28/11/2019

Women In Climate Change Hotspots Face Greater Burdens When Under Environmental Stress

ABC Science - Suzannah Lyons

Environmental stress can hamper women's ability to adapt in climate change hotspots, like Bangladesh. (Getty Images: Zakir Hossain Chowdhury/Barcroft Media)
Key points
  • After about 100 people made a two-hour hike up a volcano, children installed a memorial plaque to the glacier
  • The plaque, which notes the level of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, warns "we know what is happening and what needs to be done"
  • Iceland's PM says climate change will be a priority when Nordic leaders meet in Reykjavik on Tuesday
Climate change has a negative impact on women's ability to make meaningful decisions in their lives, according to new research looking at climate change hotspots in Africa and Asia.
Even when household structures, social norms and legal frameworks support women's agency, environmental stress and its repercussions can still increase the burdens they face compared to men.
The study, published in Nature Climate Change on Tuesday, analysed 25 case studies from African and Asian climate change hotspots to identify factors that affect women and their ability to adapt.
The researchers wanted to move away from basic climate change and gender analyses that present women as victims, said social scientist and lead author of the paper Nitya Rao of the University of East Anglia.
"What we see in our fieldwork is that women are not sitting there doing nothing. Actually they're quite active in trying to do a lot of things in order to adapt," Professor Rao said.
However, Professor Rao and her co-authors found that unless social supports like childcare, health services or minimum wage conditions were in place, it was very hard for women to actually adopt climate change solutions.
This is due to the disproportionate disadvantages women already face, and the extra burdens environmental stress can bring, particularly in societies that mostly rely on agriculture.
These can include gendered labour division, limited access to land, limited access to credit and the reproductive burden women carry, both in bearing and looking after children, Professor Rao said.
Adding to that, women are often left to manage their households alone if their male partners need to migrate to look for work.
"When you double the work of a woman and … she's not able to do any more work, that's a good reason for not taking up climate-resilient rice for instance," Professor Rao said.
  11,000 scientists declare 'climate emergency'
The study addresses a really important gap in our understanding of the gender dimensions of vulnerability to climate change, said human geographer Fiona Miller of Macquarie University, who wasn't involved in the research.
"They might have more responsibility to manage money, but they don't necessarily have more power to make decisions concerning that money," Dr Miller said.
In a positive case study from Nepal, women were able to improve their agency by forming a cooperative.
However, low-caste women were excluded from that cooperative.
"I think one of the wider findings of the work is that yes, we need to focus on gender equity, but we also need to …. focus on those women who are especially marginalised due to caste or class or ethnicity," Dr Miller said.

So, does that mean climate change is sexist?
When men migrate to larger towns for work, more tasks at home fall to women. (Supplied: Nitya Rao)
The research really highlights the social impact of climate change, said Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie.
"What it's saying is that the people who are most vulnerable will suffer the most, and the most quickly," she said.
  How does climate change affect our health?
And yet, while organisations like Plan International and Marie Stopes International have position papers on gender and climate change, there isn't as much awareness of it in the broader public sphere.
"I think that the social dimensions of climate change haven't been adequately discussed," Ms McKenzie said.
"We're still moving beyond understanding climate as an environmental issue, to understanding it's a human issue [with a] whole range of direct human costs."
These can be the immediate risks facing people in the middle of a natural disaster for example, or the longer-term impacts that adapting to climate change can have on people's health and the resilience of their communities.
While climate change itself is not sexist, the nature of gender and power relations means climate stress can exacerbate problems that are already there.
"Whenever there is something occurring that is damaging to our society, it tends to hurt women, people of colour more," she said.
Ms McKenzie believes there isn't enough discussion about who is paying the price and who is profiting from climate impacts.
"I think there's a sexism element there too, because the people who are profiting the most would tend to be powerful men in Western countries."

Is this research relevant to Australia?
Emergency response organisations need to be sensitive to how women and men respond to things like fires in different ways. (Getty Images: Brett Hemmings)
While the research focused on climate change hotspots in Africa and Asia, Professor Rao said it also has relevance for other parts of the world.
"[In] labour markets across the world we know there is a gender wage gap," she said.
And that includes Australia.
Talking about how climate change affects women's ability to feed their families is something we can relate to, said geographer Celia McMichael of the University of Melbourne, who wasn't involved in the work.
"When you read of other people trying to cope with climate variability, I think it's something we can increasingly empathise with because that is not removed from our lives in Australia [any more]," Dr McMichael said.
"Yeah, we can turn on the AC but we still are dealing with bushfires and things."
One of the findings the paper identifies is that public institutions are really important in terms of supporting households and communities to respond to environmental stresses, said Dr Miller, and we need to have gender equity within those response organisations.
"If you're thinking about the fires that we're dealing with now across Australia, and particularly in New South Wales, we do tend to see an overrepresentation of men in emergency response organisations," she said.
"If we're thinking about issues around evacuation, for example, men and women may respond to that challenge in quite different ways.
"If you have emergency response agencies that are sensitive to those gendered issues … then you can give advice and support so that people can make appropriate decisions."
Ms McKenzie said the importance of educating women and girls has already been shown to be an important climate change solution by organisations such as Project Drawdown.
"I think that these solutions that involve women and girls and education, maternal health etc. are really important," she said.
"Not just for resilience, but also in getting down emissions in the first instance."

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

(AU) The Most Important Issue Facing Australia? New Survey Sees Huge Spike In Concern Over Climate Change

The Conversation - 

Nearly half of Australians aged 18-24 view climate change as the biggest problem facing Australia in new national survey. James Ross/AAP
While most Australians still view the economy as the most important issue facing the country, a new survey released today shows climate change is rapidly becoming a major concern, as well.
Now in its 12th year, the Scanlon Foundation survey is the largest- and longest-running poll tracking public opinion on social cohesion, immigration, population and other issues in Australia. The 2019 survey was administered by telephone and the internet in July-August to a representative sample of 3,500 respondents.
The largest change in the survey from 2018 to 2019 came with the open-ended question: “What do you think is the most important problem facing Australia today?”
Both years, the economy ranked as No. 1. But this year, climate change jumped to a clear second with the equal-largest increase from one year to the next, up from 10% to 19% in our telephone-administered survey and from 5% to 17% in the self-completed online survey.
Responses to the most important problem facing Australia in telephone-interview survey. Author provided
As would be expected, there were major variances in the responses depending on demographics.
Nearly half (43%) of those aged 18-24 viewed climate change as the biggest problem facing Australia, compared to 12% of those aged 35-44 and just 8% of those over the age of 75.
The responses also varied by state – 20% of Victoria residents and 18% of NSW residents said climate change was the biggest problem, compared to 8% in Western Australia.
And there was a stark difference depending on political affiliation, with 54% of Greens voters saying climate change was the most important issue, compared to 21% of Labor, 7% of Coalition and just 3% of One Nation voters.

 Less worry about immigration numbers
Last year, immigration was a major political issue in Australia. Several polls, variously worded and with different approaches to sampling, found majority support for a reduction in the numbers of immigrants permitted into Australia each year.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said his government was listening to the public’s concerns and responded with changes, including a reduction in the annual immigration target.
This year, however, there is evidence of a decline in public concern.
The percentage of people who agreed the immigration intake was too high in the annual Lowy Institute poll fell from 54% in 2018 to 47% in 2019.
And in our poll, the proportion of those who agreed with a reduction in the number of immigrants fell marginally from 43% in 2018 to 41% in 2019 in our interviewer-administered survey and from 44% to 41% in the self-completed version.
Responses to the question about the number of immigrants in Australia in telephone survey. Author provided
Endorsement of the value of immigration
There is continuing endorsement of the value of immigration by a substantial majority of Australians.
In the self-completed version of this year’s survey, 76% agree that immigration is good for the economy, 78% agree that immigration “improves Australia by bringing new ideas and cultures” and 80% agree that multiculturalism has been good for Australia.
Since 2015, the survey has tested public support for immigration restrictions on the grounds of race, ethnicity or religion, which have been advocated by minor right-wing and populist parties. The consistent finding is that a large majority – 70% to 80% of Australians – do not support such policies.

But concerns remain over the impact of immigration
While public opinion is generally positive with regard to immigration today, many are concerned about the impact of rising immigrant numbers on their daily lives.
Seventy percent of respondents said they were concerned about “overcrowding”, 60% by the impact of immigration on housing prices and 58% by the impact on the environment.
A new question in 2019 asked for responses to the proposition that “too many immigrants are not adopting Australian values”. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (67%) agreed with the statement.

Policy towards asylum seekers
In 2018 and 2019, a new question asked respondents “are you personally concerned that Australia is too harsh in its treatment of asylum seekers and refugees?”
Opinion was found to be almost evenly divided. In 2019, 49% said they were “a great deal” or “somewhat” concerned, 50% “only slightly” or “not at all” concerned.
Here, too, there were major variances in viewpoints depending on demographics.
For instance, 87% of Greens voters and 61% of Labor voters were “a great deal” or “somewhat” concerned, compared to just 30% of Coalition voters and 16% of One Nation.
A similar split could also be seen with age, with 70% of those aged 18-24 “a great deal” or “somewhat” concerned, compared to just 39% of those aged 55-64. And with location: 55% of Victoria residents were “a great deal” or “somewhat” concerned, compared to 37% of those in Western Australia.

Social cohesion still relatively stable
On the much broader question of social cohesion, our survey continues to find a large measure of stability in Australia.
One indication is provided by the Scanlon Monash Index (SMI), which aggregates responses to 18 questions and measures attitudes in five areas of social cohesion: belonging, worth, social justice, political participation and acceptance of diversity.
Over the course of our 12 national surveys, the SMI registered the highest level of volatility during 2009-2013, the period of the Rudd and Gillard governments, when it declined by more than 10%. It has been largely stable since 2014.
On the individual factors that comprise the SMI, however, there have been some significant changes. When it comes to sense of belonging, for instance, just 63% said they felt this to a “great extent” in 2019, compared to 77% in 2007.
And on the acceptance of diversity, 19% of respondents said they had experienced discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin or religion, which was significantly higher than the 9%-10% from 2007 to 2009.

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

(AU) It's The Climate, Not Immigration, That Keeps Australians Awake At Night

The Guardian - David Marr

The Scanlon Foundation’s annual report on social cohesion finds a country still largely welcoming of migrants, although 40% hold negative feelings towards Muslims
Only 6% of Australians say immigration is the biggest issue facing the country, while 19% nominate climate change. Photograph: James Ross/AAP

Something happened in 2017. Australia is second only to Canada in welcoming immigration on a large scale. Our faith in the benefits of accepting newcomers of all faiths and races is rock solid. But a couple of years ago we began to grow impatient about the government’s management of the immigration program, impatient in particular about overcrowding in our cities.
This is the verdict of the Scanlon Foundation’s 2019 Mapping Social Cohesion report, published on Tuesday. The mission of the foundation for the past decade or so has been to measure how this migrant nation hangs together. In that time an extraordinary 50,000 of us have been polled to track the hopes and fears that sweep Australia – and not just about immigration.
The author of the reports, Prof Andrew Markus of Monash University, finds most Australians now share “an underlying concern about the government not properly managing the situation – the impact on overcrowding, house prices, environment”.
Markus is one of this country’s leading authorities on the politics of race and this is the 12th report he has written for the Scanlon Foundation. His findings are a civilised rejoinder to those who skew politics to the far right in this country that their racist constituency does not speak for the nation.
But in 2019 Markus fears impatience with government management might imperil majority support for Australia’s immigration program. “This has not yet occurred, but the potential is evident.”
We are not Europe. Asked every year to name the most important problem facing their countries, Europeans have lately nominated immigration. “It’s sort of cooled down a bit now,” says Markus, “but even to the present day when people are asked what’s the main issue for the EU, they still nominate controlling population movement and immigration.”
Concern about the climate crisis is surging. Photograph: Steven Saphore/AAP
Markus has never seen such a sudden surge. The last was after the the Lindt cafe siege, when for a few years about 10% nominated national security and terrorism as the great problem facing the nation. “But this year climate change went not to 10, it went to 19,” says Markus. “And that’s so far ahead of the third issue. There’s a lot of daylight there.”
The importance of the shift is underlined by the discovery that climate sceptics have all but lost traction. In 2011, when 11% of us said climate change was our biggest worry, another 6% nominated overreaction to those fears as the great problem facing Australia. The following year, the sceptics outnumbered the climate worriers almost two to one.
Not any more. Against the 19% nomination for climate change in 2019, the sceptics could muster, at best, a contrary 1%. Markus sees this shift as an acute challenge to Canberra. “Morrison has got an opportunity to actually rebuild some capital in effective government,” he says. “But he’s got this issue of climate change. If he doesn’t deal with that, which is emerging as a major issue, that could very seriously damage this government.”
What do you think is the most important problem facing Australia today?
Showing the % who selected the issue as ‘most important problem’, by year of survey
*Indicates change between 2018 and 2019 statistically significant
Guardian graphic Source: Scanlon Foundation
Steady as she goes
Markus began his work at the end of the Howard era and the arrival of Kevin Rudd. In those years of hope and renewal, the Scanlon survey showed nearly half of us believed government did the right thing for the Australian people almost always or most of the time.
But with Rudd’s collapse in 2010 went a good measure of trust in government. It has never recovered. In the weeks before Malcolm Turnbull’s downfall, the Scanlon survey of 2018 revealed only 29% believed in the good intentions of Canberra. After the re-election of the Morrison government this year, the figure is essentially unchanged at 30%.
It’s a long slide, but Marcus disputes claims in other surveys that Australia is experiencing a catastrophic loss of faith in democracy. “There are some people out there who do surveys with small samples,” he says. “And with small samples from one year to the next you will get variability. And that produces headlines.
“But we’ve got I think the most rigorous way of surveying. We actually do it in two different modes – by telephone and by self-administration – and what that is showing is much more a picture of ‘steady as she goes’ rather than dramatic decline.”
The education line cuts across the immigration debate like a mighty trench
They shift a little, and the shifts have lately been gloomy, but year in and year out the steady findings of the Scanlon surveys define Australia:
  • 90% of us have a sense of belonging to this place.
  • 87% are proud of the Australian way of life.
  • 85% agree multiculturalism has been good for Australia.
  • 84% report having a happy 2019.
  • 80% welcome resettlement in Australia of refugees assessed abroad.
  • 79% oppose selecting immigrants by race.
  • 73% believe Australia is a land of economic opportunity where, in the long run, hard work brings a better life.
  • 71% believe globalisation is good for the country.
  • 68% believe accepting immigrants from many different countries makes Australia stronger.
  • 62% are optimistic about Australia’s future.
Then there’s the darker side:
  • 61% of Australians disapprove of asylum seekers making their way here by boat.
  • 47% of us have little or no concern about the treatment we mete out to asylum seekers in PNG and Nauru.
  • 40% in 2019 admit negative or very negative feelings towards Muslims.
The level of hostility to Muslims was masked until a couple of years ago, when the Scanlon Foundation began parallel tracking its research. Telephone interviews over the years showed 21% to 25% of us hostile to Islam. But these figures essentially double when surveys are completed in private and online.
The gap between the two sets of results shows us to be a polite people. We hesitate to admit personal unhappiness or gloom for the future of the country. We clearly don’t enjoy confessing to strangers that we’re in financial trouble. A little of our optimism about the impact of mass immigration evaporates online. We’re even shy of confessing to strangers that we don’t much like Christians – only 4% would own up to that on the telephone in 2019, but 14% said so clearly online.
Markus argues that while our sunny picture of the country darkens a little when we answer in private, those Australians most hostile to race speak loud and clear however they are surveyed.
“The views of the hardcore negative types are pretty constant irrespective of the surveys,” says Markus. “And often it’s around 10% of the population. Now it would be a worry if self-completion surveys then showed it wasn’t 10% but it was 20% to 25%. But it’s actually pretty constant.”
So who are the most hostile to immigration?
Easy answer: One Nation voters. The 2019 report shows One Nation voters are profoundly pessimistic about Australia’s future; loath globalisation; don’t give a rats about the environment; are scathing about the motives of government; dismiss multiculturalism; are fiercely hostile to Muslims; couldn’t care less how harshly we treat asylum seekers; and are the only group in the survey – young and old, rich and poor, city and country – where most still hanker for the old White Australia policy of selecting migrants by race and religion.

What divides us?
How important here is the city/country divide?Not at all on the importance of climate change. Wherever we live in cities or the bush, we agree that after the economy, the climate is the single biggest problem facing Australia today. But on immigration, the gap between city and country widens significantly.
The 2019 survey found that outside the capital cities there was an 8% drop in support for multiculturalism; a 4% rise in those wanting immigrants selected by race and religion; a 6% fall in those concerned about the treatment of refugees; and, though the bush is where migrants don’t settle and governments are desperate to send them, a nine-point jump to 49% of those who believe Australia’s immigration intake is too large.
The fundamentals are sound, even as about one in 10 of us continue to rage against this new Australia of many faiths and many cultures
But this is not the most dramatic divide revealed in the Scanlon surveys over the years. The education line cuts across the immigration debate like a mighty trench:
  • Only 27% of university graduates say Australia takes too many immigrants, but for those who never finished high school the figure is 70%.
  • Nearly 90% of graduates applaud multiculturalism but only 61% of those who never finished school.
  • Among graduates, 58% worry we treat refugees too harshly, but their fears are shared by only 32% of who never finished school.
  • While a rump of 14% of graduates still wish immigrants could be chosen by race, support for the old White Australia position more than doubles to 35% who never finished school.
Western Australia emerges from the survey as a fascinating puzzle: wildly optimistic about the future of the nation, peculiarly trusting in government, little perturbed by climate change and not particularly worried about the size of the immigration intake. But of all mainlanders, West Australians are most keen to select immigrants by race and are, by a long shot, the most hard-hearted about Australia’s treatment of refugees.
Nothing Canberra has done to its prisoners in PNG and Nauru in the past couple of years has budged the national 50:50 split between the indifferent and the sympathisers. Markus says: “It’s pretty rock solid.”
But when these figures are broken down by political alignment, Markus sees signs of movement.
ALP Senator Kristina Keneally during a September rally in support of a Tamil asylum seeker family. Markus says refugee policy is ‘huge problem for Labor’. Photograph: Joel Carrett/AAP
Thirty per cent of the Liberal constituency say Australia is being too harsh, compared with 87% of Greens. The 2019 figure for refugee sympathisers in Labor ranks is 61%.“It is a huge problem for Labor,” says Markus “because the government with its constituency can keep doing what it’s been doing, but it really wedges Labor.”
Are Christians notably more compassionate? Certainly not Anglicans. In 2019 only 39% of them could muster some sympathy for the asylum seekers Australia is putting through the mill out in the Pacific. Markus doesn’t blame their God. He says gently: “Conservative old Australia.”
Though not quite so bleak, the figures for the other faiths put paid to the notion that the churches are mighty reservoirs of sympathy for refugees. On the subject of the Pacific solution, Catholics come in slightly under the national split, with only 46% of them reporting some or a great deal of concern for what Australia is doing to refugees.
That’s typical. On issues such as the size of the immigration intake, support for multiculturalism, a hankering for the right to pick migrants by race and confidence that immigrants improve our society by introducing new ideas and cultures, the churches don’t put the attitudes of the rest of the community to shame. At best they merely mirror them.
Markus ran some figures for Guardian Australia which show that on nearly all questions asked in the survey – including concern for climate change – the progressive horse to back is those who nominate No Religion.
Overall, Markus is a grim optimist. Reports of discrimination are too high, but not for the moment growing higher. The fundamentals are sound, even as about one in 10 of us continue to rage against this new Australia of many faiths and many cultures. It’s in the government’s hands whether we continue to support what is in world terms very high support for large scale immigration.
Markus is at pains to emphasise that multiculturalism backed by almost all of us is a two-way street. “They’re saying we recognise that diversity is good, that diversity has made us a better country. You get very high levels endorsing the notion that immigration improves society by bringing new ideas and cultures.
“But on the other hand, it’s two-way because the expectation is that immigrants will, over time, be more like us. It’s not an endorsement of pluralism. It’s an endorsement of a two-way change and obviously in that change the immigrants are changing more than the host society.”
But we’re all changing? “Yes. We’re moving. But they’re moving more.”

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

27/11/2019

Greenhouse Gas Levels Have Hit A Record High And There's No Sign Of A Slowdown

SBS - AFP | SBS

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere hit a new record in 2018, rising faster than the average rise of the last decade and cementing increasingly damaging weather patterns, the World Meteorological Organisation says.
The Extinction Rebellion movement has organised climate change protests in scores of cities, including across Australia. Source City of Sydney
Greenhouse gases levels in the atmosphere, the main driver of climate change, hit a record high last year, the UN said Monday, calling for action to safeguard "the future welfare of mankind".
"There is no sign of a slowdown, let alone a decline, in greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere despite all the commitments under the Paris Agreement on Climate Change," the head of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) Petteri Taalas said in a statement.
The WMO's main annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin listed the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 2018 at 407.8 parts per million, up from 405.5 parts per million in 2017.
That increase was just above the annual average increase over the past decade.
CO2 is responsible for roughly two-thirds of Earth's warming.
The second most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is methane - emitted in part from cattle and fermentation from rice paddies - which is responsible for 17 per cent of warming, according to WMO.
Nitrous oxide, the third major greenhouse which is gas caused largely by agricultural fertilisers, has caused about six per cent of warming on Earth, the UN agency said.
Atmospheric concentration levels of both methane and nitrous oxide both hit record highs last year, the UN said.



"This continuing long-term trend means that future generations will be confronted with increasingly severe impacts of climate change, including rising temperatures, more extreme weather, water stress, sea-level rise and disruption to marine and land ecosystems," WMO said.

'More hopeful'?
Emissions are the main factor that determine the amount of greenhouse gas levels but concentration rates are a measure of what remains after a series of complex interactions between atmosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere and the oceans.
Roughly 25 per cent of all emissions are currently absorbed by the oceans and biosphere - a term that accounts for all ecosystems on Earth.
A schools climate strike rally in Melbourne earlier this year. Source AAP
The lithosphere is the solid, outer part of the Earth while the cryosphere covers that part of the world covered by frozen water.
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that in order to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, net CO2 emissions must be at net zero, meaning the amount being pumped into the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed, either through natural absorption or technological innovation.
While Mr Taalas made clear that the world was not on track to meet UN targets, he did highlight some reasons for cautious optimism.
"The visibility of these issues is the highest (it has) ever been," he told reporters in Geneva, noting that the private sector was increasingly investing in green technology.
Police officers remove climate change activists from their road blockades around the Bank of England in the City of London financial district. Source AFP
Even in the United States, where President Donald Trump's administration this month began the process of formally withdrawing from the Paris agreement, "plenty of positive things are happening," Mr Taalas said.
While Washington may have renounced its Paris agreement commitments, he added: "we have plenty of states and cities who are proceeding in the right direction."
"Personally, I am more hopeful than I used to be 10 years ago but of course we have to speed up the process."

Australia 'most vulnerable' to climate change
Australia is responsible for around 1.3 per cent of global emissions, according to the Federal Environment Department.
The government has set a target to reduce emissions to 26-28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030.
But a new study commissioned by the Climate Council revealed that more than 53 per cent of Australians thought more action, such as increased focus towards renewable energy, is needed.
"We are the biggest iron ore exporter in the world and there are ways you can turn iron ore into steel using the Australian sunshine, to create effectively zero emissions steel," Climate Council Senior Researcher, Tim Baxter, said.
"We're the sunniest and windiest continent that's inhabited on the planet so we are best placed to lead the global emissions reduction effort."
The report also found more than half of the 1500 people surveyed believed climate change had made the threat of bushfires worse.
About 42.9 per cent “strongly agreed” with the statement, while another 13.7 per cent agreed. A further 39.9 disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 3.5 per cent were unsure.
"Australia is probably the most vulnerable developed country in the world when it comes to the impact of climate change," Mr Baxter said.
"This spring we've had five states subjected to fires that can only be described as catastrophic."

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , ,

(AU) Ecoterrorism? Maybe We Should Start With Ringing The Doorbell Of A Mining Magnate’s House

The Guardian - First Dog On The Moon

There are a lot of angry people out there wondering what they have to lose – aside from the entire planet
Cartoon by First Dog on the Moon
LARGE IMAGE
Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

(AU) Media Watch: Fire Haze

ABC - Media Watch

Powerful media commentators dismiss the link between climate change and fires.
Media Watch: Fire Haze

 Transcript
SALLY BOWREY: Our top story today is the bushfire emergency unfolding across the state. More than 90 fires are burning right now, a staggering 14 at emergency watch level. Something that has not been seen before …
CHRIS REASON: … as you say, this is unprecedented stuff — 96 active fire zones around the state at the moment. And I'm being told by RFS that they’re jumping up the number of emergency level fires to 16 now and, as you say, that is unprecedented.
- Seven Afternoon News, 8 November, 2019
Hello, I’m Paul Barry, welcome to Media Watch. 
And since that report on the New South Wales bushfires two weeks ago, Australia’s fire emergency has spread to five states and destroyed more than 630 homes. 
And in the meantime our political leaders have been doing their best to avoid addressing the role of climate change in making those bushfires more severe:
SCOTT MORRISON: My only thoughts today are with those who’ve lost their lives …
- ABC News, 9 November, 2019
GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: … I certainly don’t think it’s appropriate to get into political argument …
- ABC News Breakfast, 11 November, 2019
JOHN BARILARO: … I tell you this, I’m not gonna cop it, and if that’s the rest of this interview, well you’ve lost me for the morning.
- Sky News, 11 November, 2019
But 11 days ago, after four people died in those New South Wales fires, former fire chiefs of Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania tackled the issue head on:
LEE JOHNSON: So there’s something going on and certainly climate change is exacerbating the very, very dry conditions that we’re all experiencing.
NEIL BIBBY: Bushfires are a symptom of climate change.
MIKE BROWN: I’ve had 39 years of Tasmanian Fire Service and I didn’t see too many dry lightning strikes earlier on in my career but now, and due to climate change, we’re seeing this as a regular event. 
- NewsDay, Sky News, 14 November, 2019
But leading the charge was a former New South Wales fire boss, Greg Mullins, who said in multiple interviews that a warmer climate was making it harder to fight our bushfires and reducing our ability to prepare for them: 
GREG MULLINS: … look, it’s very clear, any fire service will tell you, that the windows for hazard reduction through the winter are getting narrower and narrower. Now, a slight lift in temperature overall, average temperature, means the extremes are more extreme. The scientists are very clear, the numbers are very clear, more days of very high fire danger and above.
- The Project, Channel Ten, 11 November, 2019
But some powerful media commentators are convinced that they know better. Like shock jock Alan Jones in this full-page column in News Corp’s Daily Telegraph:
The ABC were at it again last week, fawning over 23 former fire and emergency leaders who commented, outside their area of expertise, about an alleged relationship between bushfires and climate change.
- The Daily Telegraph, 19 November, 2019
And that was just the start of it, because Jones was also assuring readers: 
It is worth asking how the non-expert views of such people are even newsworthy.
- The Daily Telegraph, 19 November, 2019
Yep, according to Jones, 23 former fire and emergency chiefs are not worth listening to when comes to bushfires. Unlike him, who’s paid millions of dollars to tell us, on repeat, that man-made global warming is a hoax.  
But Jones is not the only one to rubbish or ignore the fire chiefs’ warning. 
2GB’s news bulletins that day barely gave them a mention, even as the stations’s talk-show hosts, like Ray Hadley, had a crack at fireman Mullins with barbs like this: 
RAY HADLEY: He’s not an economist and that’s quite evident by his rantings just at the moment, Greg Mullins.
- The Ray Hadley Morning Show, 2GB, 14 November, 2019
And 2GB’s Steve Price was even more scathing:
STEVE PRICE: … Greg Mullins reckons he had a crystal ball, that he wanted to warn the government about what was coming ...
But if you listen carefully to his words you find his real game here — climate change ...
He’s now a fully-fledged member of the climate change hysteria brigade ...
- The Steve Price Show, 2GB, 14 November, 2019
Price’s guest, Peter Gleeson, who’s employed as a commentator by Sky and The Courier-Mail to tell us what’s what, also got into Mullins — a firefighter with 39 years experience — to declare:
PETER GLEESON: … he’s joined a cult. He’s been brainwashed ...
- The Steve Price Show, 2GB, 14 November, 2019
And predictably, several other News Corp columnists and TV hosts were singing from the same song sheet, either attacking Mullins and his fellow chiefs or denying that climate change is making the bushfires worse.
Or claiming that increased Australian action to fight global warming is pointless:
PETA CREDLIN: … climate change isn’t the cause of these bushfires. But there’s no doubt, and I’m not alone here, that two decades plus of climate change activism is making them worse.  
- Credlin, Sky News, 12 November, 2019
CHRIS KENNY: … the bushfire and climate change debate. It’s dumb, it’s reckless, it’s offensive, we know that, but the Greens and others, so many cheerleaders in the media, are still doubling down on this stuff.
- Kenny on Sunday, Sky News, 17 November, 2019
ANDREW BOLT: There are, for instance, the retired fire chiefs today who actually claimed, actually claimed, forget blaming the fierceness of the fires on the fact that not enough burning off was done to keep fuel levels in the bush under control, no no no no. The real problem, it seems, was that the Morrison government hadn’t magically turned down the world’s temperature by cutting Australia’s tiny emissions.
- The Bolt Report, Sky News, 14 November, 2019
And in the Herald Sun, veteran business columnist Terry McCrann went even further, by accusing the non-News Corp media of, quote, “dishonesty, distortion and hysteria”:
It has been unremitting, unrelenting, wall-to-wall coverage ...
The fact none of these bushfires were in any way extraordinary compared to not just the last 50 years but indeed the last 150 years was an ‘inconvenient truth’ ...
- The Herald Sun, 18 November, 2019 
So, what is the truth? And is it actually inconvenient for all those know-it-alls? 
Well, it’s certainly true that fires have devastated Australia since time began. But the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, fire chiefs and climate scientists all tell us the fires are getting worse. 
The season’s growing longer, the fires are more extreme and what’s really unprecedented is so many are burning at the same time:
SHANE FITZSIMMONS: Never before have we had 17 concurrent emergency warning fires burning at once, all competing desperately for resources, desperately for support, desperately for assistance. The reality is we simply couldn’t get to every individual.
- ABC News Channel, 10 November, 2019
Last Thursday, the ABC was running emergency broadcasts for fires in South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales and Queensland, and we’re told that’s a record.
But what’s unfolding now is what we’ve all been warned of for years.
In 2007, the ABC reported on research from the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, which predicted:
TANYA NOLAN: Within the next 12 years, the number of extreme days of fire danger — that's the highest risk rating — could grow by more than 60 per cent.
- The World Today, ABC Radio, 26 September, 2007 
And three years before that, in 2004, the National Inquiry on Bushfire Management had warned state and federal governments that fires would become larger and more intense as rainfall patterns changed:
The projected hotter, drier, windier conditions associated with climate change caused by greenhouse warming would extend the period of fuel drying and increase rates of fire spread.
- National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management, COAG Report, 31 March, 2004
And the latest advice from the CSIRO, updated this month, confirms that’s already happening and will get worse: 
Over recent decades, we've seen an increase in the frequency and severity of fire weather in Australia.
We predict that many regions will see a significant increase in the probability of the highest levels of fire danger in the years ahead.
- Bushfire Research, CSIRO, 6 November, 2019
And, to cap it all, according to Professor Ross Bradstock from Wollongong University’s Bushfire Research Centre, it’s all coming faster than expected: 
These unprecedented fires are an indication that a much-feared future under climate change may have arrived earlier than predicted. 
- The Conversation, 11 November, 2019
So, will this make any difference to the doubters and denialists? Almost certainly not. 
If they can call the media’s acceptance of expert opinion “dishonest, reckless and offensive”, it’s likely no amount of science or fires or drought will ever make them change their tune.
So, what does the man who employs so many of these crusaders against the science have to say?
Last week, at News Corp’s AGM in New York, a proxy for Australian shareholder activist Stephen Mayne asked Rupert Murdoch this question:
JESSICA CRAIG: If you do believe in climate change, Mr Mayne is interested to hear why News Corp gives climate deniers like Andrew Bolt and Terry McCrann so much airtime in Australia.
- News Corp AGM, 20 November, 2019
And after detailing a 25 per cent reduction in the company’s carbon footprint, Rupert replied:
RUPERT MURDOCH: There are no climate change deniers around, I can assure you.
- News Corp AGM, 20 November, 2019
Rupert Murdoch is renowned for knowing what his papers and commentators are saying all across the world.
Seems he’s also adept at claiming black is white. Because denial is what News Corp’s campaign against the facts and the experts on climate change amounts to. 
And two days after Rupert spoke came another example, from Ian Plimer in The Australian, urging us not to “pollute minds with carbon fears”, telling us:  
There are no carbon emissions. If there were, we could not see because most carbon is black.
- The Australian, 22 November, 2019
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative