21/01/2020

'You Need To Act Now': Meet 4 Girls Working To Save The Warming World

NPR - Anya Kamenetz

LA Johnson/NPR
A teenage girl, Greta Thunberg, has become the world-famous face of the climate strike movement. But she's far from alone: Thunberg has helped rally and inspire others — especially girls.
NPR talked to four teenage climate activists, all girls, from the U.S. and Australia, alongside their mothers. These teenagers are juggling activism with schoolwork and personal time. And their families are working hard to support them as they grapple with the heavy emotions that come with fighting for the future.
In Castlemaine, Australia, Milou Albrecht, 15, co-founded School Strike for Climate Australia, which organizes student walkouts. As massive bush fires engulf parts of her home country, Albrecht's group has been pressuring the German corporation Siemens to withdraw from an Australian coal mining project.
In New York City, Xiye Bastida, 17, led her school in the city's first big student climate strike last March, and along with traveling and public speaking, she and some of her classmates have continued to strike on Fridays ever since. ("Gym is on Fridays, so I have a very low grade in gym," she notes.)
In Louisiana, 16-year-old Jayden Foytlin was one of 21 young people who sued the federal government for violating their rights to a livable planet. The young plaintiffs hailed from communities around the country that have been directly affected by global warming — Foytlin, for example, is from south Louisiana, where her home has been flooded in storms.
The lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, was recently thrown out by a federal appeals court. But Foytlin says she's formed lasting friendships with the other plaintiffs. "We all share one thing in common — we really care about where we're from, and how we are going to continue to live [here]."
In upstate New York, Scout Pronto Breslin, 16, is focused on wildlife. She lives in Rhinebeck, and is the founder of a group called Hudson Valley Wild. "I volunteer at a wildlife rehab clinic," she says, explaining what motivated her activism."The birds there often come in with blood poisoning because of illegal toxins from chemical runoff and fertilizer."
Pronto Breslin advises other teens to find what really interests them about the climate movement. She says it could be composting in their schools, gardening, nature: "Once you find something that you really love, then that will just give you motivation to keep going with it."

Girls to the front
It's no coincidence that teenage girls are especially visible right now as climate leaders, says Katharine Wilkinson.
LA Johnson/NPR

Education

"The youth movement is such a great example of the way in which girls and young women are stepping into the heart of this space, and showing us what it looks like to lead with courage and imagination and incredible moral clarity."
Wilkinson works with a solutions-focused climate organization called Project Drawdown, and delivered a TED talk on how empowering women and girls can help stop global warming.
"When we think about the nexus of climate and gender, there are three big points of intersection," she tells NPR.
"One is that the impacts of climate change hit women and girls first and worst," particularly in the developing world and in poor communities.
The second, she says, is that "gender equality is itself a climate solution," with women's education and equity leading to smaller family sizes and, research shows, better land management practices.
And the third is what Wilkinson calls "transformational leadership that is grounded in intersectional feminism and what we might consider more feminine approaches to leading."
We all need to save the world. It's not up to girls. As much as we admire and love what they're doing. It also doesn't absolve us of responsibility.
Jennifer Breslin
Scout Pronto Breslin's mother, Jennifer Breslin, used to work on gender equity issues at the United Nations. She agrees with Wilkinson: "I think it's really amazing how many young women are involved in this."
On the other hand, she says, "I don't believe 'Girls are going to save the world.' We all need to save the world. It's not up to girls. As much as we admire and love what they're doing, it also doesn't absolve us of responsibility."

Raised to care for the Earth
Each of these girls expressed her own, independent commitment to the climate crisis — but it's impossible to ignore the upbringings that sparked their engagement.
LA Johnson/NPR
"My mom and my dad always taught me what it was to take care of the Earth," Xiye Bastida says.
Bastida — who has been described as New York City's Greta Thunberg — is the daughter of Geraldine Patrick Encina, a scholar in residence at the Union Theological Seminary's Center for Earth Ethics, and an environmental activist since her own teenage years in Chile. Bastida's father is a member of the indigenous Otomi Toltec nation in Mexico, which advocates for the protection of their local water and land.


Geraldine Patrick Encina says the family follows indigenous traditions. "We will do at least one ceremony, you know, to the waters or to the land frequently, maybe once a week."Milou Albrecht is the daughter of Susan Burke, a psychologist who works in climate adaptation and disaster recovery. Burke and her husband raised their three children for years in an eco-friendly, rural, intentional community. Albrecht says she grew up going to environmental protests, and that they were "heaps of fun."
Social justice was part of Scout Pronto Breslin's upbringing, too. Aside from her mother's work in areas including sustainable development, her father was an anti-apartheid activist in South Africa, and currently works for the U.N.
And Jayden Foytlin's mother is Cherri Foytlin, a direct action climate activist of Afro-Latina-Indigenous descent who is known for opposing an oil pipeline in south Louisiana.
"Some families, they go to baseball games or

ballerina concerts," notes Cherri. "Well, it's always been a family function for us to go to marches or meetings or meet with the community and learn how to organize."
It's always been a family function for us to go to marches or meetings or meet with the community and learn how to organize.
Cherri Foytlin
All of the teenagers, however, made the point that they had friends in the movement whose parents were less aware, less involved or less supportive than their own.
"I have a few friends whose parents will tell them, 'You can not go to that meeting until you finish your homework,' or, 'You have to stop skipping school on Fridays,' " says Xiye Bastida. She calls it "a very fine line because no parent wants their kid to fail school."

Supporting, but also stepping back
LA Johnson/NPR
Young climate change activists need support, they and their parents say, especially emotional support. "The toughest moments have been when Xiye just needs a hug," says her mother, Geraldine Patrick Encina.
Climate change is enormous and tragic. It feels very personal to young people in particular, who are more likely than older generations to say that it impacts them personally. That makes it similar to other youth-led movements, such as Black Lives Matter and the March for Our Lives movement against gun violence.
The toughest moments have been when Xiye just needs a hug.
Geraldine Patrick Encina
At the same time, eco-anxiety, depression and secondary traumatic stress are normal psychological reactions to learning about the reality of human-caused environmental destruction. That's according to psychologist Renee Lertzman, who has been working in this area for decades. She compares the situation of these teenagers to her own upbringing in the nuclear age.
"Anyone who's my age knows what it's like to grow up with the threat of nuclear war around you all the time, and how terrifying that is," she says. "So I have a lot of empathy and compassion for what it's like to be a young person in the context of an existential threat. I feel concern, and I feel like we need to be thoughtful about how we navigate this."
She says young people need to hear, "It's not all on them."
On the positive side, Susan Burke, Milou Albrecht's psychologist mother, says getting involved with a cause you care about can be protective for mental health. "It's great to take action on things that are worrying you because action is one of the best antidotes to despair and helplessness and hopelessness."
But Burke cautions that this work must be child-led — you can't push your children to get involved.
It's great to take action on things that are worrying you because action is one of the best antidotes to despair and helplessness and hopelessness.
Susan Burke
Albrecht says her parents are good at listening and supporting, "but also kind of stepping back and let me do my thing."
Scout Pronto Breslin's mom, Jennifer Breslin, agrees with that approach. "We need to not micromanage them. It's really hard. You kind of want to jump in and say, 'Why don't you try this?' "
Many youth and student groups have created guidelines for adult allies on how to be supportive without taking over.

Balancing school, life and activism
LA Johnson/NPR
Many activists are also high-achieving students with multiple AP classes and packed schedules. Bastida says to make room for the school strike planning and the traveling and speaking she's doing, she's dropped gymnastics and Model United Nations. No regrets, she says: "Model U.N. is so stressful. I am more nervous about Model U.N. than [lobbying] the actual U.N. Kids are crazy competitive. I'm not trying to be part of that."


Nevertheless, they all say that they have to — and their parents encourage them to — make room for downtime and hobbies.
Foytlin likes to draw and play with her little brother. Bastida likes Netflix and taking baths, and she says, "My dad tells me every day, 'You cannot fix the world if you do not fix up your room.' "
Pronto Breslin likes taking walks in the woods with her golden retriever, Tess; playing the guitar and listening to Elvis and the Beatles. And Albrecht likes gardening.
Each of these girls says it's important to find joy in the moment, and in the friendships they are making as they work for a better future.
"We advocate [so much] for urgency," Bastida says. "We are saying you need to act now. You need to do this fast. But you cannot live your life in that way. And I think that's the trickiest part — how do you live in a state of urgency without feeling that within you? So we have to remain centered not only in our families, but our communities, in organizing. When we organize, we model the world we want to see.

Links

(AU) Climate Change: Platypus On The ‘Brink Of Extinction’

NEWS.com.au

Researchers have found that climate threats and habitat destruction are pushing platypuses towards extinction.
Drought and heatwaves are exacerbating the threats posed by dam building, land clearing and predators. Picture: Supplied
One of Australia’s most-loved mammals, the platypus, is being pushed towards the “brink of extinction” by climate threats and habitat destruction, researchers say.
Platypus numbers may have halved or more since Europeans arrived in Australia, according to a study published in the scientific journal Biological Conservation.
The research predicts that local extinctions may have occurred across 40 per cent of the species’ range due to dam building, land clearing and other disruptions.
Under current climate and threats, the researchers predicted platypus numbers would decline between 47 per cent and 66 per cent over 50 years.
Programs to relocate platypuses are being proposed. Picture: Australian Platypus Park
When adjusted for projected climate change, the research found that increased drought frequencies and duration were predicted to further reduce platypus populations by between 51 and 73 per cent.
“These dangers further expose the platypus to even worse local extinctions with no capacity to repopulate areas,” lead author and researcher at the University of NSW’s Centre for Ecosystem Science, Gilad Bino, told The Age.
The trajectory could place the mammal on the “brink of extinction”, he said.
Even before Australia’s devastating bushfire season – which have killed millions of the nation’s wildlife – the platypus population was suffering as a result of the intensifying drought and heatwave.
Disruption of Murray Darling and Great Dividing Range habitats means “the consequences are grim for the platypus”, said director of the UNSW centre and another of the study’s authors, Richard Kingsford.
“This is impacting their ability to survive during these extended dry periods and increased demand for water.
“If we lost the platypus from Australian rivers, you would say, ‘What sort of government policies or care allow that to happen?’” Prof Kingsford said.
“What sort of nonchalance and disregard for one of the world’s most important species has allowed this to happen?”
A NSW environment spokeswoman told the publication that the Government “recognises that a range of factors, exacerbated by the current prolonged drought conditions, may be placing the long-term viability of platypus populations at risk”.
The researchers said there was an “urgent need” to implement national conservation efforts for the platypus by increasing surveys, tracking trends, mitigating threats and improving management of their habitat in rivers.
The study was the first nationwide attempt to establish a so-called metapopulation model for the platypus.

Links

(AU) Editorial: Climate Change Impossible To Deny

Canberra TimesEditorial

Is it possible that even if the earth was reduced to a burnt out husk and the last humans were sheltering in the deepest caves they could find there would still be a climate change denier up the back saying "it wasn't us, it's just the natural order of things"?
Pooh Corner on the Kings Highway between Canberra and the NSW South Coast. It survived the bushfires, but will it be so lucky next time? Rising temperatures are already changing our world. Picture: Dion Georgopoulos.
That seems likely given the reaction by the usual suspects to last week's findings the 2010s were the hottest decade on record.
While not necessarily interesting reading in themselves, the comment threads on some of the news reports of the joint NASA and NOAA finding are notable in that they appear to plumb new depths of human stupidity, self-delusion and wishful thinking.
The Bureau of Meteorology had confirmed 2019 was the hottest year ever in Australia just the week before with temperatures 1.52 degrees above the long-term average.
2020 is also on track to be right up there with early indications it will be one of the five hottest years ever in this country.
While 2016 remains the hottest year ever recorded across the globe, 2019 is now in second place.
Data collated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows warming has accelerated over the past 40 years. Annual global average surface temperatures are increasing at about .18 degrees a decade.
Given the fires in Australia and the Amazon, increased hurricane activity in the Bahamas, reductions in ice cover in the Bering and Chukchi seas, melting permafrost in Alaska and Siberia, heatwaves in Europe and cyclones in Mozambique it is obvious the planet is undergoing major changes.
Our children, and our children's children, will live in a world very different, and significantly less hospitable, to the one we know.
Stopping emissions from increasing is one thing; working out how to put the genie back into the bottle - if that is even possible - is going to be another.
"But", the deniers will cry, "how can we be sure it is humans who are causing this?"
Join the dots. Despite the best efforts of the Kyoto and the Paris agreements global greenhouse emissions hit a record high in 2019. According to the Washington Post "the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now sits at the highest level in human history - a level probably not seen on the planet for three million years".
The multi-trillion dollar question is whether or not this is reversible. Have we reached a tipping point of no return or is it still possible to turn this around before Parramatta and Bankstown become beachside suburbs?
Any honest answer to this question has to be along the lines of "maybe, maybe not". That is because the best advice available suggests the best time to have done something about this will always be "yesterday".
The longer we hold off, the greater the changes we are going to have to make to achieve carbon dioxide targets that would have been relatively easy to reach a decade or two decades ago.
We also need to take into account the fact significant warming has already occurred. Whole countries, including Switzerland and Kazakhstan according to some reports, have already warmed beyond the two degrees celsius the IPCC considers manageable.
Stopping emissions from increasing is one thing; working out how to put the genie back into the bottle - if that is even possible - is going to be another.
One of the few bright spots this week was Science Minister, Karen Andrews's, call for the deniers to get over themselves.
"Every second we spend discussing whether or not climate change is real is a second that we don't spend talking about, putting into place, strategies to mitigate the effects," she said.
That is a welcome change of pace for this government. We hope her more intransigent colleagues are listening.

Links

20/01/2020

(AU) Behind The Smokescreen, The Coalition's Stance On Climate Change Hasn't Changed At All

The Guardian

If Scotty from Marketing and his coal-fired peers really believed in the climate crisis, they’d be doing something about it. Behind the smokescreen, the Coalition's stance on climate change hasn't changed at all.
The government’s actions over the past decade mean they have not earned the benefit of doubt, rather they have earned our total scepticism. Photograph: Robert Cianflone/Getty Images
The speed with which the conservative side of politics and the media has gone from assuring us climate change was not a problem, so we don’t need to worry about reducing emissions, to asserting that climate change is a problem, but we still don’t need to worry about reducing emissions, is breathtaking. Literally, given the levels of smoke still around.
You don’t get a cookie for saying you think climate change is real.
I’m sorry, you don’t. All you get is the capacity to say you have reached 1990 levels of comprehension – as that was when the first IPCC report was issued. You don’t get a prize for spending 30 years doing all you can to halt, undermine and dismantle action to reduce emissions, only to now say: “Hey, climate change is real.”
Consider that the Sydney Morning Herald this week ran a front page story headlined “Minister slams climate debate”, with the lead that “Australia’s bushfire crisis has prompted a blunt warning from Science Minister Karen Andrews to those she says are wasting time arguing about whether climate change is real”.
Oh good, that’s all sorted then.
But when you read on, you see nothing in her statement suggest one iota of a shift in the government’s position on emissions. She told the Herald: “My starting position in the discussion tomorrow will be that the climate has changed and it continues to change. We need to focus on the steps to adapt and mitigate the impact of those changes.”
The important point is she desires to mitigate the impact of the change, not to mitigate the actual change.
Right now the government is indulging in the equivalent of responding to polio by promising to invest in more iron lungs. And bizarrely, it is getting credit for it.
Adaptation is not mitigation.
The need for action on climate change is the need to reduce emissions
What is being said now is no different to what was said by Tony Abbott back when he was prime minister. In 2015, Abbott told parliament: “As far as the government is concerned, climate change is real. Mankind makes a contribution, and it is important to have strong and effective action to deal with it.
“We have met and beaten our Kyoto targets ... We are on track to meet and beat our current commitments to reduce emissions by 2020 by 13 per cent on 2005 levels.”
He then concluded: “I’m not going to put someone’s job at risk, a region’s, town’s future at risk, I’m not going to put up electricity prices to do it, I’m not going to put a tax on them to do it. I’m going to achieve it in the way we’ve met our Kyoto 2020 targets, meet and beat, and we’ve done that through better technology, through the policies we’ve put through the emissions reduction fund, and we’re going to continue to do that because it is really important.”
Oh sorry, that wasn’t Abbott, that was Scott Morrison in his interview with David Speers last Sunday.
If you can discern any difference in language between what Morrison is now saying and what Abbott said in 2015, then your level of reading between the lines has become so great you are seeing things that are not there.
Just because we all desire the Coalition to do something on climate change doesn’t actually mean they will.
Climate change protesters take to the streets in Sydney. Photograph: Steven Saphore/AAP
And their actions over the past decade mean they have not earned the benefit of doubt, rather they have earned our total scepticism.
The same goes for the conservative media. This week the NT News was getting praise for its front page, in which it stated: “What Australian needs now is real, affordable solutions – not armies of keyboard warriors.”
But aside from the pretty random sideswipe at keyboard warriors, the statement is the perfect representation of meaningless dribble designed to sound like a bold stance.
You know what is a real and affordable solution? Putting a price on carbon. And yet in the NT News editorial, the word emissions was not even mentioned, and I am prepared to bet my superannuation fund they would not suggest a price on carbon was an affordable solution.
Similarly the Daily Telegraph’s editorial on Thursday on “Moving climate debate forward” praised the government’s policy and demanded the ALP come clean with how much theirs would cost.
Give me strength.
It seems that moving forward is reenacting the exact same coverage that occurred during the last election.
You can’t say you agree with the science on climate change and then completely disregard the science that calls for the need to reduce emission by 45% from 2010 levels as soon as possible and to get to zero net emissions by at least 2050.
Saying you agree with the science of climate change but that you believe the government’s current plan is adequate is like saying you agree with vaccination, but you chose to only get one of your three kids immunised because, heck, that is more affordable.
The cheapest way to deal with the cost of climate change is to reduce our emissions and prevent, as much as is possible, further increases in global temperatures.
Dealing with climate change will be tough – people will lose jobs, the prices of some things will rise, but the cost of inaction is going to be much greater and more damaging – both to our economy and to our society.
Fortunately, the path to a vibrant emissions-free economy remains, and as Ross Garnaut has pointed out, such a shift will be extremely beneficial for our economy if we act now.
Indeed perhaps the most frustrating thing about the past decade is that not only have we have wasted a chance to reduce emissions, we have forgone the opportunity to set up our economy for the next 100 years.
Do not fall for the government’s spin. The need for action on climate change is the need to reduce emissions and to also take a leading role in that fight on the international stage.Climate Change
So when you hear someone in government say they believe in climate change, ask what they are doing about reducing emissions; everything else is spin.

Links

Long Shaped By Fire, Australia Enters A Perilous New Era

Yale Environment 360

Australia has always been a dry continent where fire has played an important ecological role. But the latest massive conflagrations there are evidence that a hotter climate has thrust Australia into a new normal where fires will keep burning on an unprecedented scale. 
A firefighting crew works to control a blaze in Sydney, Australia in November. Brett Hemmings/Getty Images
Australia is sometimes called “the fire continent” because the ecology of the world’s driest inhabited land has been shaped by repeated burning. But even the fire continent has never seen anything like the recent conflagrations.
Bush fires have been raging in the southeastern states of New South Wales and Victoria for four months now. More than 38,000 square miles, an area the size of South Carolina, have burned. At least 28 people have died and some 2,000 houses in rural towns have been destroyed.
In Mallacoota, a coastal town in Victoria, 1,000 residents and tourists were rescued from the beach by the Australian navy as the flames closed in. Even the vineyards of the Adelaide hills, home of some of the country’s most prized and widely exported chardonnays and sauvignon blancs, have burned. Adding to the mayhem, state authorities in South Australia have been shooting thousands of camels to protect aboriginal communities besieged by herds of the feral animals searching for water.
But seemingly only the country’s climate-denial politicians are surprised. Australia’s meteorologists and fire chiefs had been predicting a record fire season for months. The weather watchers saw early in the year that Australia faced a fire-raising combination of natural rainfall cycles — notably fluctuations in sea temperatures in the Indian Ocean that brought high temperatures and drought to southeast Australia this year — and a very unnatural trend toward a hotter and drier climate. The ensuing blazes have attracted worldwide attention, in large measure because they are part of a pattern of intensifying fires from the Arctic to the Amazon.
Last year, Australia saw the six hottest days it ever recorded, maxing out at 122 degrees Fahrenheit.
Australia is among the countries most exposed to the gathering pace of planet-wide warming. Last year, Australia experienced its highest recorded temperatures, 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above the late 20th century average, and 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) above the early 20th century average — twice the global increase. The year also saw the six hottest days ever recorded in Australia, maxing out at 49.9 degrees C, or 122 degrees F.
Higher temperatures are ensuring that vegetation dries out faster and further in droughts, creating extreme fire risk. And the droughts have come. Australia’s average rainfall in 2019, at 10.9 inches, was 40 percent below the late 20th century average and 12 percent below the previous lowest. The resulting fires far exceeded in extent Australia’s most deadly bushfire disaster in February 2009, when 173 people died but only 1,700 square miles burned.
As the country has reacted in horror, meteorologists have said, in effect, “We told you so.” The rising fire risk was predicted by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s senior research scientist Chris Lucas, who warned 13 years ago that in southeast Australia “fire seasons will start earlier and end slightly later, while being generally more intense. This effect… should be apparent by 2020.”And so it has proved.
In a paper published last September with Sarah Harris of the Country Fire Authority in Victoria, Lucas reiterated that “anthropogenic climate change is the primary driver” of increased fire vulnerability. The analysis did not make a good fit with the posturing of the nation’s politicians, who in recent weeks have had to defend their notorious skepticism about climate change, continued support of fossil fuels, and failure to increase funding for fire services. In a radio interview in November, as the fires gathered pace, Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack dismissed any link to climate change as “the ravings of some pure, enlightened, and woke capital-city greenies.”
Residents of Mallacoota in Victoria are evacuated by army personnel on January 3. Justin McManus/The Age/Fairfax Media via Getty Images
Now, with Australians demonstrating in the streets against his policies, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has been forced to concede the “greenies” were right all along. “We’re living in longer, hotter, drier summers,” he said in a recent TV interview. “This is obviously affected by the broader changes in climate.”
Australia is used to bushfires. Its history is littered with the havoc they can bring: Black Friday in 1939, when 7,700 square miles burned and 71 people died; Black Tuesday in 1967, when 1,020 square miles burned and 62 died; and Black Saturday in 2009. Much of its ecology, including its iconic eucalyptus forests, depends on regular fires,
Australia has more than 800 endemic eucalyptus species, comprising around three-quarters of its forests. Most species thrive in fire-prone areas with nutrient-poor soils. Their foliage is rich in oils that readily burn, releasing their seeds from woody capsules and creating areas of nutrient-rich ash where the seeds will germinate.
But, much as they need fire, too much fire can wipe them out. And this year it has been so hot and dry that the fires have spread into forests with eucalyptus species adapted to wetter conditions, according to David Bowman, a fire ecologist at the University of Tasmania. Whether they can recover will be a critical question for forest ecologists.
Equally uncertain is how wildlife is coping. Chris Dickman of the University of Sydney hazarded a guess — based on his previous assessment of animal densities done for the environmental group WWF Australia — that more than a billion mammals, reptiles, and birds could have perished already, either burned, starved, or eaten by predators such as raptors and feral cats that stalk fire zones.
“The fires… will certainly cause the extinction of some of Australia’s most iconic, fragile and beautiful inhabitants,” says an expert.
But Kate Parr of the University of Liverpool, an expert on assessing the impact of wildfires on wildlife, said the estimate was based on sparse field data. Moreover, it assumes no survivors, which may be unduly pessimistic. “Australia’s animals have a long and impressive history of co-existing with fire,” says Dale Nimmo of Charles Sturt University in New South Wales. Some have well-developed escape routines. Others hunker down in deep burrows and may go into temporary hibernation until the fires are gone and food sources start to return.
Singed koalas have featured strongly in TV reports of the fires. They may be individually vulnerable, but most koalas live outside the fire zones, says Ayesha Tulloch of the University of Sydney.
Nonetheless, the exceptional nature of the fires could overwhelm the best coping strategies. “The full effect of the fires… will certainly cause the extinction of some of Australia’s most iconic, fragile, and beautiful inhabitants,” says Ben Garrod, an evolutionary biologist at the University of East Anglia in the UK. Among those at highest risk are endangered species that live mostly in the fire zones, including the eastern bristlebird; the long-footed potoroo, a rabbit-sized marsupial; and the silver-headed antechinus, a mouse-sized carnivorous marsupial only discovered in 2013.
Some foresters have argued that the ferocity of the recent fires is due, in part, to there being too much wood to burn. Rod Keenan of the University of Melbourne, who gets funding from the forestry industry, blames the megafires on the reluctance of the authorities to carry out preemptive controlled burning of dead wood early in the dry season. Forester Vic Jurskis, in a well-publicized open letter to the prime minister, blamed the reluctance on a “green influence on politics.”
A wallaby licks its burnt paws after escaping a bushfire near the township of Nana Glen in New South Wales in November 2019. Wolter Peeters/The Sydney Morning Herald via Getty Images
But that charge is misplaced. Ecologists have long since realized that it can be necessary to set fires to prevent fires. The United States learned the hard way in 1988, when Yellowstone burned, that preventing all fires is a recipe for storing up fuel for future megafires. And Australian environmental campaigners know it, too. In a policy paper drawn up in 2017, long before the present fires, Australia’s Green Party called for a “scientifically based, ecologically appropriate use of fire” as “an effective and sustainable strategy for fuel-reduction management that will protect biodiversity and moderate the effects of wildfire.”
The story of the Australian bushfires has gained international attention in part because it reflects a global pattern. Fires in the Amazon in August gained as many headlines as the Australian blazes. Similarly, extreme fires in the boreal forests of Siberia burned some 16,000 square miles, according to Greenpeace, with matching conflagrations in Alaska and western Canada. In 2018, California was struck by its deadliest and most extensive wildfires, covering 3,000 square miles and causing more than 100 fatalities. And in 2015, 10,000 square miles of Indonesian forests burned.
Researchers have affirmed that climate change is increasing the risks. A review published this week by British and Australian researchers concluded that “human-induced warming has already led to a global increase in the frequency and severity of fire-weather, increasing the risk of wildfire.” A 2015 global study by Bowman and colleagues looked at trends in the length of droughts. They found that the average “fire-weather season length” had increased by an alarming 19 percent between 1979 and 2013.
Yet despite the rising incidence of drought, the actual extent of fires around the world, though still around 1.3 million square miles every year, has been falling. One study found a 24 percent decline in the past two decades. This was in part due to a decline in deforestation in the Amazon after 2004 (a trend now reversed), and in part because many fewer fires are being set by farmers and pastoralists to clear bush in the increasingly densely populated savanna grasslands of Africa. “When land use intensifies on savannas, fire is used less and less,” says Niels Andela of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, who led the research.
One solution is to learn from indigenous methods of using fire to manage the land.
More and more of the forest and bush fires that occur globally are due either to the deliberate clearing of forests for permanent agriculture — as in the Amazon and Indonesia — or because a changing climate is dramatically increasing the risk of wildfires. And there is growing evidence that these climate-induced fires are more intense and less amenable to control.
In short, there are fewer fires, but more wildfires.
So is there a way of mitigating the risks? One approach, say many ecologists, is to accept that all fires are not bad and to learn from indigenous methods of using fire to manage the land. In North America, “native people burned extensively,” says Lee Klinger, formerly at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and now an independent scientist who has studied fire regimes in California.
Before Europeans arrived, traditional burning ensured that there were many more fires in forests on the West Coast than today, he says. “But they burned more frequently, and so less destructively,” said Klinger. “There were ground fires, but not the canopy fires we see today.”
Australian researchers and aboriginal communities say much the same. Traditional aboriginal “fire-stick” farming certainly changed the ecology by setting small fires to clear land for cultivation. But many researchers say the effects could be beneficial. This “cool burning” maintained open grasslands, extended the range of fire-adapted species, and often increased local biodiversity by creating mosaics of different habitats. “Aboriginal burning was critical for the maintenance of habitats for small mammals,” according to Bowman, who has coined the term “pyrodiversity” to describe its biodiversity benefits.
Wildfires in Bairnsdale, Australia on December 30. Glen Morey / AP
The question now is whether even such intelligent means of fire management can hold back the flames. With climate change leaving the bush bone dry, and with temperatures soaring to levels much higher than local ecosystems are adapted to, the old ways may no longer work.
The question is especially pertinent for Australia. Most climate models predict that “Australia will warm faster than the rest of the world,” says Kevin Hennessy, climate researcher at the CSIRO, Australia’s national research agency. Global heating will also likely cause a continued decline in rainfall in southern Australia, resulting in longer droughts and many more days with severe fire danger.
But Australia’s current fires increasingly look like a harbinger of new conflagrations elsewhere. During a period of strong warming in the American West over the past half century, the number of wildfires covering more than 1.5 square miles has increased fivefold — a trend that the researchers link to higher temperatures and longer droughts, and expect to continue.
In Mediterranean Europe, where wildfires are an increasing summer threat from Portugal to Greece, researchers predict a 40 to 100 percent increase, depending largely on temperature increases. Few doubt that fires will also become more frequent in the boreal forests of the far north as the Arctic warms. Most recently, a paper published last week in Science argued that a lethal combination of deforestation and climate change will double the area burned annually by wildfires in the southern Amazon by 2050. Paulo Brando of the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts titled his paper: “The Gathering Firestorm.”

Links

(AU) Can Scott Morrison Seize This Watershed Moment For Climate Policy?

Sydney Morning HeraldRob Harris

Andrew Hirst, the no-nonsense Liberal Party federal director, had a blunt warning for cabinet ministers who were still swept up in shock of Morrison's May Miracle.
In the weeks following the Coalition's election victory, Hirst was invited to present his findings about why and how the government had won re-election, face-to-face with 23 men and women in the cabinet room.
Images of thick smoke blanketing Parliament House have put Australia at the centre of a new global debate on climate change. Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
The result was largely driven by economic reasons, those seated around the table recall him saying, and the victory should not be misrepresented by any other issue. It had not been a referendum on climate change, as some had billed it.
Hirst - who had a front-row seat during the past decade of the Coalition climate wars as a senior aide to both Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull - told the room global warming remained a significant issue to many voters, especially in inner-city electorates, and the party remained vulnerable on the topic.
A discussion followed that if the government was not going to dramatically change its policies, it needed to better communicate what it was doing to lower emissions and that it was taking the issue seriously.
Almost eight months on from Hirst's warning to ministers, the government is again confronting its climate divisions following devastating bushfires across Victoria and NSW.
Andrew Hirst, who served as deputy chief of staff to then-Prime Minister Tony Abbott, warned the election win was based on economics and wasn't a referendum on climate change. Credit: Andrew Meares
Images of the nation's capital, its Parliament obscured by smoke, has put Australia at the centre of a new global debate on the issue.
Pictures of Scott Morrison, then treasurer, holding a lump of coal in February 2017 have often accompanied footage of razed towns and charred rain forests.
And like leaders before him, Morrison is attempting to deal with the fallout, while trying to balance the party's "broad church" of moderates and conservatives, believers and deniers, and the voters from inner-city Higgins to regional Herbert.
But Liberal MPs in the cities and the bush are now reporting their offices have been bombarded with correspondence with complaints of government inaction during the past month. Many believe the expectation of climate action is now a concern of Morrison's own "quiet Australians".
Then-treasurer Scott Morrison with a lump of coal in Parliament in February 2017. Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
"These are not the usual mass produced template emails from activists," one MP remarked.
"These are from mainstream mums who are anxious about the smoke and fearful about their kids' futures."
So like commentators and lobby groups, MPs are watching their Prime Minister's reaction as he deals with the biggest crisis since coming to power.
They, like the commentariat, are second-guessing every public comment and attempting to read between the lines. Will this be a watershed moment for climate policy? Or just a PR exercise?
In a series of interviews since the devastation, Morrison has stressed there is "no dispute" climate change was causing "longer, hotter, drier, summer seasons".
And at every opportunity he has been at pains to stress the government would "meet and beat" its Paris target of reducing emissions by 26-28 per cent compared with 2005 levels by 2030.
"We want to reduce emissions and do the best job we possibly can and get better and better and better at it. I want to do that with a balanced policy which recognises Australia's broader national economic interests and social interest," he told the ABC's David Speers on Sunday.
"In the years ahead we are going to continue to evolve our policy in this area to reduce emissions even further and we're going to do it without a carbon tax, without putting up electricity prices, and without shutting down traditional industries upon which regional Australians depend for their very livelihood."


Scott Morrison sat down with David Speers for an interview on his response to the Australian bushfire crisis.

But while Morrison talks up his intention to act on climate change and support new renewable technologies, colleagues wonder whether his rhetoric is being seen as empty while a handful of backbenchers continue to mouth their objections or publicly question the science of climate change.
The conundrum facing Morrison and his cabinet was on show through the pages of the national papers this week.
On Wednesday, Science Minister Karen Andrews - amid weeks of freelancing from Coalition climate contrarians - felt the need to declare the science on climate change was settled.
"Let's not keep having debates about climate change," the former engineer said.
"Let's accept that the climate has changed, the climate is changing and we need to look at what we're going to do about that."
The comment was aimed, in part, at NSW Liberal MP Craig Kelly, who in the days following the New Year's bushfire devastation thought it was be a good idea to appear on a high-rating British television show arguing climate change wasn't real.
In a show of support for Andrews, the following day six Liberals - Trent Zimmerman, Tim Wilson, Dave Sharma, Hollie Hughes, Andrew Bragg and Fiona Martin backed her up in the pages of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald.
Bragg, who at 35 represents the Gen Y voter group, took to his Instagram with a simple message:
"Climate change is not a belief. It is based on a science. We have no time for conspiracy theories when there is so much to be done."
Hughes backed her colleague having lived much of her life near Moree, a drought-ridden town in western NSW.
"Karen is correct when she says every second spent discussing whether the climate is changing is wasted time – it's time that would be much better spent on mitigation and adaption strategy development," she said.
But on the same day an unnamed cabinet minister fired a warning shot on the front page of The Australian urging Morrison to maintain Coalition unity on climate and emissions targets.
"If we go back to talking about climate or targets or anything, the only climate that will change will be the climate in the party room. It'll blow the place up," the senior MP said.
The comments were backed up by Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce, who had already nailed his colours to the mast on Christmas Eve when he said Australians would be "fools" who'd "get nailed" unless they acknowledge there's a "higher authority" that needs to be respected.
"Single crusades in Australia will have absolutely zero effect on the climate or future bushfires. It'll only have an effect on the economy of Australia," Joyce said in the same front-page article.
This is the political reality Morrison, like Malcolm Turnbull before him, faces. One unnamed quote or rogue interview from a backbencher is enough to distract, discredit and derail any climate policy advancement.As one cabinet minister told The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald: "What can he possibly do? Increase the emissions targets? The Right won't let him do that and neither will the Nats. No way. And despite the election win, I don't think he has the authority to do that."
Last month the Australian Election Study, produced by the Australian National University, found the proportion of voters nominating global warming and the environment as their top issue was at an all-time high.
While 93 per cent of Labor voters thought the issue to be important, two-thirds of Coalition voters considered the issue to be either quite important or very important.
Inner-city MPs in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane have been awake to this for some time. They observed the swings against them in May and worry what another year of bushfires will do to their election hopes.
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg makes it known he drives an electric car in his seat of Kooyong, in Melbourne's eastern suburbs, for a reason.
South Australian senator Simon Birmingham was also keen to point out it was in important issue to him in his Alfred Deakin Institute Oration last September.
"It would be a mistake for anyone to try to claim an ideological mandate from this year's federal election beyond the majority-building commitments our parties made in areas of economic and national security," he said.
"In areas like protection from religious discrimination or much-needed commitments to emissions reduction, we must govern from the sensible centre, taking actions that are responsible and meaningful but in ways that are respectful to the diverse constituencies we represent."
It is why in the past two weeks Morrison and his cabinet ministers have rushed to spruik investment in renewables, emerging technologies such as hydrogen, carbon capture use and storage, biofuels, lithium production and waste-to-energy.
Some have taken heart from Morrison's indication the government could stop claiming Kyoto carry-over credits to meet its 26-28 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030, "if we are in a position where we don't need them".
But others believe the time for talk is now over.
"We say emissions are going down and they are going up. We say investment in renewables is higher than ever but it's falling because of the policy mess we have created," one Liberal MP said.
"At the moment they are running around like headless chooks, throwing money here, there and everywhere without any thought.
"It is little wonder we have no credibility on this issue."

Links

19/01/2020

Youth Activists Lose Appeal In Landmark Lawsuit Against US Over Climate Crisis

The GuardianLee Van der Voo

Court confirms government’s contribution to the issue, but judges find they lack power to enforce climate policy decisions
Youth protesters rally in support of a lawsuit brought on behalf of 21 youth plaintiffs against the US government over climate crisis. Photograph: Win McNamee/Getty Images
The ninth circuit court of appeals ordered dismissal of a lawsuit brought by 21 youth plaintiffs against the federal government over climate crisis, citing concerns about separation of powers.
The case was brought against the government in 2015, charging that it sanctioned, permitted and authorized a fossil fuel system that compromised the youth plaintiffs’ civil right to property. It implied a constitutional right to a stable climate, and alleged that the government violated the public trust by failing to protect assets held in trust, notably the atmosphere.
The plaintiffs, now all between the ages of 12 and 23, also asked the US district court of Oregon to order the government to craft a climate remediation plan, one targeting scientifically acceptable standards to stabilize the climate.
On Friday, the ninth circuit court found, however, that the court lacked the power to enforce such a plan or climate policy decisions by the government and Congress, concluding “in the end, any plan is only as good as the court’s power to enforce it”.
Nevertheless, the court found that the record “conclusively establishes that the federal government has long understood the risks of fossil fuel use and increasing carbon dioxide emissions” and “that the government’s contribution to climate change is not simply a result of inaction”.
The court also found that the youth met the requirements for standing in the case and that some of the plaintiffs met the requirements for actual injury.
Levi Draheim, a 12-year-old plaintiff from Satellite Beach, Florida, the court found was injured by repeat evacuations from his home during worsening storms. Jaime Butler, 19, was injured by displacement from her home because of water security issues, separating her from relatives in the Navajo Nation, the court also found. The court also found that the plaintiffs proved their injuries were caused by the climate crisis.
Two of the three judges balked at the scope of change required to reverse climate breakdown, finding that halting certain programs would not halt the growth of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere or injuries to the plaintiffs.
“Indeed, the plaintiffs’ experts make plain that reducing the global consequences of climate change demands much more than cessation of the government’s promotion of fossil fuels. Rather, these experts opine that such a result calls for no less than a fundamental transformation of this country’s energy system, if not that of the industrialized world … given the complexity and long-lasting nature of global climate change, the court would be required to supervise the government’s compliance with any suggested plan for many decades.”
Kelsey Juliana, the lead plaintiff in Juliana v United States speaks at the supreme court in Washington DC. Photograph: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
Kelsey Juliana, the 23-year-old named plaintiff in Juliana v United States and a resident of Eugene, Oregon, said she was “disappointed that these judges would find that federal courts can’t protect America’s youth, even when a constitutional right has been violated”.
“Such a holding is contrary to American principles of justice that I have been taught since elementary school,” Juliana added. “This decision gives full, unfettered authority to the legislative and executive branches of government to destroy our country, because we are dealing with a crisis that puts the very existence of our nation in peril.”
“We will continue this case because only the courts can help us,” Draheim told the Guardian following the ruling. “We brought this lawsuit to secure our liberties and protect our lives and our homes. Much like the civil rights cases, we firmly believe the courts can vindicate our constitutional rights and we will not stop until we get a decision that says so.”
District Judge Josephine L Staton, in a lengthy dissenting opinion, argued that courts do have the authority to protect the young in the face of climate breakdown, and should, given the government’s inaction: “In these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response – yet presses ahead toward calamity. It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses. Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the nation.”
The court ordered the case be remanded to the district court and dismissed.

Links

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative