Scott Morrison says he hopes Australia doesn't need to use the
credits but is keeping the prospect open. (ABC News: Ian Cutmore)
Key points
Australia's target is to cut
emissions by 26 to 28 per cent based on 2005 levels
The use of carry-over credits
is not banned but few other countries are using them
The Greens want Australia to
commit to not using the credit "loophole"
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has signalled he may reverse one of the most
controversial aspects of the Federal Government's climate change policy: using
Kyoto "carry-over" credits to help meet Paris agreement emissions reduction
targets.
In an address to a private dinner hosted the Business Council of Australia, Mr
Morrison said it was his ambition to "not need them" and this was a "goal" for
the Federal Government.
"I've … said we will only use that carryover … to the extent that it is
required," he said.
"Let me be very clear. My ambition, my Government's ambition, is that we will
not need them.
"And we are working to this as our goal, consistent with our record of
over-delivering in these areas."
Australia's current 2030 target under the Paris Agreement is to reduce
emissions by 26 to 28 per cent compared to 2005 levels.
On current projections, that will only be achieved by continuing to claim
"carry-over" credits from over-achieving on previous emissions reduction
targets under the Paris Agreement's predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol.
Whilst using carry-over credits is not explicitly banned under the rules of
the Paris Agreement, most nations have declared they do not consider it valid
to count emission reduced under the Kyoto Protocol towards future targets.
The Federal Government has found no support diplomatically from allies for its
continued use of carry-over credits, which is particularly controversial as
Australia was allowed to increase its emissions under the Kyoto Protocol
because of the nation's reliance on the resources sector.
PM flags new emission reduction policies
The United Nations has encouraged all countries to present more ambitious
emissions reduction plans at international climate change talks in Glasgow
next year.
It has also declined to adopt a target of reaching net zero emissions by 2050,
despite other major industrialised countries committing to the goal.
But Mr Morrison flagged his Government would have more to say on emissions
reduction policies in the next few weeks.
"I hope to have more to say about this before the end of the year as we update
our emissions projections that will take into account new policies and
measures," he said.
Greens leader Adam Bandt said dropping the use of the carry-over credit
"loophole" would be a positive step, but still insufficient.
"The Government's terrible 2030 targets leave Australia exposed," Mr Bandt
said.
"We're in the critical decade and domestic political games will provide no
cover for Australia's climate-pariah status on the world stage.
"With Europe and the United Kingdom looking to cut pollution by well over half
by 2030, and the United States having already agreed to cuts of 26-28 per cent
on 2005 levels by 2025, five years earlier than Australia, we're becoming
increasingly isolated."
A new international network of top universities including the University of
Melbourne, Monash and the University of NSW, as well as Oxford, Caltech and
the Sorbonne is calling for wealthy nations to commit to net zero emissions
targets.
“We implore world leaders - particularly G20 leaders - to learn lessons from
managing the pandemic: namely, to heed expert advice, to act with urgency, and
to prioritise investments strategically,” says the
International Universities Climate Alliance’s first declaration, published on Wednesday.
Climate change could have long-standing impacts on agricultural
yields. Credit: Nick Moir
“In the case of climate change, this means decarbonising the economy to build
a climate-resilient world for future generations. Without a focus on a
carbon-neutral economy, investments are incompatible with the important
commitments that nations have pledged in the Paris Agreement."
The declaration, signed by 37 leading universities, says that the G20 group of
the world’s richest nations has a particular responsibility to act because
they represent 85 percent of the world’s wealth and 80 percent of its
emissions.
"We still have a window of time to make the necessary transition to a
carbon-neutral economy, we strongly encourage world leaders to ensure that
all COVID stimulus measures maintain their countries’ commitments under the
Paris Agreement and work toward a net-zero emission plan," it says.
The declaration of the International Universities Climate Alliance comes
ahead of the
G20 summit in Saudi Arabia
this weekend. But according to Professor Ian Jacobs, president and
vice-chancellor of the University of NSW, in future it will become a network
for sharing climate resources and advice to governments, business and
industry as well as the broader community.
University of NSW Scientia Professor Matthew England
said that while many academics and universities have in the past been
reluctant to participate in debates that are perceived to be political,
academics and universities were becoming more determined to speak out.
He said Australia's goal of reaching net zero emissions sometime in the
second half of the century was not in keeping with the goals of the Paris
agreement.
“We have seen this in Australia on climate change for many decades now. Back
in the 90s, early 1990s, when the IPCC was established, we already knew
enough back then that we needed to get off our addiction to fossil fuels and
move towards solar, geothermal, wind, all these different technologies.
“For 30 years, we've been calling for these changes, and the policy
implementation in Australia has been far too slow. So scientists are
starting to amp up the advice they're giving.
“If, for example, we come out of this pandemic and we go back to our old
ways of creating energy with carbon intensive technologies, we're really
going to surrender the planet to impacts of climate change that are just
prohibitively costly for future generations to deal with.”
A typical living room in a Coober Pedy dugout house.
(ABC News: Luke Radford)
Key Points
Residents of Coober Pedy live underground to escape the searing
heat
The University of South Australia's Stephen Berry says indoor
conditions in underground homes are stable
One businessman has created a semi-underground house called the
Earthship
It is summer in Australia and the temperature is soaring towards the 40s, so you
reach for the air-conditioning remote but cringe at the thought of the energy
bill come March.
The struggle for energy efficiency in a changing climate and the mental maths of
keeping your home comfortable are a dominant point in day-to-day life.
But deep in the South Australian outback is a town that has been dealing with
this problem for years.
So, what's the secret?
Digging down
Coober Pedy is a difficult place to live.
Set on the edge the Stuart Range, the town of 2,000 people sits atop a bed of
sandstone glittered with opal, with no topsoil and practically no vegetation.
The average daytime temperature in summer is 37 degrees, but living in a house
in such conditions is uncomfortable and expensive.
So, the locals turned to dugouts: underground homes.
Many Coober Pedy residents live underground to avoid the heat.
(Flickr: BRJ Inc)
Stephen Berry, manager of the University of SA's Research Node for Low-Carbon
Living, said it was obvious why.
"When you have a building that's covered in earth or is underground, you
effectively get infinite thermal mass," he said.
"That means the indoor conditions remain remarkably stable — they hardly vary at
all.
"If you have a building with high thermal mass but let the sun's light
pour in uncontrolled, it would be uncomfortable."
Despite the temperature edging into the 40s during summer, dugouts in Coober
Pedy usually stay between 19 and 25 degrees, which saves residents huge amounts
of money on cooling expenses.
Coober Pedy Underground Accommodation So, why aren't we living underground?
If underground housing has such obvious benefits, why isn't it more widespread?
Dr Berry said not everywhere was as well suited to building underground as
Coober Pedy.
"Coober Pedy is fantastic because it's soil type allows for relatively easy
construction of underground buildings," he said.
"In many other places, there are different soil types — there's a
groundwater table that you have to deal with."
Martin Freney, a lecturer in Sustainable Design at the University of South
Australia, said while building underground homes in suburban areas was not
impossible, it was extremely difficult.
"You're essentially digging a big hole and if that's near neighbouring buildings
or fences, there's the potential for undermining and the collapse of those
structures," Dr Freney said.
"If you want to build a fully underground house, you might get some pushback
from the planning officer at council, because it probably won't comply with the
streetscape rules."
Coober Pedy has a mixture of above ground and below-ground housing
options. (Supplied: Justin Lang)
The art of compromise
While building underground homes might be difficult, there are alternatives.
The
Earthship concept was developed by an American architect named Michael Reynolds in the 1970s
and was designed as a self-sustaining, off-the-grid house.
Earthship-style buildings are dug slightly into the ground and the rear of the
building is covered with an earthen mound and reinforced with a retaining wall
made of recycled tyres.
The mound gives the building a high thermal mass: absorbing heat during the
day and radiating it at night to keep the temperature consistent.
The Earthship design seeks to minimise the earthworks while still
getting some of the benefits of living below ground.(Supplied: Allan Bjerre.)
"If you have the mound itself, ideally to the east, south and west, combined
with glazed glass facing north and well insulated walls, you can get the
benefits of an underground house in suburbia," Dr Freney said.
"At the end of the day, you don't have to use nearly as much energy for heating
and cooling."
But according to Dr Berry, much like entirely underground houses, the Earthship
is not without its downsides.
"The earth sheltered concept is a fabulous one, and it's very useful for
particular situations," Dr Berry said.
"We're unlikely to see a high number of earth-covered buildings in suburbia …
because each type of house isn't valid in every location."
Sunflowers stand in a field near inactive oil drilling rigs Jan.
21, 2016, in Dickinson, North Dakota.
(CNS/Andrew Cullen, Reuters)
For the second time this year, a group of 40-plus faith-based organizations
committed to avoiding investments in fossil fuels, pushing the number of
Catholic groups making such public pledges to over 200.
On Monday, 47 religious institutions — 42 of them Catholic — announced they
will end or continue to eschew financial holdings in coal, oil and natural
gas, the energy sources that are driving increasing climate change on the
planet.
Among the organizations, located in 21 countries, are the Commission of the
Bishops' Conferences of the European Union, Caritas Asia, three dioceses, 13
lay organizations and 20 religious congregations and associations —
including the Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation Commission of the
International Union of Superiors General, or UISG, the largest umbrella
group of women religious congregations, representing 2,000 worldwide.
The announcement also includes the Association of U.S. Catholic Priests and
the U.S.-based Catholic philanthropic network FADICA.
Along with them, four Christian groups in the United Kingdom — including the
Southern and Thames North Synods of the United Reformed Church — and the human
rights-focused American Jewish World Service also divested, making this the
largest joint divestment announcement by faith institutions to date,
according to organizers.
In May, another 42 faith organizations in 14 countries announced their intent to divest. Both joint announcements were the
result of a campaign by the Global Catholic Climate Movement. In the last four
years, its divest-invest campaign has organized eight such public declarations
by Catholic groups.
Their mobilizing has helped make faith-based organizations the largest share
of the 1,200 organizations and businesses worldwide that since 2012 have
publicly pledged to divest more than $14 trillion. Of those, more than 220
have been within the Roman Catholic Church.
The latest divestment commitments from Catholic groups comes days before the
scheduled start of a major summit convened by Pope Francis on creating a more
sustainable economy. The Economy of Francesco conference will take place Nov.
19-21 online, as the coronavirus pandemic upended original plans to invite
young economists, students and entrepreneurs to Assisi, Italy.
In May, the Vatican bank confirmed to EarthBeat that it does not maintain investments in fossil fuels. A month later,
the Vatican issued operational guidelines on the environment for dioceses and parishes.
The guidelines, originally published in Italian but since released in English,
include a section on finance that critiques the pursuit of short-term gains at
the expense of long-term negative consequences for communities and ecosystems.
Specifically, it recommends speeding up investment in sustainable
infrastructure and establishing ethical investment principles that "promote
responsible investments in social and environmental sectors, for example by
evaluating progressive disinvestment from the fossil-fuel sector."
Of the 47 faith institutions in Monday's announcement, 18 committed to fully
divest their investment portfolios from fossil fuels. Another 25 do not
currently hold such investments and have committed to avoiding them in the
future.
FADICA, or Foundations and Donors Interested in Catholic Activities, has
fully divested its stocks and bonds from fossil fuels, said president and
CEO Alexia Kelley, who added it still has "a very minute exposure" to
natural gas through passive investments in funds screened according to
environmental, social and governance criteria.
The Catholic philanthropic network's focus on environmentally friendly
investing ramped up several years ago, after it updated its investment
policy statement to align more with Pope Francis' 2015 encyclical "Laudato Si', on Care for Our Common Home."
Several members also attended a 2018 impact investing conference at the
Vatican, where participants pledged almost $1 billion in new investments to address issues related to health, migrants and
refugees, youth employment and climate change.
The conference also led FADICA to develop workshops and resources for its
members, to support their growing interest in making an impact in the area
of creation care, Kelley said.
"Catholic philanthropists are more and more interested in looking at all the
tools they have in their toolbox to achieve their mission," she said.
The International Union of Superiors General's Justice, Peace and Integrity of
Creation Commission is among the groups that have never held investments.
Franciscan Sr. Sheila Kinsey, executive co-secretary of the commission, told
EarthBeat in an email that their commitment does not extend to the full UISG
body, but the commission has promoted fossil fuel divestment and alternative
investing as part of its Sowing Hope for the Planet campaign, which aims to help women religious implement Laudato Si'.
Sr. Sheila Kinsey is the executive co-secretary for the Justice,
Peace and Integrity of Creation Commission, a project of the
International Union of Superiors General. (Provided photo)
Kinsey said those efforts will continue as the Vatican advances its own "Laudato Si' Action Platform" — a grassroots program that encourages the Catholic Church at all levels
to adopt seven-year plans toward total sustainability, which among seven
dimensions includes investing in renewable energy and fossil fuel
divestment.
