Greenland's Ice Sheet Melted Away At Record Levels In 2019, Scientists Fear It Will Continue

ABC News - Reuters

Greenland's ice sheet melted away at record levels during 2019. (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution: Matt Osman)

Key Points Greenland lost 532 gigatonnes of ice, 15 per cent more than the previous record in 2012 Its icy bulk melted more quickly than anticipated amid climate warming Another study indicated Greenland is no longer getting enough annual snowfall to replace ice loss

Greenland's ice sheet lost a record amount of mass in 2019, a finding that could prompt scientists to redefine their worst-case scenario as they assess the effects of climate change.

Geoscientist and glaciologist Ingo Sasgen of the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany said that the rate of ice loss — which had slowed in the previous two-year period — increased again as warm air flowed northward from lower latitudes, leading to the island experiencing a record loss in its ice mass.

That loss of 532 gigatonnes of ice — equivalent to about 66 tonnes of ice for each person on Earth — was 15 per cent more than the previous record in 2012.

Greenland's ice melt is of particular concern, as the ancient ice sheet holds enough water to raise sea levels by at least 6 metres if it were to melt away entirely.

The study added to evidence that Greenland's icy bulk has been melting more quickly than anticipated due to global warming.

Another study last week indicated the island was no longer getting enough annual snowfall to replace ice lost to melting and calving at the edges of glaciers.

Greenland's ice sheet holds enough water to raise sea levels by at least 6 metres if it melts away entirely. (AP: Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut/Steffen M Olsen)

"We are likely on the path of accelerated sea level rise," Dr Sasgen said.

"More melting of the ice sheet is not compensated by periods when we have extreme snowfall."

The study, published in the journal Communications Earth & Environment, used data collected by satellites to the gravitational force of the ice mass, which scientists can use to calculate how much snow and ice is locked within.

A 'depressing' new record

Other research has shown the melting is being helped by water pooling atop the ice and at meltwater streaming between the ice sheet and the bedrock.

These studies have helped scientists refine their projections of how climate change will impact the Arctic, and how quickly.

Dr Sasgen compared the sobering process to getting difficult news from a doctor.

"It's always depressing to see a new record," he said.

He says the studies offer insight into "where the problem is, and you also know to some extent what the treatment is."

"It is hard to tell if these [weather] patterns will be the new normal, and which pattern will occur with which frequency."

The Arctic already has been warming at least twice as quickly as the rest of the world for the past 30 years, as the amount of greenhouse gases accumulated in the atmosphere continues to rise.

That warming has also affected the Arctic sea ice, which shrank to its lowest level since figures were originally recorded 40 years ago.


The Greenland ice sheet is up to 3 kilometres thick in places

In terms of Greenland's fate, "I would argue that we've been in a new normal for the past couple decades of accelerating mass loss," glaciologist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre, Laura Andrews said.

"Greenland is going to continue to lose mass."

If the rate of ice loss experienced in 2019 were to continue, the annual impact on sea levels could cause increasing coastal flooding that affects up to 30 million more people each year by the end of the century, said Andrew Shepherd, a polar scientist at University of Leeds.

The new findings underline that "we need to prepare for an extra 10 centimetres of global sea level rise by 2100 from Greenland alone," Mr Shepherd said.

"We have to invent a new worst-case climate warming scenario, because Greenland is already tracking the current one."

