18/10/2019

Australia Spends Billions Planting Trees – Then Wipes Out Carbon Gains By Bulldozing Them

The Guardian -  |

Little more than two years of land clearing will cancel out the $1.5bn in taxpayer funds that goes towards protecting native habitat
John Mailler at his tree-planting project around the Moree water park. He calls the extent of land clearing around the town ‘tragic’. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian
Since 2015 the Australian government has committed more than $1.5bn of taxpayer funds to climate change projects that plant or protect native habitat. Over a slightly longer period it has also spent nearly $62m on a policy to plant 20 million trees promised under Tony Abbott.
At the same time the country has significantly stepped up land-clearing programs in several states, bulldozing hundreds of thousands of hectares of forests, mostly for agriculture.
Official data allows an estimate of the scale of the contrast: little more than two years of land clearing will effectively cancel out what the public is spending to avoid 125 million tonnes of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere. The equivalent to what has been planted over several years in the 20 million trees program is wiped out in just six months of land clearing. “It’s pretty absurd,” says Jess Panegyres, the Wilderness Society’s national nature campaigner.
“We’re putting huge amounts of taxpayer dollars into avoided deforestation and reforestation and at the same time we’re allowing Australia to become a deforestation hotspot globally. Any of the gains that we’re making under these taxpayer-funded schemes are being wiped out almost immediately.”
What is being lost can be cut up in different ways. Using government figures, the Wilderness Society estimates a Melbourne Cricket Ground-sized area of forest and bushland was cleared every two minutes in 2017.
Over a longer timeframe, an academic study found last month that more than 7.7m hectares – an area larger than Tasmania – of potential threatened species habitat had been cleared since 1999. It said 93% of this land had not been referred to the federal environment department for assessment and approval before being cleared, as required under national environment laws.

Land clearing in potential threatened species habitat
Showing potential forest and woodland clearing in areas where threatened species, migratory species, or threatened ecological communities are known or likely to occur. Red indicates land clearing that was not referred to the federal environment department for assessment and approval before being cleared, and blue shows clearing that was referred
Source: Ward et al. 2019 / University of Queensland
Not all land cleared is equal. Much of it is regrown forest in areas that have been felled before. But a significant minority is intact mature forest, which is a deeper store of carbon dioxide. Scientists say both need to be protected if Australia is to stem an unfolding extinction crisis.
Australia has a long history of forest clearing. The proportion of the country covered by forest has fallen from about 30% to less than 16% since European invasion. But, after a relative decline, a big upswing in land clearing began in 2013, when Campbell Newman’s Liberal National government relaxed laws preventing mass deforestation in Queensland.
Data from the state’s world-leading vegetation monitoring system, known as Slats (statewide landcover and trees study), shows that in the five years that followed about 1.7m hectares – an area larger than greater Brisbane – of native vegetation was bulldozed, far more than in the rest of the country combined.
In the most recent two years in which data is available, ending in June last year, about 40% of that was in Great Barrier Reef catchments, increasing the amount of sediment running into the ocean along the coast.
A crop paddock prepared for sowing on the road linking Nyngan to Bourke in outback NSW. It has been left bare because of the lack of rain. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian
The Labor state government passed legislation last year that the Queensland premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, said would end broad-scale land clearing – despite environmental lawyers warning that the new laws were full of loopholes. The latest Slats data that will show the result of that are yet to be released, but Panegyres says while the laws should work to reduce the bulldozing of mature forest, anecdotal evidence suggests the loss of growing forest and native vegetation has continued in some areas. “There’s a lot of land clearing still being reported to us,” she says.
While Queensland closely tracks land clearing, the picture in other parts of the country is less clear.
Neither Western Australia nor the Northern Territory keep jurisdiction-wide data. In the west, where land-clearing laws were relaxed under the former Liberal premier Colin Barnett in the name of removing red tape, a partial picture can be calculated by tallying the permits granted by some departments – but this leaves significant gaps.
Land clearing in New South Wales is unarguably on the rise. While it has not reached the heights of Queensland, figures from the state’s Office of Environment and Heritage show clearing for crops pasture and thinning tripled between 2014-15 and 2017-18, the year the state government introduced more lenient native vegetation protection laws. More than 27,000 hectares, nearly 100 times the size of Sydney’s central business district, were cleared for agriculture in the latest year for which data is available. Most of the clearing has been between Moree and the Queensland border. If native forestry is included, the figure rises to 58,000 hectares.
The data shows land clearing had already escalated before the laws came into effect, farmers having apparently anticipated the change. Though some Liberal ministers are deeply concerned about the scale and pace of the escalation and its impact on biodiversity, the National party has repeatedly called for protections to be wound back.
The contrast makes little sense to some people planting trees on behalf of taxpayers. Around the Moree water park, a human-made water-skiing area 6km north-west of the New South Wales town, a small forest of native trees is taking root, despite two years of drought, thanks to a $29,500 grant from the 20 million trees program. Eventually 7,000 trees will be planted.
John Mailler, 80, a retired share farmer and volunteer working on the project, germinates his own plants from local seed at his property 40km away and drives in regularly to tend the trees, which are being planted by a local employment group. He lists the local species: carbeen, casuarina, box trees, emu apple or grewi, brigalow and roly poly.
Mailler’s trees are bred so they don’t need drip irrigation and can survive with an occasional watering. He loves the work but says the loss of local vegetation around Moree is heartbreaking.
“It’s definitely changed. That was open grass country,” he says, gesturing towards the horizon to the east. “But it’s now crops, barley, wheat, chickpeas, lupins, cotton.
“They buy this wide machinery, and they say it’s too much of a problem to go round the trees so they get rid of them. It’s tragic.”
The north-west of NSW is ground zero for tree loss. In the Moree council area alone, 1,189 hectares – roughly the size of the greater Melbourne area – of woody vegetation was lost to cropping, pasture and thinning in 2017-18. Even more went in neighbouring council areas.
The situation is set to get worse in the next year. The NSW government has said it will not pursue cases against farmers who broke the old laws and it is planning to introduce regional plans, beginning with the north-west, that could further increase broad-scale clearing.
On a national scale, some experts have doubts about whether national greenhouse accounts accurately reflect the full impact of forest clearing and have called for the federal government to introduce a nationwide monitoring system on a par with that used in Queensland.
Even without that, Bill Hare, the chief executive and senior scientist with Berlin-based Climate Analytics, says a key message from the national emissions data published by the government is that it expects clearing to continue at current rates for at least the next decade.
Specifically, pollution from land clearing is projected to stay at about 46m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year to 2030, roughly equivalent to emissions from three large coal-fired power plants.
“That’s the bottom line,” Hare says. “This is significantly damaging the climate, as well as the natural environment, and Australia is not planning to do anything to stop it.”

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , ,

More Than 370,000 Sign E-Petition For Climate Emergency Declaration

Sydney Morning Herald - Jenny Noyes

A record-breaking e-petition has been submitted to the Australian Parliament, calling for the government to declare a climate emergency, two days after a crossbench motion to do so was blocked.
The "Declare a Climate Emergency" parliamentary e-petition closed at midnight on Wednesday with 370,004 signatures – more than three times the number of signatures on the previous record parliamentary e-petition, which was to remove the GST on menstrual products.
A climate change rally takes place on the front lawn of Parliament House on Tuesday as a motion to declare a climate emergency was voted down. Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
The petition calls for the House of Representatives to "immediately act and declare a climate emergency in Australia" and to "introduce legislation that will with immediacy and haste reduce the causes of anthropogenic climate change".
The reason given is that "the overwhelming majority of climate scientists around the world have concluded that the climate is changing at unprecedented rates due to anthropogenic causes.
"The result of these changes will be catastrophic for future generations, and so we must act now to minimise both human and environmental destruction."
As an official parliamentary e-petition, the signatures theoretically carry more weight than other online petitions by organisations such as Change.org that do not require signatories to confirm they are residents or citizens of Australia.
But while the tampon tax was eventually axed in January this year, six months after the 104,185-signature e-petition was submitted to Parliament, it's unclear whether the petition to declare a climate emergency will have the same success.
On Tuesday, the government voted down a motion by Greens MP Adam Bandt, supported by Labor and the crossbench, to declare a climate emergency.
When asked how the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction Angus Taylor planned to respond to the petition, a spokesman forwarded his speech to Parliament on Tuesday in which he described the proposed declaration as an "absolutely empty gesture" from Labor and the Greens.
"Labor is making a huge song and dance about declaring a climate emergency, yet refuses to commit to a single policy in this area from the last election," Mr Taylor said on Tuesday.
Labor's climate change and energy spokesman Mark Butler said it was "no surprise" that the government voted against debating the motion, "considering emissions have been rising ever since 2014 and given the government’s own data projects emissions continuing to rise all the way to 2030.
"Parliaments in the UK, Canada and several other nations have already passed resolutions recognising climate change as an emergency and it is time that our Parliament did the same," he said.
While the petition to declare a climate emergency is the biggest e-petition to be put to Parliament, it falls short of at least two pen and paper petitions since signatures were first recorded in 1988.
In 2014, a petition concerning the funding of community pharmacies became the biggest put to Parliament, with a total of 1,210,471 signatures. The second-largest petition, with 792,985 signatures, was presented in December 2000 over the GST on beer.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , ,

Bank Of England Boss Says Global Finance Is Funding 4C Temperature Rise

The Guardian - 

Mark Carney says capital markets are financing projects likely to fuel a catastrophic rise in global heating
An Extinction Rebellion protester outside the Bank of England on Monday 14 October makes a point not too dissimilar to the Bank’s governor. Photograph: John Keeble/Getty Images
The governor of the Bank of England has warned that the global financial system is backing carbon-producing projects that will raise the temperature of the planet by over 4C – more than double the pledge to limit increases to well below 2C contained in the Paris Agreement.
In a stark warning over global heating, Mark Carney said the multitrillion-dollar international capital markets – where companies raise funds by selling shares and bonds to investors – are financing activities that would lift global temperatures to more than 4C above pre-industrial levels.
World leaders agreed in the Paris climate accords to keep the temperature rise this century well below 2C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the rise to 1.5C.
But in a stark illustration of the scale of the decarbonisation challenge facing the world economy, Carney suggested companies had already secured financing from investors in the global capital markets – worth $85tn (£67.2tn) for stocks and $100tn for bonds – that will keep the world on a trajectory consistent with catastrophic global heating.
The risks associated with temperatures at or above 4C include a 9-metre rise in sea levels – affecting up to 760 million people – searing heatwaves and droughts, serious food supply problems and half of all animal and plant species facing local extinction.
Speaking to MPs on the Commons Treasury committee, Carney did not give a timescale for the temperature rise, but said: “The objectives are there, but policy is not yet consistent with stabilising temperatures below 2C.
“There are some companies out ahead, either because of stakeholders, or because they’re anticipating that that will change. But there are others that are waiting for the policies to adjust.”
Carney sounded the alarm in the wake of the Guardian last week revealing the 20 biggest companies behind a third of all carbon emissions. The Bank’s governor said the financial system was now starting to wake up to the risks of global heating.
He said some investment companies have analysed the carbon-linked assets in their portfolios, including Japan’s $1.6tn Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF).
Carney told the committee that GPIF’s analysis showed it held assets consistent with 3.7C heating, and that the fund was now trying to manage this down. He said that AXA, the French insurance group, priced US government bonds at 5.4C, to reflect the carbon-intensive nature of the American economy. The UK is much lower, he said.
Based on these assessments, “it indicates that if you price the capital markets – and I’m not giving you a precise figure – that all of the assets are probably north of 4C for the capital markets as a whole,” he said.
“We can observe where the market is in terms of pricing the transition. It’s at least 3C or 3.75C, it’s probably north of 4C. That tells you something in terms of the sum of global climate policy.”
The Bank’s governor has spoken at length about the need for the financial system to accelerate its efforts to tackle the climate emergency, warning that firms that ignore the crisis will go bankrupt.
He said that banks should be forced to disclose their climate-linked risks within the next two years, and said that more information would prompt investors to penalise and reward firms accordingly.
Threadneedle Street is currently drafting a stress test for the UK’s banks based on their climate exposures, he added.
However, the governor said the transition to a low-carbon world economy would still require investors to back firms with significant carbon footprints, given the scale of the adjustment required.
“It’s not as simple as saying, ‘Well I’m going to invest in only renewable energy.’ The system as a whole cannot invest only in renewable energy.
“The contribution of manufacturing or an industrial company in terms of lowering their carbon footprint over the next decade, a big reduction in that, can be as significant if not more significant than further development in the short term on renewables,” he said.
Carney also dropped a heavy hint that the government would shake-up the Bank’s remit for financial supervision to take account of climate risks at the budget on 6 November.
“Remits normally come with the budget, so we’ll see what is in that … Every indication is there is a comprehensive strategy being developed consistent with the objective of net-zero [carbon emissions],” he added.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , ,