The Sisters of the Holy Cross in England joined Monday's announcement. In a
statement, the sisters' leadership team said that after attempts to use
their position as shareholders to press fossil fuel companies to reduce
reliance on such energy sources, "we have realized that engagement with
these companies only has limited success. We have now informed our Investors
that we have decided to completely disinvest from fossil fuels, and thus
work towards a zero-carbon future."
An October energy outlook from Bloomberg projected that investment in clean energy and battery storage
technology could reach $11 trillion by 2050, with wind and solar energy
providing more than half of the world's electricity. The report predicted
that natural gas would be the only fossil fuel to see an increase in demand
in that same period.
Like the UISG commission, the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the
European Union does not hold investments in fossil fuels, but committed to
avoid them. Its support for fossil fuel divestment follows similar moves by
several national bishops' conferences, including those of Austria, Belgium,
Ireland and Greece.
"We encourage others also to join us in taking concrete steps to solve the
climate crisis," the commission's secretary-general, Fr. Manuel Enrique
Barrios Prieto, said in a statement, highlighting the importance of meeting
commitments under the Paris Agreement and the European Green Deal.
"Solving the climate crisis protects the human family from the dangers of a
warming world, and decisive action is needed now more than ever," he
said.
The Association of U.S. Catholic Priests also does not have a history of
investing in fossil fuels through its endowment. Fr. Bob Bonnot, its
executive director, said the decision represents an ongoing commitment by
the association and its 1,200 members to address climate change.
In the past, the association's climate change working group has produced
homily helps to relate Laudato Si' to weekly scripture
readings. It also hosted webinars during this year's Season of Creation.
"We feel [divestment is] a way that we can manifest our commitment to this
mention of caring for our common home, and we have to exemplify that and
model that if we're going to say we are committed to it," Bonnot said.
Other divesting groups include the Dioceses of Victoria, Spain, and Penang,
Malaysia, and the Archdiocese of Luanda, Angola; the World Union of Catholic
Women's Organizations; the English province of the Congregation of Christian
Brothers, based in Ireland; and four religious orders in Kenya.
The weaknesses in Australia’s performance on a key issue compared to other
G20 countries has been highlighted in a new report.
A new report from CSIRO and BOM has warned us about the worsening effects
of climate change.
Australia’s record on climate change compared to other G20 countries has
come under scrutiny in a new report.
The 2020 Climate Transparency Report, an annual collaboration between 14
think tanks and non-governmental organisations, is aimed at encouraging
ambitious
climate action.
The report has highlighted Australia’s poor performance as having one of
the highest rates of subsidies for fossil fuels, for being one of only two
countries not implementing a carbon pricing scheme and being one of the
worst performers when it comes to emissions reduction in transport, energy
efficient buildings and deforestation.
This year the report also analysed the countries’ responses to the
coronavirus pandemic and warned that trillions more dollars were going
towards to the fossil fuel industry as part of relief packages.
“Evidence suggests that COVID-19 recovery responses, thus far, have been
disproportionately directed towards emissions-intensive and
environmentally-damaging sectors,” the report notes. “This could
contribute to emissions rebounding at a faster rate.”
It noted that Australia’s government had announced it would pursue a
“gas-led” recovery
and had provided unconditional support to coal, oil, and gas sectors as
well as $US437 million in loans and tax deferrals to the airline industry.
While carbon emissions have fallen due to the pandemic and are expected to
be 7.5 per cent lower across the G20 by the end of this year, this is
expected to be temporary.
The report found the 20 member states of the G20 were still not on track
for a 1.5C world and commitments made up to 2015 would lead to a 2.7C
increase in global temperatures or higher.
Australia also ranked fourth among G20 member states for economic losses
due to extreme weather events.
The economic damage from extreme weather events including
floods, cyclone and fires is costing Australia billions every
year. Picture: AFP
Between 1999 and 2018, Australia recorded an annual average loss of $US
2.4 billion due to these events. As a unit of GDP, this equates to an
average annual loss of 0.25 per cent, only the US, India and China had
higher costs.
The report, which analyses performance across 100 indicators of climate
adaptation, mitigation and finance, noted that Australia’s per capita
greenhouse emissions had decreased. However, there were areas where the
country is falling behind other G20 members.
Fossil fuel subsidies
In 2019, Australia had one of the highest rates of fossil fuel subsidies
per unit of GDP and this was well above the G20 average, along with
countries like Mexico, South Africa, Argentina, Italy, France, and Russia.
G20 fossil fuel and fossil fuel electricity subsidies 2019.
Source: OECD-IEA Fossil Fuel Support database 2020/Climate
Transparency Report 2020.
Fossil fuel subsidies in G20 countries in US dollars. Source:
OECD-IEA Fossil Fuel Support database 2020 Climate
Transparency Report 2020.
It put $US7.2 billion towards subsidising coal, gas and electricity,
although petroleum was the biggest beneficiary. However, some funding was
also provided for clean energy, for example for hydrogen and battery
storage.
In total, G20 countries, excluding Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the UK,
provided $US130 billion in subsidies to coal, oil, and gas in 2019, an
increase from $US117 billion in 2018.
Lack of carbon pricing scheme
Australia and India are the only two member states of the G20 that are not
implementing, or in the process of implementing carbon pricing schemes,
such as carbon taxes or emissions trading schemes.
The two countries are not even considering the implementation of such
schemes.
This is in contrast to the UK, which saw its coal use plummet when it
introduced a carbon tax in 2013.
Use of fossil fuels
Australia saw the biggest jump in the use of fossil fuels for energy of
any G20 member state between 2018 and 2019.
The proportion of coal, oil and natural gas used for energy grew by 6.7
per cent, much higher than in China, which only had an increase of 2.6 per
cent.
In contrast, most other countries actually reduced their reliance on
fossil fuels.
Energy mix in G20 countries 2019.
Source: Enerdata 2020/ Climate Transparency Report 2020
Australia’s carbon emissions per unit of power is also one of highest in
the G20 — partly due to the country’s high reliance on coal and a smaller
proportion of renewables — although emissions have decreased.
It still generates 82 per cent of its electricity from fossil fuels,
mainly from coal (57 per cent). The use of natural gas has increased to 23
per cent of generation over recent years.
While renewable electricity is also increasing and makes up 18 per cent of
the power mix, this is still less than the G20 average of 25 per cent.
The report gave Australia a “low” rating for its policy initiatives in
this area, noting it had no policy to increase the share of renewables and
no target or policy in place for reducing coal.
Instead the Federal Government is encouraging utilities to extend the
lives of coal-fired power plants, promoting investment in new coal plants
and providing subsidies for coal production and consumption.
The 2020/21 Budget will fund upgrades to an ageing coal-fired power
station.
“To accelerate the global phase-out of coal power, G20 countries also need
to end public financial support for coal domestically and abroad,” the
report said.
“Public resources can instead be directed towards sustainable alternatives
and supporting a just transition for affected workers and communities.”
Australia is the biggest coal exporter in the world, accounting for 29 per
cent of the world’s coal exports – it uses only 16 per cent of its coal
production domestically.
Dirty transport
Australia performs the worst in the G20 when it comes to policies to
decarbonise the transport sector.
It has no target to phase out fossil fuel cars, no plans to phase out
emissions from freight transport, no efficiency or emissions standards for
heavy-duty vehicles, and no longer-term strategy for promoting the greater
use of public transport or changes to freight transport.
No decisions have been made on imposing fuel efficiency standards for
light vehicles, and the national electric vehicle strategy announced in
2019 has not yet been released.
This compares with other countries like the UK, which plans to sell its
last fossil fuel car by 2030 and Canada, which wants 100 per cent of its
new cars to be electric vehicles by 2040.
Other countries with ambitious targets include Japan and France.
Carbon emissions in the transport sector among G20 countries grew by 1.5
per cent in 2019.
Australia is way behind when it comes to electric vehicles.
Supplied: TasPorts
Buildings are not energy efficient
Australia was singled out, along with the US and Saudi Arabia for having
the highest per capital building emissions in the G20. All three countries
also lack strong policies to substantially reduce emissions in the sector.
In addition, Australia and Saudi Arabia do not have any policies for
retrofitting existing buildings, although they do have some policies for
new buildings.
Loss of tree cover
Australia is the only developed country that is considered a deforestation
hotspot and 3-6 million hectares of forest could be lost in eastern
Australia alone by 2030.
The country lost 6.11 million hectares of tree cover between 2001 and 2019
(not including any gains in cover), which equates to 14 per cent less tree
cover than in 2000.
The report notes that the government has no policies or incentives in
place to reduce deforestation, which are high compared to global standards
particularly in the state of Queensland.
The primary driver of deforestation is pasture creation for livestock,
which accounts for 88 per cent of forest clearing.
The government is also assuming that emissions generated by the huge fires
in Australia up to 11 February this year will be absorbed by forest
regrowth.
“Australia needs to protect existing forests and take necessary adaptation
measures to guard against the devastating wildfires witnessed in recent
years,” the report states.
However, among the G20 member states, Russia, Brazil, Canada, the US, and
Indonesia have the highest relative tree-cover loss between 2001 and 2019.
While no countries have targets for reaching zero deforestation by the
2020s, which is compatible with 1.5C of warming; China, the EU and Mexico
do have targets for net-zero deforestation.
Australia, along with France and Canada, have no policies in place.
Parts of Australia ravaged by bushfires have started to come
back. Source: News Regional Media
No new targets
Many countries have said they intend to reach net zero emissions by 2050
including France, UK, the EU, Germany, Canada, South Africa, South Korea
and Japan. China says it aims to be carbon-neutral before 2060.
Other cities going it alone include Buenos Aires, Cape Town, London,
Mexico City, New York City, and Tokyo.
Australia has not adopted this target but every state and territory has,
essentially making it the country’s target to achieve net zero emissions
by 2020.
But these intentions have not been included yet each countries’ targets
for the Paris Agreement.
Signatories to the agreement are expected to produce a new emissions
target every five years, which is more ambitious than the previous target.
Countries were due to submit new targets this year but so far only Japan
has done this — and it has not increased its target. Other countries have
indicated they will do so in 2021 ahead of the United Nations Climate
Change Conference in November.
Australia, along with Russia and Indonesia have already said they will not
update their targets.
Australia’s current target aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
26-28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, which the report has labelled
“insufficient”.
However, Australia’s target was considered better than other countries
including the US, which were considered “critically insufficient”.
So far, only India’s target is compatible with 2C warming.
“We urgently need more ambition and leadership from the world’s biggest
economies – and emitters – at the upcoming G20 Summit and next year’s UN
Climate Conference” Humbolt-Viadrina Governance Platform’s Catrina Godinho
said.
“The US election result offers some hope for international climate
politics, but all G20 countries will need to do their part.”
The good news
Significantly, emissions from G20 countries did decrease by 0.1 per cent
in 2019, a significant turnaround from the 1.9 per cent increase in 2018
and the annual average growth rate of 1.4 per cent between 2005 and 2017.
This was partly achieved by a 2 per cent decrease in coal consumption, 2.4
per cent decrease in carbon emissions from the power sector, an increase
in the use of renewables from 25 per cent of power generation to 27 per
cent, and small decreases to emissions in the agriculture sector.
However, despite the decrease in coal consumption, fossil fuels still made
up 81.5 per cent of the G20’s primary energy in 2020 because increases in
gas (up 3 per cent) and oil (up 1 per cent) offset this.
The report noted the benefits of climate action included improvements to
health and wellbeing, jobs and economic value creation, biodiversity and
environmental resilience, financial security and fiscal benefits, and
enhanced energy access and security.
“Increased climate action could trigger $US26 trillion in investments and
generate 65 million low-carbon jobs worldwide by 2030,” the report noted.
Foxes deer and cats to be blocked from 50,000ha park in Victoria, turning
it into a ‘wildlife haven’
A long-nosed potoroo.
Photograph: Brook Mitchell/Getty Images
A 10km fence to keep out foxes, deers and cats will be built across the
Yanakie isthmus on Victoria’s Wilsons Promontory to create a
50,000-hectare native wildlife sanctuary.
The $6m fence is designed to protect vulnerable species including
ground parrots, the southern brown bandicoot and long-nosed potoroo
in the national park, south-east of Melbourne.
Parks Victoria chief conservation scientist Mark Norman said the
funding would help reshape the national park into a 50,000-hectare
sanctuary.
“The development of this predator and deer-proof fence across the
narrow entrance to the park allows us to really create a wildlife
haven at a huge scale. We’ll stop the wave of feral pests and really
protect the special wildlife living there.”
The fence will allow Parks Victoria to focus on eradicating any
pests or predators inside the park.
It will be built deep into the ground and almost 2 metres tall to
prevent animals finding a way around, underneath or over it. Norman
said that would allow conservationists to maintain the park’s
populations of native animals.
“The significance of the fence is huge, it’s like creating an island ark where
all the native animals and their habitats are protected. It means all the work
we do won’t be constantly going backwards with the stream of pests coming in.
“It’ll also make an amazing experience for people to connect with nature. It
would be like entering a modern Jurassic Park, or a native haven, where the
animals bounce back and get the support they need.”
The fence is part of a $23m upgrade to facilities, including a new visitor
centre, tourism hub and new accomodation, as well as upgrading walking tracks,
car parks and existing accommodation.
It will turn the park something like an island, according to Matt Ruchel,
Executive director at Victorian National Parks Association, protecting the
wildlife there. But he said it wasn’t just the fence that would improve the
park.
“The fence is the iconic bit, but it’s the management following it that’s
really important. There needs to be an integrated plan, and you’d hope down
the track, you’d be in a position to reintroduce some of those species in a
safe space where they can flourish.”
“It’ll only work if there is intensive management of those pests in the
reserve itself. What it does is then open the door to re-wilding animals and
readjusting the ecology.”
The Victorian environment minister, Lily D’Ambrosio, said the funding boost
would help protect the environment and make it easier for more people to enjoy
the park.
“These are vital investments in conservation that will not only protect the
biodiversity that underpins the health of Victoria’s environment but also take
carbon out of our atmosphere, an important step in fighting climate change.”
Norman told Guardian Australia the funding would go toward improving the
walking track, making the facilities safe and more accessible, as well as
replacing old “glamping” spots with eco-friendly pods.
“I think it’ll engage the public and it’ll be a model for getting more people
active in nature conservation and connecting with nature.”
Ruchel welcomed the upgrades to visitor facilities, saying they are much
needed in this current climate.
“We know people are more inspired to visit nature, and we saw it after the
first lockdown that there was an explosion in visitation, so the visitation
needs to be managed.”
“The infrastructure helps with that, but we shouldn’t forget we need core
ecological programs to make sure it’s not just the physical assets that are
protected, but also that we’re managing the parks to the highest level.”
Authorities are hoping that by preventing predators and pests entering the
park, they will be able to reintroduce native animals, such as the eastern
bristlebird, eastern bettong and the spot-tailed quoll.
“By getting rid of the feral pests, we’ll see an amazing bounce-back in
endangered birds, endangered ground mammals, their reptiles and frogs. One
feral cat can eat up to 5,000 animals a year, so they’re just pigging out on
animals wholesale.”
Ruchel said he was happy with the funding, and thought it was enough to get
the upgrades installled and implemented, but that it wasn’t enough.
“It’s good to see the Andrews government recognising the value of our natural
areas by making this investment, but in the longer term we need better routine
funding for management.”
“The problem we have in park management is if its initial funding, it doesn’t
always last. There is a question of needing ongoing long term support for
these programs so that our ecosystems are managed consistently and for the
long term.”
Norman hoped the park could act as an emergency shelter for threatened species
around the state, especially after last year’s bushfires.
“In the bushfires, we almost lost the Victorian eastern bristlebird, and we’re
going to set up an insurance population at the Prom, so if another
catastrophic fire comes, they don’t go extinct in the state.”
“The improvements will really come to show off the jewel in Victoria’s natural
estate.”
A leading climatologist says Australians love living among trees
and by the sea, but that may not be safe in future. (ABC News: Megan Hendry)
Key Points
A climate risk analyst says
home insurance premiums could increase to the point where many
areas become unaffordable
An insurance spokesman says
that has not happened yet, but wants the Government to invest more
in disaster mitigation
In a NSW town hit by fire in
2018, only 16 of the 69 houses had been rebuilt due to insurance
issues
Severe weather has rendered parts of Australia uninhabitable, properties will
become uninsurable, and people will be priced out of their homes, leading
climate scientists warn.
Across Australia, 383,330 addresses were
classified as high risk in 2020.
That number will almost double to 735,654 by 2100, according to a report
produced for local government by analysis platform Climate Risk Engines.
Leading climate risk analyst Karl Mallon, chief executive of Climate Valuation,
which provides extreme weather analysis on construction and development to banks
and the property industry, said an increasing number of properties were in the
insurance "red zone".
"Premiums are going to increase and they may become unaffordable," Dr Mallon
said.
Insurance Council of Australia spokesman Campbell Fuller said no region in
Australia was uninsurable — for now.
"However, it is possible some regions may become difficult to insure in the
future," he said.
"Unless governments invest in appropriate mitigation and adaptation
strategies."
Leading climatologist Greg Holland says climate change is no longer
a future problem. (Supplied: Greg Holland)
Leading climatologist Greg Holland, a fellow of the Australian Meteorological
and Oceanographic Society,said the science clearly showed
Australia's climate was continuing to warm and that the frequency of extreme
events was increasing.
"We've been talking about climate change as something in the future — it's now
in the past," he said.
"The reason people are experiencing things like massively increased intensity
and types of bushfires, along with the other extremes weather brings along, is
because it is here now."
Jo Dodds says even with the best insurance many Tathra residents
have not been able to replace their homes. (Supplied: Tony Dean)
First the fire, then the finance
Bega Valley councillor Jo Dodds has witnessed the devastation of a major
bushfire firsthand.
In early 2018, her home near Tathra, New South Wales, was threatened on three
sides by bushfire.
She could see smoke rising from the homes of her friends and could hear gas
bottles exploding.
Cr Dodds said 69 houses were lost in that fire — to date only 16 had been
rebuilt.
A major impediment to rebuilding, she said, had been insurance.
"Even people with gold-plated insurance … are still finding they can't replace
the house they had with a similar house," Cr Dodds said.
"Some people may be finding they can't afford the level of insurance, and
in some cases there are no insurers that are willing to insure.
"I haven't heard of cases of that yet, but there is no doubt it is in
everybody's minds."
Dr Mallon described communities like Tathra as victims of a changing climate.
"These are people who, through no fault of their own, are facing costs and
financial threats to their families that they can't afford," he said.
Insurance premiums have skyrocketed for businesses in
Mackay. (Supplied: Beck McPherson)
'Data 30 years out of date'
Retiree Erna-Jean Pozzetti and her husband, Claudio, own a large stake in Ocean
Resort Village, a unit complex in Mackay in northern Queensland,
an area vulnerable to cyclones and floods.
When they bought 14 years ago in 2006, insurance on the property cost $18,000 a
year.
Their latest strata commercial bill quote was for $174,000 — more than triple
last year's amount.
Karl Mallon says insurance premiums are rising as climate change
causes more weather extremes.
Dr Mallon said this type of inflation would become commonplace for areas
prone to natural disasters.
"When you buy a house or issue a mortgage you are taking on a 30-year
commitment," he said.
"Thirty years is a long time in climate change.
"In principal an insurance company only takes a one-year view of the future.
"But what we are seeing is over 30 years there will be substantial changes.
"Someone might be able to afford an insurance bill today, but it doesn't mean
they can later on in their mortgage."
Dr Mallon said insurance companies had been caught off guard by the severe
weather caused by climate change.
"[Insurance premiums] are based on data that is frankly 20 or 30 years out of
date," he said.
"They are playing catch-up to get their premiums to where they need to be.
"We have got properties not just in the north of Queensland, but big cities like
Melbourne and Sydney, where the risks are extremely high because the wrong
properties are being built in the wrong place."
Moving away from disaster zones
Australians love to live among the trees and by the beach, but
Dr Holland said in parts of Australia this would simply be too dangerous.
He said governments would have to move people en masse from areas prone to
severe weather.
"It's happening around the world," he said.
"We have gone for the sea change and tree change option and moved into these
glorious areas without taking too much notice of the stark danger that exists
there and existed there even 30 or 40 years ago.
"We could put that thought off because it was a relatively rare event — but as
it has become more common we do have to make that decision."
Dr Holland says living among the gum trees is becoming increasingly
dangerous. (Supplied: Adam Meredith)
Dr Holland said governments could not sit back and watch people get priced
out of their homes.
"There are some hard decisions that have to be made," he said.
"I understand this, because I live on a farm where we live with the fear of
smelling smoke every day during summer.
"But the facts are there are some regions that are uninhabitable, that we are in at present — unless you have the money.
"We put a lot of blame on the insurance company because they are the sort of
people who are charging you that money, but they are caught by the same thing.
"The Government has done very little in the way of helping out those who are
in trouble and it has done pretty much zero in stopping the climate change
happening."
Dr Mallon said governments needed to provide grants and investment to help
communities build appropriately in areas of bushfire and flood.
"It is not their fault," he said.
"They are not the polluters, but we need to step in and support these
communities financially."
Mr Fuller said governments needed to invest in mitigation to future-proof
communities.
"Implementation of stronger building codes, improved land use planning and
permanent mitigation measures, where necessary, will be key to ensuring an
insurable future," he said.