Links

• Doomsday: By 2300, Global Sea Levels Could Rise by An Astounding 16 Feet
• Satellites Show Melting Ice Sheets In Antarctica And Greenland Have Contributed To 14 mm Sea Level Rise In 16 Years
• Greenland's Melting Ice Raised Global Sea Level By 2.2mm In Two Months
• Visualizing The Quantities Of Climate Change
• What Climate Tipping Points Should We Be Looking Out For?
• Greenland Lost 12.5 Billion Tons Of Ice In One Day, A Grave Reminder Of Our Changing Planet
• Aussie scientists literally weighed Earth's water from space. Their findings are extremely troubling
• Climate change is accelerating, with alarming new data revealing the extent sea levels are rising
• Greenland melt accelerating towards potential 7-metre sea level rise

(AU) Dishing The Dirt: Australia’s Move To Store Carbon In Soil Is A Problem For Tackling Climate Change

The Conversation - Robert Edwin White | Brian Davidson

Shutterstock 

Authors Robert Edwin White is Professor Emeritus, University of Melbourne Brian Davidson is Senior Lecturer, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, University of Melbourne

To slow climate change, humanity has two main options: reduce greenhouse gas emissions directly or find ways to remove them from the atmosphere.

On the latter, storing carbon in soil – or carbon farming – is often touted as a promising way to offset emissions from other sources such as energy generation, industry and transport.

The Morrison government’s Technology Investment Roadmap, now open for public comment, identifies soil carbon as a potential way to reduce emissions from agriculture and to offset other emissions.

In particular, it points to so-called “biochar” – plant material transformed into carbon-rich charcoal then applied to soil.

But the government’s plan contains misconceptions about both biochar, and the general effectiveness of soil carbon as an emissions reduction strategy.

Soil carbon storage is touted as a way to offset emissions from industry and elsewhere. Shutterstock

What is biochar?

Through photosynthesis, plants turn carbon dioxide (CO₂) into organic material known as biomass. When that biomass decomposes in soil, CO₂ is produced and mostly ends up in the atmosphere.

This is a natural process. But if we can intervene by using technology to keep carbon in the soil rather than in the atmosphere, in theory that will help mitigate climate change. That’s where biochar comes in.

Making biochar involves heating waste organic materials in a reduced-oxygen environment to create a charcoal-like product – a process called “pyrolysis”. The carbon from the biomass is stored in the charcoal, which is very stable and does not decompose for decades.

Plant materials are the predominant material or “feedstock” used to make biochar, but livestock manure can also be used. The biochar is applied to the soil, purportedly to boost soil fertility and productivity. This has been tested on grassland, cropping soils and in vineyards.

Biochar is produced by burning organic material in a low oxygen environment. Shutterstock

But there’s a catch

So far, so good. But there are a few downsides to consider.

First, the pyrolysis process produces combustible gases and uses energy – to the extent that when all energy inputs and outputs are considered in a life cycle analysis, the net energy balance can be negative. In other words, the process can create more greenhouse gas emissions than it saves. The balance depends on many factors including the type and condition of the feedstock and the rate and temperature of pyrolysis.

Second, while biochar may improve the soil carbon status at a new site, the sites from which the carbon residues are removed, such as farmers’ fields or harvested forests, will be depleted of soil carbon and associated nutrients. Hence there may be no overall gain in soil fertility.

Third, the government roadmap claims increasing soil carbon can reduce emissions from livestock farming while increasing productivity. Theoretically, increased soil carbon should lead to better pasture growth. But the most efficient way for farmers to take advantage of the growth, and increase productivity, is to keep more livestock per hectare.

Livestock such as cows and sheep produce methane – a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Our analysis suggests the methane produced by the extra stock would exceed the offsetting effect of storing more soil carbon. This would lead to a net increase, not decrease, in greenhouse gas

Farmers would have to increase stock numbers to benefit from pasture growth. Dan Peled/AAP

A policy failure

The government plan refers to the potential to build on the success of the Emissions Reduction Fund. Among other measures, the fund pays landholders to increase the amount of carbon stored in soil through carbon credits issued through the Carbon Farming Initiative.

However since 2014, the Emissions Reduction Fund has not significantly reduced Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions – and agriculture’s contribution has been smaller still.

So far, the agriculture sector has been contracted to provide about 9.5% of the overall abatement, or about 18.3 million tonnes. To date, it’s supplied only 1.54 million tonnes – 8.4% of the sector’s commitment.