17/10/2019

Companies Expect Climate Change To Cost Them $1 Trillion In 5 Years

WIRED - Sara Harrison

Many corporations see climate change posing a significant threat to their business within the decade, according to a new report.
In 2018 the US sustained $91 billion in damages from climate-related disasters, including tropical cyclones, severe storms, inland floods, droughts, and wildfires. Scott Olson/Getty Images
In January, climate change claimed its first corporate victim. Facing billions in liabilities after contributing to some of California’s deadliest and most devastating wildfires, PG&E filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This spring, flooding in the Midwest ruined fields, grain silos, and infrastructure. The agriculture conglomerate Archer Daniels Midland reported that the floods would cost it between $50 and $60 million in the first quarter of the year.
The costs of a disturbed climate are becoming increasingly burdensome and apparent. In 2018 the US sustained $91 billion in damages from climate-related disasters, including tropical cyclones, severe storms, inland floods, droughts, and wildfires.
“Climate change is no longer a distant threat but something that is impacting economies now,” says Bruno Sarda, president of CDP North America, a nonprofit that encourages companies to report how climate change might affect them.
A growing number of companies are recognizing that fact and are now publicly reporting the effects of climate change on their businesses. A new report published Tuesday by CDP shows that 215 of the world’s biggest companies, including giants like Apple, JPMorgan Chase, Nestlé, and 3M, see climate change as a threat likely to affect their business within the next five years, with a cumulative cost of a trillion dollars.
Companies identified a range of physical risks, such as the impact of flooding or rising sea levels on distribution centers and warehouses. They also enumerated the costs of transitioning to a lower-carbon, more climate-ravaged world, including updating facilities to withstand stronger storms or use less water, and complying with potential policies that would likely raise the cost of fossil fuels. Companies also recognized an image issue. In the report, Google's parent company, Alphabet, writes, “Not addressing climate change risks and impacts head on could result in a reduced demand for our goods and services because of negative reputation impact.”CDP also found, however, that companies saw some opportunities in adapting to climate change.
The report found that companies estimated opportunities related to climate change could bring in $2.1 trillion. Most companies pegged those benefits to the growth of low-emissions products and the creation of new products, such as new fuel sources or energy-efficient cars, which might appeal to a customer base that is increasingly climate-conscious.The CDP report is part of a growing effort to encourage companies to be open about how climate change will affect their financial well being.
In 2015 the Financial Stability Board, an international organization that studies the global financial system, formed the Task Force on Climate-Related Disclosures (TCFD). Led by Michael Bloomberg, the Task Force has released recommendations to help companies accurately assess and disclose their climate-related risks. The TCFD also wants to help standardize how companies think about and report those risks. Similarly, a coalition of investment groups including State Street Global Advisors, BlackRock, and Vanguard are backing the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, which helps companies report accurately on these issues.
“US companies are definitely putting out more information on how they are addressing climate change. They don’t look at an election cycle. They address this from a shareholder perspective,” says Rakhi Kumar, who leads State Street Global Advisors’ efforts on environmental investment. She says companies are hearing from investors who are worried. “That’s what they are reacting and responding to.”
Disclosure is meant to work like an x-ray, allowing customers and investors to look inside a company, see where it is vulnerable, and help it improve. By making their predictions and analyses public, companies can also learn from each other about how to become more resilient in the face of climate threats.
“Climate change is right now a very much under-priced risk in financial disclosures,” says Sarda, who believes both companies and investors need to prioritize climate-related accounting more. He suggests that better disclosure could fundamentally transform the markets. It could change how publicly traded companies are valued. Those that are more prepared or resilient would be viewed as better investments than their more vulnerable counterparts.Sarda is confident that companies can do a lot to help combat climate change, but he and Kumar say governments also play an important role in enacting policies that will stabilize markets.
“Putting a price on carbon or even a better price on water or on pollution in general is something that would create a lot of certainty for business,” says Sarda. But that’s unlikely in the current moment, with the Trump administration rolling back federal efforts to combat climate change. Last week, The New York Times reported that US Geological Survey director James Reilly ordered the agency to stop modeling climate scenarios that predict the effects of climate change beyond 2040.
Aside from a carbon tax, Sarda suggests governments could also help standardize climate disclosures the same way they standardize traditional financial reporting, guiding companies on how to assess and evaluate potential risks.
Right now, these disclosures are also somewhat limited in that they are self-assessments and aren’t subject to any in-depth, formal audit. So far, companies’ reporting practices have also varied a lot.
Some of that variation can be attributed to the nature of the risks themselves. Companies can pretty accurately predict how much it will cost to close down a factory for two weeks because of flooding, for example. But some risks are harder to calculate. How much will changing weather patterns in the midwest alter crop yields or harm pollinators? And how will that ultimately figure into the bottom line?
Companies also have blind spots. A corporation might do a good job of assessing risks to its own physical infrastructure, but might not apply that same scrutiny to its supply chain. Kumar also notes that companies typically only plan for the short term, while investors are on the lookout for future complications. Those different time lines create a “impasse” between companies and their investors. Kumar gives the example of coal energy plants, which may be profitable in the short term but which represent a long term risk that investors want “phased out.”
Christopher Wright, a professor at the University of Sydney who has written about corporate responses to climate change, says that while efforts like the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures have been garnering lots of attention, some of the predictions that companies make are “somewhat fanciful.”
Many companies model what the world will look like if our climate warms by 3 or even 4 degrees Celsius. But, Wright argues, warming of that magnitude would fundamentally disrupt society, not just supply chains. Those costs can’t be modeled so easily. “What of course is missing from all of this is a serious focus on implementing dramatic emissions reduction now!” he wrote in an email.The next step, says Sarda, is for investors and customers to examine the data and start demanding accountability from companies. He says that in order to make real progress confronting climate change, we can’t wait for government-sponsored policies and regulations. For things to truly change, he says, business needs to play a key role too.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

Revealed: The 20 Firms Behind A Third Of All Carbon Emissions

The Guardian -  |

New data shows how fossil fuel companies have driven climate crisis despite industry knowing dangers
Chevron’s Kern River oil field in Bakersfield, California. Photograph: Guardian Design

The Guardian today reveals the 20 fossil fuel companies whose relentless exploitation of the world’s oil, gas and coal reserves can be directly linked to more than one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions in the modern era.
New data from world-renowned researchers reveals how this cohort of state-owned and multinational firms are driving the climate emergency that threatens the future of humanity, and details how they have continued to expand their operations despite being aware of the industry’s devastating impact on the planet.
The analysis, by Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability Institute in the US, the world’s leading authority on big oil’s role in the escalating climate emergency, evaluates what the global corporations have extracted from the ground, and the subsequent emissions these fossil fuels are responsible for since 1965 – the point at which experts say the environmental impact of fossil fuels was known by both industry leaders and politicians.
The top 20 companies on the list have contributed to 35% of all energy-related carbon dioxide and methane worldwide, totalling 480bn tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) since 1965.
Those identified range from investor-owned firms – household names such as Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell – to state-owned companies including Saudi Aramco and Gazprom.
Chevron topped the list of the eight investor-owned corporations, followed closely by Exxon, BP and Shell. Together these four global businesses are behind more than 10% of the world’s carbon emissions since 1965.


Why we need political action to tackle the oil, coal and gas companies - video explainer
Michael Mann, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, said the findings shone a light on the role of fossil fuel companies and called on politicians at the forthcoming climate talks in Chile in December to take urgent measures to rein in their activities.

The top 20 companies have contributed to 480bn tonnes
of carbon dioxide equivalent since 1965
Billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent 

Guardian graphic | Source: Richard Heede, Climate Accountability Institute.
 Note: table includes emissions for the period 1965 to 2017 only
“The great tragedy of the climate crisis is that seven and a half billion people must pay the price – in the form of a degraded planet – so that a couple of dozen polluting interests can continue to make record profits. It is a great moral failing of our political system that we have allowed this to happen.”
The global polluters list uses company-reported annual production of oil, natural gas, and coal and then calculates how much of the carbon and methane in the produced fuels is emitted to the atmosphere throughout the supply chain, from extraction to end use.
It found that 90% of the emissions attributed to the top 20 climate culprits was from use of their products, such as petrol, jet fuel, natural gas, and thermal coal. One-tenth came from extracting, refining, and delivering the finished fuels.
The Guardian approached the 20 companies named in the polluters list. Eight of them have replied. Some argued that they were not directly responsible for how the oil, gas or coal they extracted were used by consumers. Several disputed claims that the environmental impact of fossil fuels was known as far back as the late 1950s or that the industry collectively had worked to delay action.
Most explicitly said they accepted the climate science and some claimed to support the targets set out in the Paris agreement to reduce emissions and keep global temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
All pointed out efforts they were making to invest in renewable or low carbon energy sources and said fossil fuel companies had an important role to play in addressing the climate crisis. PetroChina said it was a separate company from its predecessor, China National Petroleum, so had no influence over, or responsibility for, its historical emissions. The companies’ replies can be read in full here.

The top 20 companies have contributed to 35%
of all carbon dioxide and methane since 1965
Billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent
Guardian graphic | Source: Richard Heede, Climate Accountability Institute
The latest study builds on previous work by Heede and his team that has looked at the historical role of fossil fuel companies in the escalating climate crisis.The impact of emissions from coal, oil and gas produced by fossil fuel companies has been huge. According to research published in 2017 by Peter Frumhoff at the Union of Concerned Scientists in the US and colleagues, CO2 and methane emissions from the 90 biggest industrial carbon producers were responsible for almost half the rise in global temperature and close to a third of the sea level rise between 1880 and 2010. The scientists said such work furthered the “consideration of [companies’] historical responsibilities for climate change”.
Heede said: “These companies and their products are substantially responsible for the climate emergency, have collectively delayed national and global action for decades, and can no longer hide behind the smokescreen that consumers are the responsible parties.
“Oil, gas, and coal executives derail progress and offer platitudes when their vast capital, technical expertise, and moral obligation should enable rather than thwart the shift to a low-carbon future.”
Heede said 1965 was chosen as the start point for this new data because recent research had revealed that by that stage the environmental impact of fossil fuels was known by industry leaders and politicians, particularly in the US.
In November 1965, the president, Lyndon Johnson, released a report authored by the Environmental Pollution Panel of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, which set out the
likely impact of continued fossil fuel production on global heating.
In the same year, the president of the American Petroleum Institute told its annual gathering: “One of the most important predictions of the [president’s report] is that carbon dioxide is being added to the Earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil and natural gas at such a rate by the year 2000 the heat balance will be so modified as possibly to cause marked changes in climate beyond local or even national efforts.”

The leading state-owned polluter, Saudi Aramco, is behind 4.38%
of all carbon dioxide and methane since 1965
Billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent
Guardian graphic | Source: Richard Heede, Climate Accountability Institute
Heede added: “Leading companies and industry associations were aware of, or wilfully ignored, the threat of climate change from continued use of their products since the late 1950s.”
The research aims to hold to account those companies most responsible for carbon emissions, and shift public and political debate away from a focus just on individual responsibility. It follows a warning from the UN in 2018 that the world has just 12 years to avoid the worst consequences of runaway global heating and restrict temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
An activist outside the Houses of Parliament in London, 2015. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty
The study shows that many of the worst offenders are investor-owned companies that are household names around the world and spend billions of pounds on lobbying governments and portraying themselves as environmentally responsible.
A study earlier this year found that the largest five stock-market-listed oil and gas companies spend nearly $200m each year lobbying to delay, control or block policies to tackle climate change.
Heede said the companies had a “significant moral, financial, and legal responsibility for the climate crisis, and a commensurate burden to help address the problem”.
He added: “Even though global consumers from individuals to corporations are the ultimate emitters of carbon dioxide, the Climate Accountability Institute focuses its work on the fossil fuel companies that, in our view, have their collective hand on the throttle and the tiller determining the rate of carbon emissions and the shift to non-carbon fuels.”

Links
Posted by at No comments :

Proving Climate Change: The Keeling Curve - AUDIO

BBC - Louise Hidalgo

Thick black smoke blowing out of an industrial chimney. Credit: John Giles/PA
How a young American scientist began the work that would show how our climate is changing. His name was Charles Keeling and he meticulously recorded levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. His wife Louise and son Ralph spoke to Louise Hidalgo about him in 2013.


BBC WITNESS HISTORY
Proving Climate Change: The Keeling Curve
8m 59sec

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

16/10/2019

'Grand Symbolic Gesture': Attempt To Declare A Climate Emergency Fails In Parliament

Sydney Morning Herald - Rob Harris | AAP

Federal Parliament has voted down an attempt to declare a "climate emergency", with the Morrison government blocking a "grand symbolic gesture" from the Greens, Labor and the crossbench.
Victorian Greens MP Adam Bandt brought on a vote in the lower house on Tuesday, buoyed Labor's announcement it would back the push.
A climate change rally sets up outside Parliament House on Tuesday. Credit: Lukas Coch
Federal Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor slammed the actions of the opposition, saying it was "symbolism" and not practical.
Opposition's climate spokesman Mark Butler told colleagues during a caucus meeting on Tuesday morning he would lodge a motion for debate in Parliament declaring the climate emergency, as an internal rift over its future policy settings divides the party following its May election loss.
Mr Taylor said the "emotive language" was ignoring the practical needs of every day Australians.
"Labor is making a huge song and dance about declaring a climate emergency, but refuses to commit to a single policy in this area from the last election," he said.
Labor MP Mark Butler and Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese. Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
"Labor's hollow symbolism will not deliver a single tonne of emissions reduction ... by contrast this government is taking meaningful actions."
Following fierce debate late on Monday night at separate factional caucus meetings over comments from frontbencher Joel Fitzgibbon last week, Labor leader Anthony Albanese said the party would decide its targets and policy "in accordance with the science".
Seeking to shift attention to what he said was a failing of the Morrison government to achieve a reduction in emission levels, Mr Albanese said: "Our job, as the opposition, is to hold the government to account and we'll continue to do just that."
"We're not the government. News flash, news flash. We're not the government. They are," Mr Albanese said.
Mr Butler told Parliament the window was closing on "our generation's ability, our unique ability, to meet our responsibility to future generations."
"Today we should try to unite as a parliament about why we should be doing something about climate change and why it is so urgent," he said.
Mr Bandt pointed to the United Nations report saying the world was not on track to limit global warming to less than 1.5 degrees.
"Nothing is more urgent than acting when people's lives and livelihoods are under threat," he said.
"We are experiencing record drought, some of our communities have been told to expect they may run out of water in coming months, parts of Australia have been on fire barely two weeks into winter."
Greens MP Adam Bandt brought on a motions to declare a climate emergency on Tuesday. Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
It is clear we do not have global warming under control."
Labor caucus also agreed on Tuesday to push for amendments to the government's "big stick" legislation which would give it the power to break-up energy companies who engaged in anti-competitive behaviour.
The opposition had previously opposed the legislation but agreed if it could win an amendment on partial privatisation sections of the laws it was willing to waive it through Parliament.
When questioned as to whether it was a "backflip", Mr Albanese said: "No, it's not. This is very different legislation".
"The fact is that the privatisation issue was the major issue that was a sticking point. There were others as well and they've been worked through and there were other amendments that we will insist on in terms of the legislation".

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative