, the states all have different targets.  

• A Tasmanian government spokeswoman says the state, which has plentiful wind and hydro power, was "on target to deliver full self-sufficiency in renewables by 2022".
• Queensland has a 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030.
• Victoria has a 40 per cent target by 2025 but is exploring how to match Queensland's. It has used reverse auctions similar to those pioneered in Australia by the ACT.
• A South Australian government spokeswoman says the state intends to be 100 per cent net renewable by "early in the 2030s".

• New South Wales does not have a renewable energy target but supports the Commonwealth's target and a net zero emissions target across its economy by 2050.
• Western Australia also has no renewable energy target but Energy Minister Bill Johnston says the state's "aspiration is net zero emissions by 2050".

Spokespeople for the states say their respective governments are investing in a range of renewable energy and infrastructure projects.
Net zero emissions take into account all emissions, rather than only those caused by generating power, but states with general zero emissions targets will still need to increase their use of renewable power to meet their targets.

Where is the ACT going from here?
Going renewable isn't an end in itself. The goal is to reduce emissions overall and the ACT also has a zero emissions target, set for 2045.
As the ACT has little agriculture, natural resource refinement or manufacturing, it is trying to reduce emissions from another source: natural gas.
The government's plan to phase out natural gas use has proved controversial, as it will require switching everything from buses to household heaters and stove tops to electricity.
At the same time, the ACT's population, and therefore power usage, is growing, so the government has announced another round of reverse auctions to buy more renewable power.

How will this affect the grid?
With blackouts in South Australia and some renewable providers struggling to find space on transmission lines to get their power to consumers, it is no secret the Australian electricity grid is struggling.
Associate Professor Mountain says the grid was built for a period in which "each state has historically had its fossil-fuel coal basins and most transmission capacity has been from there."
With renewable energy spread out around the country, "we need to build infrastructure for generation that is not where it has historically been," he says.
If all states were to follow the ACT without improving power infrastructure, the grid would be unable to cope. The ACT's Shane Rattenbury says he is aware of the risk.
"We need to build a grid that can cope with the energy of the future not the energy of the past."

Links

• Wind And Solar Set New Generation Records Across Australia Grid In July
• Clean Energy Set To Provide 35% Of Australia's Electricity Within Two Years
• Call To Arms: How Can Australia Avoid A Slow And Painful Decline?
• CSIRO, NAB Chair Say Shift To 100% Renewables Inevitable, And Likely By 2050
• Australia To Achieve 50% Renewables By 2030 Without Government Intervention, Analysis Finds
• War On Wind And Renewable Energy Must End
• Australia Can Be Powered 100% By Renewables By Early 2030s, Says Garnaut
• Jump In Renewable Energy Jobs As Solar Farms Overtake Hydro Power
• 2018 Was Boom Year For Renewables Despite Political Chaos, Report Finds
• Australia Has Enough Solar, Wind Storage In Pipeline To Go 100% Renewables

Communicating Climate Change, For A Change

Pro Bono News - Gabrielle Chamberland

Gabrielle Chamberland from Ellis Jones shares eight ways to talk about climate change that can help you stay motivated and prompt others into action. 

While almost two-thirds of Australians believe climate change is a “critical threat”, we are still far from delivering the change we need to avoid a climate catastrophe. Why is probably a more difficult question to answer than how. How can we stay motivated, and keep others engaged and motivated to act as well?
Scaring people about climate change has not necessarily led to action. Social psychology and behaviour change theory point to some better techniques which can benefit campaigns, communications and community engagement to promote individual and collective action.
Underpinned by some recent work developed by the Australian Psychological Society, here are eight ways to talk about climate change, in ways more people are likely to listen to.

Inspire positive visions
Messages of hope are more likely to drive action than messages of distress, as we tend to ignore negative communications to avoid feeling low. When talking about climate change, make sure to incorporate positive narratives, such as the opportunity to live in a healthier environment, to have meaningful careers, and to better connect with community if we change.

Build bridges between climate change values and your audience’s values
Values such as “caring for others”, “empathy”, “cooperation”, and “innovation”, are linked to climate change values. When we are shown that our values will express themselves if we adopt sustainable behaviours, we are more likely to adopt this behaviour. For example, ask your audience to care and show empathy for wildlife, climate refugees and their kids (if they have demonstrated values of “caring for others”, “empathy”). Ask them to cooperate with others by participating in the sharing economy (“cooperation”), or to innovate by entering the next engineering competition benefiting marine life (“innovation”). Know their values and how to talk about them.

Create and use social norms
We all want to feel accepted by the groups we belong to or aspire to belong to. This means we are likely to adopt the behaviours our social groups value, to fit in. You can drive behaviour change by communicating a pro-environmental behaviour as something that people like your audience, or that your audience aspires to be, are already doing. Talk about the doings of local leaders and respected public figures, build partnerships with the social groups your audience follows and encourage them to share their pro-environmental behaviours or ask your audience to talk about theirs on social media.

Make action easy and local
Since we tend to be time-poor these days, we need behaviour change to be as easy as possible for us to do it. So, break it down for your audience and give them the tools to make a valuable change easily. Our feelings of responsibility for the environment are also greatest at the neighbourhood level. Whenever possible, talk about how a change in behaviour will drive positive change in someone’s own community or neighbourhood.

Give feedback
We’re more likely to keep going if we feel proud and energised. Provide regular positive feedback to your audience and communicate the change they’ve generated. Tell them how they can improve their behaviour given results to date and show them how they’re doing in comparison to others tackling the same behaviour change challenge.

Acknowledge feelings
When we feel distressed about climate change, we may choose not to engage with climate change communications to avoid feeling low. To relieve these feelings, be honest with your audience and tell them you’re feeling the same. It’s okay to share sad news, express frustration, and rejoice in triumph. This can help people feel connected to your cause and to you. They will be more likely to acknowledge their feelings and take positive steps to tackle climate change.

Bring people outdoors
Most of us now live in cities, which means we are more likely to feel disconnected from nature than we used to. However, a strong relationship with nature tends to give rise to environmentally responsible behaviour. So, encourage your audience to get outdoors and experience nature. You can organise outdoor events for your cause, and make your audience feel more connected to nature.

The time to act is now: use it
For a long time, we’ve tended to push back acting on climate change because the threat felt too distant. But these days, we’re definitely starting to feel the effects of climate change. We feel the hotter days, hear about bushfires, have seen corals disappear. While this is all sad news, crisis motivates people to act. So, speak up about what’s happening locally, now, and let your audience know how to act.

Final thoughts
Our climate change buddy has been around for a long time, along with deeply anchored psychological responses to climate change communications and strong barriers to change. This is why we need targeted communications strategies to generate behaviour change.
Know who you’re talking to, and choose words, facts, stories, and visuals carefully to drive change. Together, let’s not breakdown the climate, let’s breakdown behaviours.

Links

• How To Talk Effectively About Climate Change
• Want To Do Something About Global Warming? Talk About It With Your Family And Friends
• The Counter-Intuitive Solution To Getting People To Care About Climate Change
• Climate Change Is Scaring Kids. Here’s How To Talk To Them.
• It’s Time To Change The Climate Disaster Script. People Need Hope That Things Can Change
• Not Everyone Cares About Climate Change, But Reproach Won’t Change Their Minds
• Changing Minds: How Do You Communicate With Climate Change Skeptics?
• Language Matters When The Earth Is In The Midst Of A Climate Crisis
• Can Comedy Help Communicate Climate Change?

Climate Explained: What Each Of Us Can Do To Reduce Our Carbon Footprint

The Conversation - Nick Golledge

As an individual, what is the single, most important thing I can do in the face of climate change?

Eating less meat is one change many of us can make to reduce our contribution to climate change.
www.shutterstock.com, CC BY-ND

---

Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz

---

The most important individual climate action will depend on each person’s particular circumstances, but each of us can make some changes to reduce our own carbon footprint and to support others to do the same.
Generally, there are four lifestyle choices that can make a major difference: eat less or no meat, forego air travel, go electric or ditch your car, and have fewer children.
In New Zealand, half of our greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. This is more than all transport, power generation and manufacturing industries combined. Clearly the single biggest change an individual can make is therefore to reduce meat and dairy consumption. A shift from animal to plant-sourced protein would give us a 37% better chance of keeping temperature rise under 2℃ and an almost 50% better chance of staying below 1.5℃ - the targets of the Paris agreement.
Best of all, this can be done right now, at whatever level you can manage, and there are many people taking this step.
One aspect that is often overlooked is that carnivorous pets (mainly dogs, cats) consume lots of meat, with all the associated impacts described above. A recent US study concluded that dog and cat ownership is responsible for nearly one third of the environmental impacts associated with animal production (land use, water, fossil fuels). So ideally, if you’re getting a new pet, go for something herbivorous.

Buy locally, eat seasonally
Buy local produce, whether it’s food grown locally or goods manufactured locally rather than imported from overseas. Goods that are transported around the world by sea account for 3.3% of global carbon dioxide emissions and 33% of all trade-related emissions from fossil fuel combustion, so reducing our dependence on imports makes a big difference to our overall carbon footprint.
Car use is a problem, because we all enjoy the personal mobility cars provide. But it comes with an excessively high carbon cost. Using public transport where possible is of course preferable, but for some the lack of personal freedom is a big disadvantage, as well as the sometimes less than perfect transit networks that exist in many parts of the country.
One alternative for many people looking to commute short distances might be an e-bike, but think of it as an alternative to your car rather than a replacement for your bike. For those looking to replace their car, buying a hybrid or full electric model would be the best thing from an emissions perspective, even if the production of the cars themselves isn’t entirely without environmental problems.
New Zealand’s network of electric vehicle (EV) chargers is growing rapidly, but generally speaking it is easiest to charge at home if you’re doing daily commutes. This becomes economical if you have an electricity supplier offering a special low rate for EV charging.
On the subject of electricity, an easy and quick way to reduce your carbon footprint is to switch to a supplier that generates electricity only from renewable sources. In New Zealand, we have an abundance of renewable options, from solar, wind and hydro.

Plant trees
Planting trees requires having some space, but if you have land available, planting trees is a great way to invest in longer-term carbon sequestration. There is a lot of variability between species, but as a rule of thumb, a tree that lives to 40 or 50 years will have taken up about a ton of carbon dioxide.
Air travel is, for many of us, an essential part of our work. There is some progress in the field of aviation emissions reductions, but it is still a long way off. In the short term we have to find alternatives, whether that is in the form of teleconferencing or, if travel is essential, carbon offsetting schemes (although this is far from a perfect solution unfortunately).
Vote for climate-aware politicians and council representatives. These are the people who have the power to implement changes beyond the scope of individual actions. Make your voice heard through voting, and by contributing to discussion and consultation processes.
Community initiatives such as tree planting or shared gardens, or just maintaining wild spaces are ideal for carbon sequestration. This isn’t just because of the plants these spaces accommodate, but also because of the soil. Globally, soil holds two to three times more carbon than the atmosphere, but the ability of soil to retain this depends on it being managed well. Generally speaking, the longer and more densely planted an area of soil is, the better it will sequester carbon.

How to cope
One of the frustrations is the realisation that climate change is not something that can be left to politicians to deal with on our behalf. The urgency is simply too great. The responsibility has been implicitly devolved to the individual, without any prior consent.
But individual actions are massively important in two ways. First, they have an immediate impact on our total carbon footprint, without any of the inertia of political machinations. Secondly, by adopting and advocating for low-carbon life choices, individuals are sending a clear message to political leaders that a growing proportion of the voting population will favour policies that are aligned with similar priorities.
It is of course hard to stand your ground and stick with new lifestyle choices when you feel surrounded by people who choose not to change, or worse, actively mock and criticise. This is normal human psychology. People subconsciously tend to feel attacked if they see someone else making a so-called ethical or moral choice, as if they themselves are being judged, or criticised.
In the context of climate change, the science is so overwhelmingly clear, and the current and future impacts so manifestly important, that not to acknowledge this in a meaningful manner either reflects a lack of understanding or awareness, or is simply selfish. Rather than taking issue with those members of society, a more positive approach that can help you cope with the feeling of marginalisation is to actively seek out like-minded people.

Links

• Including animal to plant protein shifts in climate change mitigation policy: a proposed three-step strategy
• Tree Facts
• Put more carbon in soils to meet Paris climate pledges
• Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats (pdf)
• Climate explained: why plants don't simply grow faster with more carbon dioxide in air
• The rise of 'eco-anxiety': climate change affects our mental health, too

Company Directors May Be Headed For Litigation Over Climate Change

CPA INTHEBLACK - John Purcell

The Commonwealth Climate Law Initiative is investigating how company directors may be drawn into climate change-related litigation.

Australian directors face the greatest potential liability from the impact of climate change on their businesses.

At a glance A significant challenge in reducing global carbon emissions is the fact that neither national laws nor international public law are designed to address problems that have global reach. Projects such as the CCLI demonstrate adaptations to national laws and innovations to international law, while encouraging company directors to take account of climate change risk. According to the CCLI’s project report, Australian directors face the greatest potential liability from the impact of climate change on their businesses.

The impact of climate change and marshalling global efforts towards emissions reduction present profound challenges. Neither national laws nor international public law are designed to comprehensively address problems that are interconnected and have global reach.
However, there are developments that illustrate adaptations in national laws, and novel innovations are being suggested in international law. These developments occur separately from international treaty arrangements under the United Nations Paris Agreement, where national governments commit to implementing domestic policies to reduce carbon emissions.
The Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) provides one of the most readily understandable summations of climate-related risks. There are two major categories: risks related to the physical impact of climate change, and risks related to a transition to a low-carbon economy.
Transition risk can occur from legal action brought by claimants seeking redress or wanting to force protective or remedial action. The TCFD says this could stem from “the failure of organisations to mitigate the impacts of climate change, failure to adapt to climate change, and insufficiency of disclosures around material financial risk”.
How realistic then is litigation risk to companies and their directors?
The Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative (CCLI), a research project focusing on Australia, Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom, examines the basis for directors and trustees to take account of physical climate change risk and societal responses to climate change. Each of these countries has common law legal systems where judicial decision plays a key role in interpreting statutes and in building legal rules based on an evolving body of precedent.

The CCLI's project report concludes that Australian directors face the greatest potential liability from the impact of climate change on their businesses.

The “adaptability” of corporate law, and in particular directors’ duties, within the common law tradition provides a sound and practical basis for linking climate-related financial risks with possible governance failures that spanning well-established legal expectations around identification, assessment, oversight and disclosure.
The CCLI’s project report concludes that Australian directors face the greatest potential liability from the impact of climate change on their businesses.
However, fundamental to each jurisdiction are two broad categories of directors’ duties, which the CCLI summarises as:

• Duties of trust and loyalty, including good faith, proper purposes and best interests (fiduciary).
• Duties of competence and attentiveness (due care and diligence).

Of the four countries, Australia is the most stringent in interpreting and applying these duties:

• The duty of care and diligence can be breached in circumstances of “mere” negligence.
• There is a particularly strong adherence to an objective standard of what a “reasonable director” would do.
• There is minimal scope to argue “business judgement rule” protection.

Proof of dishonesty, intention or bad faith is not required for breaches of trust and loyalty.
In these terms, managing climate-related risk falls squarely within well-understood legal expectations of active and inquiring engagement in guiding and managing the affairs of a company – matters that the CCLI says are self-evident given that Australia’s economy operates in high-risk sectors from both physical risk and transition risk perspectives.
Australia is also a well-established litigation funding market. It has a strong track record of class actions for misleading disclosures and an independent regulator willing to test the boundaries of directors’ duties and enforce existing well-understood duties relating to disclosure.
What of the more speculative realm of developments in international public law?
The International Criminal Court, which is created under Article 5 of the Rome Statute (another treaty to which Australia is a signatory), has specific and narrow jurisdiction limited to the most serious crimes recognised by the international community, including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Limited but strong lobbying is taking place to amend the Rome Statute to include an international crime of ecocide, defined as “the extensive loss or damage or destruction of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants ... has been or will be severely diminished”.
The CCLI cautions against overstating the practical likelihood of litigation, but also warns against dismissing the risk as remote or theoretical, particularly for those companies in high-risk sectors. Whether or not the advocates of ecocide succeed in their endeavours, the fact that the prospect is being canvassed adds to what should be self-evident to directors: the physical and economic transition risk realities associated with climate change.

Links

• CPA Australia Podcast: Climate-related risk disclosures. Listen now
• Financial Stability Board's Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures - linking economic and environmental policy
• Accounting for climate risk is now the auditor's business
• Reporting on climate change risk: accountants will be needed
• Company directors face questions on climate change risk
• Does ethical investment pay higher returns?
• Global food security: are we running out of time?

Iceberg The Size Of Sydney Breaks Off Amery Ice Shelf In Antarctica

ABC News - Carla Howarth

Satellite images show the Amery ice shelf before and after the D28 iceberg broke off. (Supplied: AAD)

Key points The iceberg, named D28, broke off the Amery ice shelf on September 26 The last major calving on the shelf was in the 1960s Scientists do not believe the event is linked to climate change and say major calving events happen every 60 to 70 years

A gigantic iceberg the size of urban Sydney has broken off an ice shelf in Antarctica, the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) says.
The 1,636-square-kilometre iceberg — named D28 — was calved from the Amery ice shelf in east Antarctica.
AAD glaciologist Ben Galton-Fenzi said the iceberg separated from the shelf last Thursday, and was noticed by scientists using satellite imagery.
Scientists had been monitoring a section of the ice shelf known as the Loose Tooth, which is next to where D28 broke off and is so named because it looks precariously attached.

"The calving will not directly affect sea level, because the ice shelf was already floating, much like an ice cube in a glass of water," Dr Galton-Fenzi said.

"But what will be interesting to see is how the loss of this ice will influence the ocean melting under the remaining ice shelf and the speed at which the ice flows off the continent."

Last major iceberg broke off Amery in 1960s
The 60,000-square-kilometre Amery ice shelf is the third largest shelf in Antarctica and is situated between Australia's Davis and Mawson research stations.

A crack in the Amery ice shelf, pictured in 2003. (Supplied: Australian Antarctic Division)

An ice shelf is a section of ice that juts out into the sea.
Snow from the interior builds up and flows out to the edge of the continent. At the edges it thins, and because ice is less dense than water, it sits on top of the ocean instead of on the seabed.
Scientists have been studying the Amery shelf since the 1960s, and recorded the last major calving event in late 1963 or early 1964.
The massive tabular iceberg was about 10,000 square kilometres, and split into two smaller bergs a year later.

The anatomy of an ice shelf. (Supplied: Dr Sue Cook)

Calving 'not linked to climate change'
Helen Amanda Fricker, from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the US, said scientists first noticed a rift in the ice shelf nearly 20 years ago.
"We … predicted a large iceberg would break off between 2010-2015," Professor Fricker said.
"I am excited to see this calving event after all these years. We knew it would happen eventually, but just to keep us all on our toes, it is not exactly where we expected it to be.
"We don't think this event is linked to climate change; it's part of the ice shelf's normal cycle, where we see major calving events every 60-70 years."
In July 2017, a 1-trillion-tonne iceberg measuring 5,800 square kilometres was calved from the Larsen C ice shelf in Antarctica.
The Larsen C ice shelf, which is Antarctica's fourth largest ice shelf, covers an area of 46,500 square kilometres.

An iceberg measuring 5,800 square kilometres calved

Links

• Why a Middle Eastern business thirsty for water can't just tow an iceberg from Antarctica
• Has NASA just discovered a perfect iceberg?
• What happens now Antarctica's Larsen C ice shelf has cracked?
• Glacial melting in Antarctica may become irreversible
• East Antarctica glacial stronghold melting as seas warm
• Scientists race to explore Antarctic marine life revealed by giant iceberg
• What happened next to the giant Larsen C iceberg?
• Onus on Australia to take diplomatic initiative in protecting Antarctica
• Giant Antarctic iceberg 'hanging by a thread', say scientists
• Iceberg twice size of Luxembourg breaks off Antarctic ice shelf

Climate Change Threatens The World’s Fisheries, Food Billions Of People Rely On

InsideClimate News - Georgina Gustin

More than 3 billion people depend on fish as a major source of protein. By the end of the century, a quarter of the sustainable fish catch could be gone.

In many islands and coastal areas, fishing is both a primary source of income and a main source of protein. A new IPCC report warns that ocean fish stocks could drop by as much as a quarter if greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current trajectory. Credit: Derek Hudson/Getty Images

The world's already overtaxed fisheries are being stressed to their limits by climate change, putting at risk a critical component of the world's diet. As temperatures rise, fish populations are projected to plummet and disappear in some regions, especially in the tropics.
In a major report published Sept. 25 by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, scientists examined the interconnected web of the planet's oceans and icy landscapes, delivering a series of grim projections on the chaotic impact of climate change on super-charged storms, rising seas and the ecosystems that sea life depends on.They also looked at the consequences for global diets and the role oceans play in feeding the world.
Fisheries are often overlooked when researchers and policymakers focus on land-based agriculture as the primary food source for a growing global population, yet fish are an essential protein source for 3.2 billion people and provide 17 percent of the world's animal protein. They're especially important in some developing tropical countries that rely on fish for 70 percent of their nutrition.
"The changes in the oceans will have direct impacts on people who are depending on these systems for food," said William Cheung, a professor from the University of British Columbia and a lead author of the report's chapter covering fisheries.
The scientists determined that the sustainable fish catch—the amount of fish that can be caught without decimating populations—could drop by as much as a quarter by the end of the century if greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current trajectory.



The oceans have absorbed about 90 percent of the excess heat and about a quarter of the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning and other human activities, leading to rising ocean temperatures, increasing acidification and lower oxygen levels that will have an impact on sea life. Shellfish won't be able to develop shells properly; harmful algae blooms will proliferate, choking off coastal fisheries; and populations of fish will continue moving to cooler waters, leaving behind the fishing communities and economies that have depended on them for centuries.
"The current science suggests that as the ocean warms and loses oxygen, the body size of animals will be reduced, the distribution of fish will change and the surface production of phytoplankton is going to decline," said Lisa Levin, a professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the fisheries chapter. "When there's less plankton at the base of the food web, there's going to be less fish."

Impacts from the Tropics to the Arctic
As the world speeds toward a population of 9 billion people by 2050, the loss of fish as a protein source could mean increased pressure on other ecosystems, including forests cleared for cropland and existing cropland that's already strained from overuse.
In tropical countries around the planet's equatorial belt, particularly small-island developing nations that are also at risk from sea level rise, the loss of fish stocks could prove devastating, nutritionally and economically.
"Climate change will take the food out of their mouths and the places they live away from them," said Doug Rader, chief oceans scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, who was not involved in the report. "Even with aggressive emissions scenarios and highly effective management, they will lose 20 to 40 percent of their fish production. There are literally hundreds of millions of people who live in that most at-risk belt."
Communities at middle and higher latitudes will see changes, too.
Cheung explained that some North American communities that rely on salmon could lose those populations as streams warm and fish migrate farther north, and that indigenous communities in the Arctic that depend on sea ice as hunting grounds could lose access to key food sources.
"Shifting the abundance and distribution of these resources may have direct impacts for food, culture and livelihoods," he said. "In Arctic regions, many communities are dependent on sea ice. With high emissions scenarios, we are seeing the continuous loss of sea ice and higher frequencies of no sea ice in the summer."
Researchers have also projected the northward migration and disappearance of some tuna species from the tropics and of cold-water-loving species like lobster, which will move poleward as waters warm.

Many Fisheries Are Already in Trouble
Fish populations in many regions have already dropped significantly because of overfishing and the accelerating effects of climate change. Roughly one-third of the ocean's fish stocks are already fished at "biologically unsustainable levels," triple that of the mid-1970s, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
Overfishing by commercial fleets with large boats and aggressive fishing methods, such as trawling, led to the devastating collapse of the East Coast cod fishery in the early 1990s and, more recently, the herring population. Some researchers suggest that the drop in fish stocks is even higher than the FAO states because government agencies and regulators don't have complete assessments and figures.
"Ocean warming in the 20th Century and beyond has contributed to an overall decrease in maximum catch potential, .... compounding the impacts from overfishing for some fish stocks," the new IPCC report says.
Most of that overfishing has occurred as commercial fleets go after larger, high-value fish for the global marketplace and to satisfy growing demand for seafood from developed countries.
"Most of the overfishing has not been to feed the hungry," said David Helvarg, executive director of Blue Frontier, a marine conservation group. "It's been for supermarkets and white-linen restaurants in the developed world."
Fish consumption reached a historical peak in 2016 at about 45 pounds per capita. Much of that is attributable to aquaculture—farming fish in contained waters—which in 2016 produced more consumed fish than commercial and traditional "capture" fisheries.
"Globally, we're following the terrestrial experience. We're transitioning from buffalo to cattle," Helvarg said. "We're consuming more fish, but less of it is coming from the ocean as we've depleted the commercial stock."
"The shift toward aquaculture will expand, but we're going to become a nutritionally depleted world," Helvarg added. "We'll be eating a much more limited amount of fishes based on what we can grow in concrete tanks."

Saving Ecosystems and Managing Fisheries
In some ocean fisheries, fish stocks have rebounded or stayed level as sustainable management systems placed catch limits on species in certain areas. But these are under threat, too.
"Those systems are based on historical patterns that no longer exist," Rader said. "Fish populations are already moving, and they're moving faster than anyone expected. Unless more agile management systems are put into place, all bets are off."
Despite all the alarming news in this week's report, the authors emphasized solutions and options — but stressed that they need to happen quickly, across all ecosystems, not just the oceans. Storing carbon in forests and soils will also prove critical.
"It's a call to action," Levin said of the report. "The mitigation solutions that involve the ocean include protecting natural carbon storage and enhancing it through restoration of mangroves, salt marshes and sea grass beds. We can reduce emissions on the ocean by reducing shipping emissions. ... The ocean can be involved in the solutions."
Better management of fisheries and policing of illegal fishing also will help save fish stocks, as will setting aside large and more marine protected areas, among other measures. But reducing the fossil fuel emissions that drive ocean warming and all its cascading effects remains the critical priority.
"If we can reduce emissions ... we can substantially reduce the scenario we project," Cheung said. "If we engage with sustainable management and consumption of seafood, our report suggests that good resource management can increase the resilience of fish stocks to climate change."

Links

• Suffering In The Heat: The Rise In Marine Heatwaves Is Harming Ocean Species
• Heatwaves Sweeping Oceans ‘Like Wildfires’, Scientists Reveal
• Australia's Marine Heatwaves Provide A Glimpse Of The New Ecological Order
• From Antarctica to the Oceans, Climate Change Damage Is About to Get a Lot Worse, IPCC Warns
• UN Climate Summit: Small Countries Step Up While Major Emitters Are Silent, and a Teen Takes World Leaders to Task
• Fish Species Forecast to Migrate Hundreds of Miles Northward as U.S. Waters Warm
• Global Warming Is Pushing Pacific Salmon to the Brink, Federal Scientists Warn
• From Antarctica to the Oceans, Climate Change Damage Is About to Get a Lot Worse, IPCC Warns
• The State Of World Fisheries And Aquaculture (pdf)
• IPCC Report Chapter 5: Changing Ocean, Marine Ecosystems, and Dependent Communities (pdf)
• Global per capita fish consumption rises above 20 kilograms a year

Greta Thunberg’s Radical Climate Change Fairy Tale Is Exactly The Story We Need

The Conversation - Jennifer Ellen Good

Swedish activist and student Greta Thunberg, centre, takes part in the Climate Strike in Montreal on Friday, Sept. 27, 2019. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Paul Chiasson

It has been just over a year since 16-year-old Greta Thunberg started her “school strike for climate” outside the Swedish parliament in Stockholm. Since then, she has spoken to increasingly large crowds — including most recently in Montréal.
But there are many reasons why people are still talking about Thunberg’s Sept. 23 speech at the United Nations Climate Action Summit. She spoke with knowledge, clarity and passion well beyond her years.
What I find especially significant about the talk is her inclusion of a critique of economic growth in the climate change story frame. “We are in the beginning of mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth,” Thunberg said.
Scholars and activists share Thunberg’s concerns about the current system of endless economic growth. For example, Prof. David Barash powerfully equates endless growth to a Ponzi scheme. It is a system, he says, “predicated on the illusion that it will always be possible to make future payments owing to yet more exploitation down the road.”
Economist Juliet Schor similarly warns about the resource depletion implications for economic growth. She highlights that endless growth will lead to “blowback… which is now happening with the climate system, oceans and forests.”
Prof. Thomas Homer-Dixon succinctly offers that “it’s becoming increasingly clear that endless material growth is incompatible with the long-term viability of Earth’s environment.” And writer Naomi Klein refers to the “god of economic growth,” powerfully proposing that “our economic system and our planetary system are now at war.”

Where are the stories?
Thoughtful and well-researched scholarship makes clear that economic growth and environmental crises are related. And yet non-academic writing linking endless growth economics and climate change is almost non-existent.
I have conducted a content analysis on the Canadian Major Dailies database. In the 12 months prior to Thunberg’s talk there were 850 newspaper articles (including opinion editorials and letters) with “climate change” in the headline. Of these, 372 — or 44 per cent — were related to the economy. And yet only one letter to the editor raised concerns about economic growth in the era of climate change.
This is what makes Thunberg’s mention of “fairy tales of eternal economic growth” so remarkable — she put economic growth and climate change into the same frame.
It is easy to think that economic growth is essential — that we have always had growth at the core of economic policy. But scholars point out that this is not the case. Bill McKibben and Peter Victor point out that our “fixation” on economic growth as an “explicit object of government policy” began in the mid-20th century.
And in those 50 years, McKibben highlights that economic growth has not only devastated the planet, but also fostered inequity, insecurity and “is no longer making us happy.”
Cognitive scientist and linguist George Lakoff offers that “all of our knowledge makes use of frames, and every word is defined through the frames it neurally activates. All thinking and talking involves frames .”
In other words, we understand and act upon climate change based on what has been framed with the climate change stories we are told.

Time to change the story frames
The good news is that climate change stories can change. Not that long ago, there were few stories about climate change. Today, the number has dramatically increased.
Until recently, there were not many stories that linked climate change to extreme weather events. Increasingly, these stories are being told.

Climate change activist Greta Thunberg on the Malizia II boat off Plymouth, England, Wed. Aug. 14, 2019. AP Photo

Now it is time to question economics and foster discussions about the hard decisions and changes that need to be made. It is clear that we cannot simply consume differently — we must consume less.
Now it is time to frame climate change stories with eternal economic growth critiques. Now is the time for climate change frames that question whether a finite planet can sustain eternal growth. Now is the time for climate change frames to include voices like Klein’s, who proposes that “the frenetic and indiscriminate consumption of essentially disposable products can no longer be the system’s goal.”
And now is the time to be grateful for a 16-year-old who sailed across the ocean and dared to tell the world’s leaders that the fairy tale must end.

Links

• Fridaysforfuture: When youth push the environmental movement towards climate justice
• Why we should pay attention to the power of youth
• After Greta Thunberg’s UN address, an ethicist weighs in on our moral failure to act on climate change
• The counter-intuitive solution to getting people to care about climate change
• THE GRETA THUNBERG PROBLEM, So Many Men Freaking Out About The Tiny Swedish Climate Demon
• Global Climate Strikes: Don’t Say You’re Sorry. We Need People Who Can Take Action To TAKE ACTUAL ACTION
• ‘I Hope The Politicians Hear Us’: Millions Of Youths Around The World Strike For Action
• Climate Change Protests Spread Around The World On Global Day Of Action
• 'No Planet B': Hundreds Of Thousands Join Global Climate Strike
• Are You Ready For The Global Climate Strike?
• 'Going To The Streets Again': What You Need To Know About Friday's Climate Strike
• Striking For A Better Future
• Climate Activist Greta Thunberg On The Power Of A Movement