The initiative has largely failed because several factors have made it uneconomic for farmers to take part. They include:

• overly complex regulations
• requirements for expensive soil sampling and analysis
• the low value of carbon credits (averaging $12 per tonne of CO₂-equivalent since the scheme began).

For many farmers, taking part in the Emissions Reduction Fund is uneconomic. Shutterstock

A misguided strategy

We believe the government is misguided in considering soil carbon as an emissions reduction technology.

Certainly, increasing soil carbon at one location can boost soil fertility and potentially productivity, but these are largely private landholder benefits – paid for by taxpayers in the form of carbon credits.

If emissions reduction is seen as a public benefit, then the payment to farmers becomes a subsidy. But it’s highly questionable whether the public benefit (in the form of reduced emissions) is worth the cost. The government has not yet done this analysis.

To be effective, future emissions technology in Australia should focus on improving energy efficiency in industry, the residential sector and transport, where big gains are to be made.

Links

• Climate explained: are we doomed if we don't manage to curb emissions by 2030?
• Carbon dioxide levels over Australia rose even after COVID-19 forced global emissions down. Here's why
• A pretty good start but room for improvement: 3 experts rate Australia's emissions technology plan
• A Near-Term to Net Zero Alternative to the Social Cost of Carbon for Setting Carbon Prices
• World's largest study shows carbon pricing reduces emissions
• Climate Change: For Big Emissions Reductions, We Need To Think Small
• (AU) Call To Integrate Post-Virus Rebuild With Land And Climate Repair
• (AU) Australia Emits 1.2 Per Cent Of The World's Greenhouse Gases. So Who Must Act To Cut Emissions?
• (AU) Scott Morrison's Menu Still Doesn't Offer An Emissions-Free Option
• The Trio Of Obstacles On Climate Change

New Model For Pricing Carbon Will Help Meet Net-Zero Climate Change Goals

Phys.org - Columbia University

Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain

An article released today by researchers at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy in the journal Nature Climate Change introduces a new approach for pricing carbon—Near-term to Net Zero.

As policymakers and advocates increasingly focus on net-zero emissions by midcentury, the Near-term to Net Zero approach is a method of setting carbon prices that could ensure net-zero emissions goals are met as one piece of comprehensive climate policies.

A carbon price is a fee on carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere that is unique in encouraging emissions reductions wherever and however they can be achieved at a low cost. How much to charge for each ton of emissions is perhaps the most crucial element of a carbon pricing policy.

Economists have long focused on the social cost of carbon to calculate "correct" carbon prices because, in theory, it balances the benefits and costs of emissions reductions. The article highlights how the social cost of carbon, however, cannot be estimated with sufficient precision to provide any practical value to policymakers setting carbon prices.

The Near-term to Net Zero approach estimates the carbon prices needed for consistency with a pathway to a net-zero emissions target, or the point where the overall balance between emissions produced and emissions taken out of the atmosphere equals zero. It uses the reliable information we have now and avoids the uncertainties of long-term changes we can't predict.

"The social cost of carbon is a useful concept, but the risks of climate change are far too complex for credible comprehensive damage estimates," said lead author Noah Kaufman, a research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy. "Near-term to Net Zero enables policymakers to use both climate science and economics to chart an effective and efficient pathway to net-zero emissions."

By pairing a net-zero emissions target with policies that can rapidly reduce emissions right away, the Near-term to Net Zero approach aligns with current climate policy discussions in the United States and the world. Carbon pricing developed using the Near-term to Net Zero approach complements the investments and other policy tools needed to constrain global warming from rising beyond dangerous levels, said Kaufman.

The article provides illustrative estimates for Near-term to Net Zero carbon prices for the United States assuming three possible net-zero targets: 2040, 2050, and 2060. The energy model GCAM-U.S. is used to estimate carbon prices over the next 10 years needed to follow a straight line pathway to those goals, assuming that the carbon price is combined with complementary policies that address separate market failures: energy-efficiency policies, air-pollution regulations, and early-stage support for the deployment of low-carbon technologies.

Near-term to Net Zero carbon prices in 2025, are $32, $52 and $93 per metric ton (in 2018 dollars) for net-zero targets in 2060, 2050, and 2040, respectively.

"There's no debate about the fact that climate change is happening now, and reducing our contribution to a warming planet is critical to our efforts to avoid the worst impacts of climate change," said Jason Bordoff, professor of practice in Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, and founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy.

"This important research gives us another tool in the toolbox to figure out how we can get to net-zero as quickly as possible, and no later than 2050, by setting a price on carbon that, along with complementary policies, discourages continued pollution and creates incentives for innovation to deliver the clean energy the world needs." 

Links

• A Near-Term to Net Zero Alternative to the Social Cost of Carbon for Setting Carbon Prices
• World's largest study shows carbon pricing reduces emissions
• (AU) Pressure Builds On Australia Despite Delay To International Climate Talks
• (AU) Heavy Industry Co-Operates To Take On Climate Change Challenge
• Carbon Emissions From Fossil Fuels Could Fall By 2.5bn Tonnes In 2020
• Climate Change: For Big Emissions Reductions, We Need To Think Small
• (AU) Call To Integrate Post-Virus Rebuild With Land And Climate Repair
• Morrison Government Cuts Funds To Australian-German Energy Transition Hub
• (AU) Australia Emits 1.2 Per Cent Of The World's Greenhouse Gases. So Who Must Act To Cut Emissions?
• (AU) Scott Morrison's Menu Still Doesn't Offer An Emissions-Free Option
• The Trio Of Obstacles On Climate Change

Another Two Years Lost To Climate Inaction, Says Greta Thunberg

The Guardian - Damian Carrington

Two years on from her first school strike, activist attacks ‘ignorance and unawareness’

A mural of Greta Thunberg by artist Jody Thomas in Bristol.

Two years on from Greta Thunberg’s first solo school strike for the climate, she says the world has wasted the time by failing to take the necessary action on the crisis.

Thunberg’s strike inspired a global movement, and on Thursday she and other leading school strikers will meet Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, which holds the rotating presidency of the European council. They will demand a halt to all fossil fuel investments and subsidies and the establishment of annual, binding carbon budgets based on the best science.

“Looking back [over two years], a lot has happened. Many millions have taken to the streets … and on 28 November 2019, the European parliament declared a climate and environmental emergency,” Thunberg said in an article for the Guardian with fellow strikers Luisa Neubauer, Anuna de Wever and Adélaïde Charlier.

“But over these last two years, the world has also emitted over 80bn tonnes of CO₂. We have seen continuous natural disasters taking place across the globe. Many lives and livelihoods have been lost, and this is only the very beginning.”

They said leaders were speaking of an “existential crisis”, yet “when it comes to action, we are still in a state of denial. The gap between what we need to do and what’s actually being done is widening by the minute. Effectively, we have lost another two crucial years to political inaction.”

Thunberg and her colleagues said fighting the climate emergency must involve rich nations stopping some of their polluting activities. “However, it’s a fact which most people refuse to accept. Just the thought of being in a crisis that we cannot buy, build or invest our way out of seems to create some kind of collective mental short-circuit. This mix of ignorance, denial and unawareness is the very heart of the problem,” they said.

The trillions of dollars being spent by governments in response to the coronavirus pandemic are seen as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to put the world on course to halt global heating, with economists, scientists and health experts all saying the benefits would outweigh the costs.

However, G20 governments’ rescue packages are giving significantly more support to fossil fuels than to low-carbon energy. Germany’s recovery plan includes €40bn for climate measures such as electric vehicles, public transport and energy efficiency, and has been praised by green groups. But elsewhere, too little is being done, Thunberg and colleagues said.

“Even a child can see that the policies of today are incompatible with the current best available science,” they said.

Scientists calculate that global carbon emissions must be cut by half by the end of this decade if humanity is to have a reasonable chance of keeping temperature rises to below 1.5C, the limit set in the Paris climate deal. Drops in emissions during coronavirus lockdowns are only a small blip in a long-term rising trend and will have a “negligible” effect on the climate crisis, researchers say.

“We understand the world is complicated and that what we are asking for may not be easy or seem unrealistic,” said the school strikers. “But it is much more unrealistic to believe that our societies would be able to survive the global heating we’re heading for. We are inevitably going to have to fundamentally change, one way or another. The question is: will the changes be on our terms, or on nature’s terms?”

Links

• Greta Thunberg: the world is still in a state of climate crisis denial
• Greta Thunberg says EU recovery plan fails to tackle climate crisis
• Greta Thunberg in Bristol: thousands turn out for climate strike
• Global climate strike: Greta Thunberg and school students lead climate crisis protest – as it happened
• ‘We need everyone’: Greta Thunberg calls on adults to join climate strikes
• Germany’s AfD turns on Greta Thunberg as it embraces climate denial
• Greta Thunberg backs climate general strike to force leaders to act
• Greta Thunberg hopes to join climate protests during London visit
• Greta Thunberg nominated for Nobel peace prize

After Two Years Of School Strikes, The World Is Still In A State Of Climate Crisis Denial

The Guardian - Greta Thunberg | Luisa Neubauer | Anuna De Wever | Adélaïde Charlier

We can have as many meetings as we like, but the will to change is nowhere in sight. Society must start treating this as a crisis

‘The gap between what we need to do and what’s actually being done is widening by the minute.’ The Rhenish brown coalfield in Bergheim, Germany, Europe’s largest carbon dioxide source. Photograph: Sascha Steinbach/EPA

Authors Greta Thunberg is a 17-year-old environmental campaigner from Sweden. This article was co-written with youth climate activists Luisa Neubauer from Germany, Anuna de Wever from Belgium, and Adélaïde Charlier from Belgium

On Thursday 20 August, it will be exactly two years since the first school strike for the climate took place.

Looking back, a lot has happened.

Many millions have taken to the streets to join the decades-long fight for climate and environmental justice. And on 28 November 2019, the European parliament declared a “climate and environmental emergency”.

But over these past two years, the world has also emitted more than 80 gigatonnes of CO₂. We have seen continuous natural disasters taking place across the globe: wildfires, heatwaves, flooding, hurricanes, storms, thawing of permafrost and collapsing of glaciers and whole ecosystems. Many lives and livelihoods have been lost. And this is only the very beginning.

Today, leaders all over the world are speaking of an “existential crisis”. The climate emergency is discussed on countless panels and summits. Commitments are being made, big speeches are given. Yet, when it comes to action we are still in a state of denial.

The climate and ecological crisis has never once been treated as a crisis. The gap between what we need to do and what’s actually being done is widening by the minute. Effectively, we have lost another two crucial years to political inaction.

Last month, just ahead of the European council summit, we published an open letter with demands to EU and world leaders. Since then, more than 125,000 people have signed this letter. Tomorrow we will meet the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and deliver the letter and demands, as well as the signatures.

We will tell Merkel that she must face up to the climate emergency – especially as Germany now holds the presidency of the European council. Europe has a responsibility to act. The EU and the United Kingdom are accountable for 22% of historic accumulative global emissions, second only to the United States.

It is immoral that the countries that have done the least to cause the problem are suffering first and worst. The EU must act now, as it has signed up to do in the Paris agreement.

Our demands include halting all fossil fuel investments and subsidies, divesting from fossil fuels, making ecocide an international crime, designing policies that protect workers and the most vulnerable, safeguarding democracy and establishing annual, binding carbon budgets based on the best available science.

We understand the world is complicated and that what we are asking for may not be easy or may seem unrealistic. But it is much more unrealistic to believe that our societies would be able to survive the global heating we’re heading for – as well as other disastrous ecological consequences of today’s business as usual.

We are inevitably going to have to fundamentally change, one way or another. The question is, will the changes be on our terms, or on nature’s terms?

In the Paris agreement, world leaders committed themselves to keeping the global average temperature rise to well below 2C, and aiming for 1.5C. Our demands demonstrate what that commitment means. Yet this is just the very minimum of what needs to be done to deliver on those promises.

So if leaders are not willing to do this, they’ll have to start explaining why they’re giving up on the Paris agreement. Giving up on their promises. Giving up on the people living in the most affected areas. Giving up on the chances of handing over a safe future for their children. Giving up without even trying.

Science doesn’t tell anyone what to do, it merely collects and presents verified information. It is up to us to study and connect the dots.

When you read the IPCC SR1.5 report and the UNEP production gap report, as well as what leaders have actually signed up for in the Paris agreement, you see that the climate and ecological crisis can no longer be solved within today’s systems.

Even a child can see that policies of today don’t add up with the current best available science.

We need to end the ongoing wrecking, exploitation and destruction of our life support systems and move towards a fully decarbonised economy that is centred on the wellbeing of all people, democracy and the natural world.

If we are to have a chance of staying below 1.5C of warming, our emissions need to immediately start reducing rapidly towards zero and then on to negative figures. That’s a fact.

And since we don’t have all the technical solutions we need to achieve that, we have to work with what we have at hand today. And this has to include stopping doing certain things. That’s also a fact.

However, it’s a fact that most people refuse to accept. Just the thought of being in a crisis that we cannot buy, build or invest our way out of seems to create some kind of collective mental short circuit.

This mix of ignorance, denial and unawareness is at the very heart of the problem. As it is now, we can have as many meetings and climate conferences as we want.

They will not lead to sufficient changes, because the willingness to act and the level of awareness needed are still nowhere in sight. The only way forward is for society to start treating the crisis like a crisis.

We still have the future in our own hands. But time is rapidly slipping through our fingers. We can still avoid the worst consequences. But to do that, we have to face the climate emergency and change our ways. And that is the uncomfortable truth we cannot escape.

Links

• Report: Vital time being lost to climate inertia, say activists
• Another Two Years Lost To Climate Inaction, Says Greta Thunberg
• 'Our house is on fire': EU parliament declares climate emergency
• Global Carbon Emissions
• Why don’t we treat the climate crisis with the same urgency as coronavirus?
• Face The Climate Emergency​
• Global Warming of 1.5 ºC
• Governments planning to produce about 50% more fossil fuels by 2030

The Guardian View On Coronavirus And The Climate Crisis: Seize This Chance

The Guardian - Editorial

Greta Thunberg has warned that we have wasted valuable time in the fight against global heating. We need Green New Deals

Greta Thunberg, left, takes part in a protest on 5 March 2020. Photograph: François Walschaerts/AFP via Getty Images

In the early days of the pandemic, many people urged that societies could not and should not return to business as usual afterwards. Coronavirus not only confronted us with danger, but showed what was possible.

By forcing massive overnight change, it demonstrated that dramatic action could be taken when a crisis was urgent enough; that many people could agree to make sacrifices when truly necessary; and that governments could invest trillions when the future of their countries demanded it. But as the great pause has turned into a gradual reopening, there is little sign that these lessons have been learned.

Greta Thunberg’s call for climate action should be seen in this context. The campaigner, writing for the Guardian to mark the second anniversary of her first school strike, says the world has wasted that time. While millions have been inspired to follow her in protest, and the European parliament has declared a climate and environmental emergency, little action has resulted.

Over the last six months or so, the pandemic has not only demonstrated that change can be quicker than anyone anticipated, it has also offered a practical opportunity to reconfigure economies. Governments are spending money as they have never done in peacetime. Germany and South Korea have seized this chance for big green investments.

Others, including the UK, have not. Shockingly, G20 countries are spending much more in support of fossil fuels than on low-carbon energy in their rescue packages; few even imposed green targets when they bailed out the airlines, as France did.

Boris Johnson promised that Britain would “build back greener” and Rishi Sunak pledged a green recovery. Yet the chancellor’s summer statement showed precious little sign of that beyond the £3bn insulation programme – unimpressive given the £9bn promised in the Conservatives’ November manifesto. These shortcomings look all the more glaring when the UK is not on course to meet its 2025 or 2030 carbon targets, and when it will host next year’s crucial UN climate change conference.

They are also more concerning as we experience rising temperatures and strange weather patterns. A week ago, scientists warned that the past decade was the hottest ever recorded. In recent weeks Britons have sweltered through a heatwave and farmers have warned of the worst wheat harvest since the 1980s due to consecutive seasons of extreme weather.

Ms Thunberg’s article, co-written with fellow activists, notes that the movement’s demands may seem unrealistic – but that it is much more so to believe that our societies could survive the global heating and other disastrous ecological outcomes we are heading for: “The question is, will the changes be on our terms, or on nature’s terms?” they ask.

Just over a decade ago, the UN secretary general and others urged a Green New Deal in response to the global financial crisis. The world missed that opportunity, and looks set to repeat its mistake. But the benefits of a drastic shift in priorities are clearer than ever: economists and health experts say that they would outweigh the costs.

The World Economic Forum said last month that tackling what it calls the global nature crisis could create 400 million jobs and $10tn (£8tn) in business value each year by 2030 – while the current rate of destruction threatens half of global GDP.

There is still time to act. Economic rescue packages are still being shaped; Berlin’s has shown what is possible. In the UK, coal’s role in power generation has slumped from almost 25% to 2% in just a few years, and the offshore wind industry is thriving.

The ban on petrol and diesel cars slated for 2035 should be accelerated, and the installation of gas boilers outlawed. But above all, pandemic response spending must be directed to those parts of the economy that can reduce global heating, not worsen it.

Links

• Nature-led coronavirus recovery could create $10tn a year, says WEF
• Another Two Years Lost To Climate Inaction, Says Greta Thunberg
• Climate crisis exerting increasing impact on UK, says Met Office
• Last decade was Earth's hottest on record as climate crisis accelerates
• 'Our house is on fire': EU parliament declares climate emergency
• Global Carbon Emissions
• Why don’t we treat the climate crisis with the same urgency as coronavirus?
• Face The Climate Emergency​
• Global Warming of 1.5 ºC
• Governments planning to produce about 50% more fossil fuels by 2030

(AU) Fight For Planet A: Our Climate Challenge Episode 2

ABC TV - Fight For Planet A

Fight for Planet A: Our Climate Challenge explores how we can all reduce our individual and collective carbon emissions. This three-part documentary aims to empower and motivate Australians to take action on climate change. 

Fight For Planet A: Our Climate Challenge Tuesdays 8.30pm on ABC + iview Craig Reucassel tackles one of our planet's biggest challenges: climate change, exploring where our energy comes from, health effects of transport and travel emissions plus the carbon footprint of what we eat. Episode 2 iview

Fight for Planet A: Our Climate Challenge explores how we can all reduce our individual and collective carbon emissions.

This three-part documentary aims to empower and motivate Australians to take action on climate change.

In Episode 2, Craig Reucassel investigates Australia's  transport emissions, which are the second major contributor to the nation's total carbon emissions.

He explores how we can make the move from petrol guzzlers to electric vehicles.

The Guardian reports:

Over three episodes, the team that made the ABC’s highly successful War on Waste delve into the more abstract but urgent issue of carbon emissions, and with it a vital question: how do you convince Australians that something they cannot see represents their greatest existential threat?

Fight for Planet A uses balloons to give Australia’s emissions a visual representation, and right from the first episode, we’re left in no doubt that there are too many of them. But what to do about it? And do we have the bandwidth to deal with the climate crisis now given everything else that’s going on in the world?

The onset of the coronavirus pandemic initially meant the air date for the show, which was filmed last year, was pushed back from June to August. Stephen Oliver, manager of documentaries at the ABC, thinks that now is the time to get the climate back on the agenda.

“No one knew how long the pandemic would last, how serious it would be, how it would change people’s psychology. It’s still bad, but to some extent, with the exception of the situation in Melbourne, we have come to terms with it,” he says.

And although global lockdowns have caused emissions to plummet, it is long-term behaviour and policy change that will make a difference in the long term. So how do we make that happen?

Fight for Planet A is a solutions-based show that aims to empower viewers to cut their own emissions at home and in their communities.

By way of example, five Australian households were chosen to take on the show’s “climate challenge” to reduce the carbon emissions generated by the energy they used, their modes of transport and their food production.

Can the wealthy family with underfloor heating and a massive TV for their pets cut their electricity bill? Can the share house of five blokes use less hot water and skateboard to uni instead of driving an old banger?

Those strategies for individuals wanting to reduce their carbon footprint include everything from changing showerheads so less water is used, to ditching the car, to switching to solar panels. There’s a good segment on how easy it is to cut emissions in schools by turning off power points at the end of the day.

Craig Reucassel with members of the community of Oatlands public school. Photograph: ABC TV

Other solutions are more expensive and thus more difficult – such as trading in your old fossil-fuel-guzzling car for an electric vehicle (the cheapest in Australia starts at around $50,000).

When asked if a lot of the individual environmental fixes are geared towards the rich, Reucassel told Guardian Australia: “People who are wealthier – say, in the top 50% of income – have a larger carbon footprint. They travel more, their houses are bigger, they use more energy. We need to call on the rich people first – we shouldn’t be putting more of the burden on poorer people.”

But does all this community and individual empowerment let the government and big business off the hook?

Reucassel says: “I wouldn’t have done this show if it had only been about individual change. But people becoming involved and interested in an issue changes the political debate and more strongly influences the business debate. We can underestimate the role that the public can take in leading.”

Councils too have proven to be proactive when it comes to grassroots climate action, says Reucassel, “much more so than leadership at a federal level, which tends to be really depressing”.

“Unlike coronavirus, we know the solutions to climate change,” says Oliver. “We can actually do something about climate change, whereas with the pandemic we’re sitting there waiting for the experts to find a vaccine. We wear a mask and stay distant but we’re not actually solving the problem, we’re waiting for experts to solve the problem.

“But we can all solve the problem of climate change. This is empowering. We can give people solutions rather than just bunker down waiting for more horror to hit us.”

“The hardest part is getting people to visualise emissions,” says Reucassel. But knowledge is power. “In Australia, change is up against far more vested interests – that’s why we need a population that is knowledgeable and engaged.”

Oliver agrees. “It’s about getting people to be more engaged in the issue instead of feeling a bit angry and hopeless. If you only focus on the big corporations and the government you can get angry, frustrated and just kind of retreat from the conversation.”

YOUR PLANET

Links

• Climate Change TV
• Representing climate change on public service television: A case study
• We Tried to Write a Blog About TV Shows Tackling Climate Change. Here’s What Happened
• TV’s climate change problem
• Broadcast news networks paid more attention to climate change in 2019
• Children's educational TV falls short on climate change
• Climate Communicators
• Community Solutions Plan: Connect with others to reduce emissions
• Carbon Counter: The simple changes that can help you create less CO2
• Fight For Planet A: Our Climate Challenge
• Stability of the grid (video)
• Park it for the Planet to help reduce carbon emissions
• Is community solar power the future?
• Back to Nature: Making money while restoring the land (video)
• Resourceful Renters
• Australia's Ocean Odyssey