New Report Hails The Decade Of Renewables As 2020 Hits Capacity Record

RenewEconomy - Ketan Joshi

A new report released by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has shown that global renewable energy capacity additions in 2020 have surpassed a range of prior estimate and all records from previous years.

The majority of the year was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, with supply chains, businesses and shipping all heavily disrupted, making the records even more remarkable.

IRENA found that global additions of renewables added up to 260 gigawatts, exceeding 2019’s value by nearly 50%. More than 80% of all new electrical capacity added in 2020 was renewable, and of that renewable energy 91% was wind and solar.

IRENA attributes this to a “net decommissioning” of fossil fuel power in Europe, North America and Eurasia (including the Russian Federation and Turkey). In Asia, the Middle East and Africa, there is a net expansion of fossil fuels. The expansion of fossil fuels continues, but is slowing, according to their data.  

The data also highlight that China and the US were the two dominant players globally for these markets, with China adding a stunning 72 gigawatts of wind power and 49 gigawatts of solar power in 2020.

The US installed 29 gigawatts of renewables, “nearly 80% more than 2019, including 15 GW of solar and around 14 GW of wind”.

However, most other countries “continued to increase renewable capacity at a similar rate to previous years”, the report adds.



The new additions put the renewable share of total generation capacity in the world from 24.6% in 2019 to 36.6% in 2020.

“An energy transition requires that the use of renewables expands by more than the growth in energy demand, so that less non-renewable energy needs to be used”, write the authors of the report.

“Many countries still have not reached this point, despite dramatic increases in their use of renewables for generating electricity”. 
  

Of the various regions reported upon, the highest increase in capacity was Oceania (18.5%), almost all of which occurred in Australia.

However, the region is a small share of global totals and Australia remains heavily dependent on world-leading quantities of coal-fired power, as reported in another recent analysis of 2020 electricity data.

Another Australian government report suggested that Australia’s growth could be heading for a downturn.

“Despite the difficult period, as we predicted, 2020 marks the start of the decade of renewables,” said IRENA Director-General Francesco La Camera.

“Costs are falling, clean tech markets are growing and never before have the benefits of the energy transition been so clear.

"This trend is unstoppable, but as the review of our World Energy Transition Outlook highlights, there is a huge amount to be done.

"Our 1.5 degree outlook shows significant planned energy investments must be redirected to support the transition if we are to achieve 2050 goals. In this critical decade of action, the international community must look to this trend as a source of inspiration to go further”.

A recent preview of the 2021 IRENA “World Energy Transition Outlook” report, to be released in full later this year, found that “proven technologies for a net-zero energy system already largely exist today”, and that “in anticipation of the coming energy transition, financial markets and investors are already directing capital away from fossil fuels and towards other energy technologies including renewables”.
 

Links

• World Adds Record New Renewable Energy Capacity in 2020
• World Energy Transitions Outlook: 1.5°C Pathway
• Global Electricity Review 2021
• International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)
• How to transform the energy system and reduce carbon emissions
• Australia still addicted to coal despite huge growth in wind and solar
• Global Electricity Review 2021: Australia

(AU) Alan Kohler: The Climate Spin Can’t Go On Forever. Net Zero Must Be Our Aim

New Daily - Alan Kohler

Australia must tackle climate change head on and strengthen its emissions trading scheme, writes Alan Kohler. Photo: TND

Author Alan Kohler writes for The New Daily twice a week. He is editor in chief of Eureka Report and finance presenter on ABC News

The Morrison government faces a big choice when it comes time to commit fully to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Most other countries have already made that commitment, and just about every other Australian organisation and state government has done it as well, but Scott Morrison’s current wording is that he wants to achieve net-zero emissions “preferably” by 2050.

That means the government doesn’t have to announce any actual policies to achieve that, just talk about advances in technology and say it would be nice if they were to cut net emissions to zero by 2050.

Maybe they can keep that sophistry going for a while, but as the pandemic passes the pressure will resume.

When Mr Morrison is forced to lose the word “preferably” from his climate change incantation, a choice will have to be made between public and private spending. That is, between the American and European methods.

Biden’s spending big

Having got his $US1.9 trillion ($2.5 trillion) economic stimulus through Congress, US President Joe Biden is now working on a $US2.3 trillion ($3 trillion) infrastructure spending plan, some of which is to go on emissions reduction and renewable energy.

By contrast, Europe runs the first and still biggest emissions trading scheme, started in 2005.

Neither of them, it should be noted, is doing anywhere near enough yet to reach net zero by 2050, but at least they’ve made a start.

The great irony is that the headquarters of capitalism – the United States – is doing it with the socialism of government spending, while Europe is using the market.

The Australian government is using a bit of both, with the emphasis on “a bit”.

There’s the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro storage scheme, which will cost up to $4.5 billion, the $1.3 billion Modern Manufacturing Initiative and the Low Emissions Technology Statement that talked about building a hydrogen industry without mentioning a dollar figure for government investment.

Mr Biden’s $US2.3 trillion ($3 trillion) “American Jobs Plan” now before Congress only contains about $US300 billion ($394 billion) in direct spending on emissions reduction, with the rest to be spent on things like a national broadband network, new water pipes, affordable housing, roads and bridges.

But since America’s GDP is 10 times Australia’s, that’s equivalent to $30 billion here.

Even if you count emissions reduction infrastructure spending by all Australian governments you only get to $7.4 billion (according to WWF Australia).

Joe Biden’s $3 trillion ‘American Jobs Plan’ contains about $394 billion in direct spending on emissions reduction. Photo: Getty

Australian system achieving little

Australia’s emissions trading scheme is likewise a pale shadow of Europe’s.

The government’s Clean Energy Regulator issues “Australian Carbon Credit Units” (ACCUs) to anyone who gets a project approved by the Emissions Reduction Fund.

In 2020, 158 projects were approved that cut emissions by 16 million tonnes, 8 per cent more than in 2019. The CER is predicting it will be 17 million tonnes in 2021.

That 16 million tonnes of abatement in 2020 was 3 per cent of Australia’s total emissions; Europe’s ETS apparently contributed to a 21 per cent reduction in 2020.

Another way to measure the difference is the carbon price: On the European market, it recently hit a record high of 43 euros, or $66 per tonne. The “spot price” in Australia is currently $16.55.

That’s because the caps in our cap-and-trade system are high, which means emitters don’t have to buy many ACCUs.

The way an ETS works is that the government puts a cap on how much carbon dioxide each company in the land can emit, and if they want to emit more, they have to buy (trade) credits from someone who is emitting less or has an approved emissions reduction project, like planting trees, and therefore gets credits issued to them.

The European Union has a low cap and then issues a lot of free allowances, as they’re called, (17.8 billion euros worth last year); Australia simply has a set of caps that are equal to what the companies are emitting now, so they don’t have to buy any ACCUs.

That’s because the Coalition doesn’t want anything that smells remotely like a carbon tax, having triumphantly repealed Labor’s ETS in 2013 after falsely describing it as a carbon tax.

But while repealing the Clean Energy Act, the Coalition only amended the Clean Energy Regulator Act. Not only was it retained, its funding was increased in last year’s budget.

Times have changed

Angus Taylor, who goes by the title of Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, now regularly emits press releases announcing the regulator’s marvellous achievements in reducing emissions.

But times have changed and Tony Abbott lost his seat to an independent promoting action on climate change.

Since then, the Coalition has been trying to appear to be doing something about climate change without being accused of actually doing anything serious – thus the word “preferably” inserted into its version of the net zero by 2050 commitment.

But the “preferably” can’t last, which means the loose caps in Australia’s ETS and/or the tiny spending on renewable infrastructure can’t last, either.

Links

• Low Emissions Technology Statement to help reduce emissions and boost the economy
• Snowy 2.0 Pumped Hydro
• Modern Manufacturing Initiative and National Manufacturing Priorities
• Clean Energy Regulator
• Emissions Reduction Fund
• Australian Carbon Credit Units
• Australian exporters could face $140 per tonne carbon tax, thanks to weak Morrison targets

Here’s All The Climate Science You Missed So Far This Year

Bloomberg Green - Eric Roston

Don’t worry, we’ve got your back.

Flood in Australia. Photographer: Flavio Brancaleone/Getty Images

In early January the high atmosphere above the Arctic warmed abruptly, which happens about six times a decade. That warming gradually weakened the jet stream below, causing frigid air to spill down across North America. Texas froze, and tragedy ensued.

Some evidence points to a link between the quickly heating Arctic and cold spells to the south, but not everyone agrees, and it’s become a bit of a stalemate. Two things are certain: Winter is the fastest-warming season, and Texas missed warnings.

Scientists are much clearer about humanity’s role in more common extreme weather events. Some 40,000 people evacuated their homes in New South Wales in March after biblical rainfall.

Aspects of Australia’s climate make parsing the climate influence of any precipitation event more complicated, but new work affirms that more greenhouse gas means more heat, a wetter atmosphere, and more extreme rainfall. 

It’s not only about more or less precipitation—the timing of the seasons is changing almost everywhere, with California’s rainy season now starting a month later than it did 60 years ago.

Global heating has also slowed down the Gulf Stream, the vast Atlantic circulation system that directly affects climate in Africa, the Americas, and Europe, to its lowest level in 1,000 years. This deceleration is a long-predicted and long-feared development, and scientists say a better understanding of it “is urgently needed.”

Keeping the temperature rise below 1.5°C seems like a better and better idea, even as it’s becoming harder and harder to achieve. With heat comes more humidity, a potent combination that can push a human body to its breaking point.

Halting climate change below 2°C would dramatically cut the risk to people in the tropics of conditions that push the body past “the survival limit.”

A quarter of the CO₂ pollution we emit every year washes into the ocean, and some falls to the floor as sediment, where it stays safely away from the atmosphere for millenniums. Except when industrial fishing trawlers run over 1.3% of the ocean floor every year, releasing as much as 20% of the atmospheric CO₂ that the oceans absorb annually. 

The good news: The creation of protected marine areas would help keep down this carbon, while improving both fisheries and marine life, according to a new study. The authors included Jane Lubchenco, a university distinguished professor at Oregon State University, who’s since taken the White House’s highest-ranking climate-science adviser position.

Like marine sediment, soil is an amazing place to hide carbon from the atmosphere. It’s supposed to be a twofer: Plants suck down CO₂, and when they shed leaves or die, the stored carbon becomes a part of the soil.

That process is now called into question by research suggesting that as plants soak up soil nutrients, microbes wake up and feast—with their metabolism releasing stored CO₂ back into the atmosphere. The more plants grow, the less the soils hold on to. The discovery may require changes to important models.

There’s a downside to earlier springtime and later winter: more time for plants to kick out allergens. Allergy season is 20 days longer than it used to be in North America, with pollen concentrations growing by 21%. 

Meanwhile across the pond, scientists trying to give Europeans better tools to prepare for allergies found that seasonal severity may rise an additional 60% in the decades ahead. And if that’s not too much to inhale, researchers in Colorado found that the energy required to grow cannabis indoors produces 1.3% of the state’s emissions.

Somehow there’s still good news—the adoption of renewables and electric vehicles, oil-industry introspection, even sweeter peaches (drought stress raises sugar production). With sustained effort, we might see the most important measures of planetary health improve.

Global CO₂ emissions from energy rose by 0.9% a year from 2010-18, less than a third of the annual growth in the previous decade.

The pandemic year knocked down annual CO₂ emissions by an historic 7%, but economic engines have restarted, and December 2020 emissions were already higher than the same month in 2019. 

It adds up: Last year tied 2016 as the hottest year on record, and the hottest seven years in the last 141 have all occurred since 2014.

Links

• Forest Destruction Surged in 2020 Even as Global Economy Slowed
• ‘Big Storage’ Is the Next Big Technology in the Climate Fight
• Arctic Lightning Strikes Tripled in a Decade
• What if the Perfect Climate Fix Can’t Arrive in Time?
• How an Offshore Oil Rig Becomes an Artificial Reef
• Add Dry Riverbeds and Overflowing Banks to the List of Things Made Worse by Climate Change
• A 20-Year-Old Climate Mystery Has Finally Been Explained
• Climate Progress Needs to Be 10 Times Faster to Avoid Catastrophe
• After Historic Fall, Carbon Emissions Are Now Coming Back Fast
• UN Sends Dire Warning Over Global Progress on Emissions Goals
• Why the World Awaits Biden’s Pledge on Climate Change
• Starbucks to End Disposable Cup Use in South Korea by 2025
• World’s Biggest Solar Company Joins the Hydrogen Game
• Enbridge’s Green Push Could Use Canadian Tax Credits, CEO Says

Climate Change Cannot Be Mitigated Without Effective Carbon Pricing

Forbes -  Georg Kell

NASA picture of long-term global temperature increases. NASA

Author Georg Kell is the Chairman of the Board of Arabesque, a technology company that uses AI and big data to assess sustainability performance relevant for investment analysis and decision making. He is also Vice Chairman of the DWS ESG Advisory Board and Speaker of the Volkswagen Sustainability Council and a founding Director of the United Nations Global Compact, the world's largest corporate sustainability initiative.

More and more countries, already representing about 70% of the world economy, are setting climate neutrality targets.

Hundreds of corporations, including the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, have pledged to become “net zero” by 2050 or earlier, and over 1,000 corporations have embraced science-based targets to measure carbon reductions.

This outburst of public declarations and pledges signifies a promising new alignment of ambitions to face the climate crisis. But declarations of good intentions by themselves are not going to lead to the required timely actions.

In fact, despite the growing popularity of voluntary commitments, especially since the Paris Agreement of 2015, average carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmospheres have kept growing. They exceeded 410 parts per million in 2019 and kept rising in 2020 despite the Covid-19 lockdown, reaching a new record of 416 parts per million in February 2021.

Mitigating climate change is largely about accelerating the transformation of the energy systems that power and sustain our modern lives. The burning of fossil fuels accounts for about 80% of the emissions that cause global warming. Growing the share of renewable sources of energy for producing electricity, electrifying all segments of the economy and employing low carbon technologies is possible in principle.

But despite technological breakthroughs and the growing cost competitiveness of renewables, the current pace of change is still far too slow. According to statistics on recent primary energy consumption, the share of renewable sources now stands at about 5% of primary energy. If all non-CO2-emitting sources – renewables, hydro and nuclear - were included, that share would stand at 16%.

Organizations such as the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and the World Resource Institute (WRI) estimate that the share of renewables must grow exponentially, and the share of fossil fuels decreased accordingly. The overall estimate is that the level of ambition needs to be roughly tripled to align with the 2°C limit and must be increased around fivefold to align with the 1.5°C limit. 

Such a massive systems change cannot be achieved by public sector actions alone. In the case of the European Union, for example, it is estimated that in order to achieve the 55% emission reduction target by 2030, €350 billion more need to be invested annually in the period from 2021 to 2030 than the amount invested in the period from 2011 to 2020.

Public funding can help kickstart such a massive investment, but most of it will have to come from the private sector. By using 37% of the €750 billion NextGenerationEU funds, as proposed by the EU Commission, €277 billion will be spent directly on the European Green Deal objectives, contributing about 8% to the additional investment needs for the next decade.

The situation is similar in the US. The huge infrastructure proposal by President Biden - even if fully implemented - would amount to only one eighth of the estimated required investments to stave off the worst projected dangers of a warming climate.

It is obvious that the full potential of the private sector needs to be activated in order to realize investments of such magnitude. This in turn can only be accomplished if framework conditions are adjusted and if CO2 is priced high enough to establish the business case for decarbonization. 

Establishing the business case for decarbonization is the key to bringing about the systemic change needed to unleash the resources and creativity of the private sector.

Much has been said and written about the failure to price emissions - Nick Stern called climate change “the greatest market failure the world has seen” - and in principle there is broad understanding that “we cannot solve the climate crisis without effective carbon pricing”, as Janet Yellen, US Secretary of the Treasury, said at her confirmation hearing. 

As illustrated in the report “State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2020”, there are some 61 carbon pricing initiatives either implemented or scheduled within 46 national and 32 subnational jurisdictions. The recent results of the largest such scheme, the European Emissions Trading Systems (EU ETS), are encouraging.

Greenhouse gas emissions covered by the scheme (power and heat generation and emission-intensive industries) have decreased by 33% since 2005, with significant reductions especially in 2018 and 2019. 

However, overall progress is slow. As of today, only about 22% of global emissions are covered by carbon pricing initiatives and less than 5% are subject to high enough levels. About half of the emissions are priced at less than US$10 per ton - with the global average price standing at US$2 per ton!

Worse, subsidies for fossil fuels, estimated at US$478 billion in 2019, are more than ten times higher than revenues from carbon pricing (US$45 billion in (2019). If the indirect costs were to be included in the “perverse subsidies” for fossil fuels, this amount would be about US$5 trillion per year, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

As the world is preparing for the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, there is now an opportunity to get serious with climate policies. We are only one investment cycle away from 2050 and we need to get the policies right - and right now. Policy makers have it in their hands to change the framework conditions by establishing effective carbon pricing that will unlock the needed investments. 

A promising new initiative, Call on Carbon, aims to encourage policy makers to do so. The initiative was born in the Nordic countries. Carbon pricing has already been successfully introduced in these countries and has led to major shifts away from high-emitting activities toward cleaner and future-oriented technologies. Supported by business leaders and civil society actors, the Call on Carbon asks governments to:

• Back their net-zero targets with effective, robust, reliable and fit-for-purpose carbon-pricing instruments consistent with the Paris agreement in order to establish cost-efficient paths to reach net-zero emissions.
• Align carbon-pricing instruments to create stable and predictable investment environments.
• Finalize the rules for international market mechanisms under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement in order to support cost-effective mitigation efforts, create a level playing field and minimize carbon leakage.

It is hoped that many more private sector actors will join the Call on Carbon and encourage policy makers to be bold on carbon pricing. Unlike the many previous carbon pricing advocacy efforts that showed limited success, this time around the chances for getting heard are better - for several reasons: 

First, capitals around the world today. Governments can no longer postpone climate action or get away with cosmetic changes. The climate crisis is already upon us. Especially young people are rightly demanding bolder actions. Moreover, crisis situations lower barriers against change. As governments are employing trillions of US dollars to recover from the Covid-19 crisis, they have an opportunity to change the framework conditions for markets.

Second, as more robust climate action is becoming inevitable, decarbonization and digitalization of economies are fast becoming pillars of competitiveness. The inevitability of carbon reduction as a currency of the future should motivate policy makers and the private sector alike. 

Third, thanks to technological progress and applications at scale, the cost of clean technology, such as solar and wind power generation, batteries, electrolyzers and the production of low carbon materials, is falling rapidly.

According to estimates by the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI), the break-even CO2 price for very low-carbon cement, primary steel and primary aluminum would be €50 to €90 per ton, with electricity costs between €40 to €50  per megawatt-hour. According to a Swedish study, this would increase the retail price of a car by only about €100 to €125.

Breakeven cost estimates of very low-carbon cement, primary steel and primary aluminum technologies. IDDRI

LARGE IMAGE

Fourth, some environmental advocacy groups have been reluctant to support market instruments, fearing that these instruments could be used to undo performance standards for industries or further disadvantage low-income populations.

But the evidence from existing carbon pricing schemes, such as those implemented in Nordic countries, show that both approaches can and should be employed simultaneously. Moreover, revenues from carbon pricing can be earmarked to offset any disadvantages to low-income populations. 

With the upcoming COP26, this year is a potential turning point, offering policy makers to think big and to act accordingly.

Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and establishing an effective price for carbon is an essential and long overdue measure to mitigate climate change.

The United States, China and the European Union are well positioned to demonstrate genuine leadership.

Note: This article has been written in cooperation with Jouni Keronen, Chief Executive Officer of the Climate Leadership Coalition.

Links

• Ambitious corporate climate action
• Carbon dioxide levels continue at record levels, despite COVID-19 lockdown
• Carbon Dioxide Latest Measurement February 2021: 416 ppm 
• Statistical Review of World Energy 2020 (pdf)
• World Energy Transitions Outlook: 1.5°C Pathway
• Climate Action Must Progress Far Faster to Achieve 1.5 C Goal
• Stepping up Europe’s 2030 climate ambition (pdf)
• Biden Wants to Spend Billions to Fight Climate Change. It’s Not Enough.
• State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2020

(AU) Crooked Consulting: EY And Deloitte Spruik Climate On One Hand, The Explosion In New Coal Projects On The Other

Michael West Media - Luke Stacey

Australia is building a slew of new coal projects just as global demand for coal is in retreat. It’s justified by “independent expert” reports from the likes of Big Four firms Deloitte and EY. Luke Stacey and Michael West report on the flawed economics and compromised reports of the consultants.

Astrology: image by Alex Anstey

How is it that coal demand is falling globally but, in NSW alone, there are 23 new coal mine proposals on the books, almost half of which were added in 2020? 

Flawed advice from consultants has a lot to do with it says Rod Campbell, chief economist at progressive think tank The Australia Institute which has just modelled the coal markets and found “wildly optimistic forecasts”.

In discussing the report, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back with Michael West Media, Campbell highlighted the role of the usual suspects within the consultancy sector in pushing for new coal projects:

“It’s amazing [how] companies like Ernst & Young that talk about ‘the need to embrace the climate emergency’ are also prepared to knowingly inflate the economic case for new coal mines.

“Ernst & Young’s economists use methods for coal mines that result in valuations hundreds of millions higher than even other coal industry consultants. These methods have been described as ‘inflated’, ‘contrary to economic theory’ and ‘plainly wrong’ by the NSW Land and Environment Court, but EY is happy to keep using them.

 “Deloitte also goes in to bat for new coal mines while saying climate change is the ‘biggest shared challenge facing humanity’”.

 Campbell believes Deloitte’s methodology isn’t as clearly misleading as EY’s, however the firm is still prepared to model their clients on selling coal at today’s prices out to 2046.

Even the coal friendly International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts thermal coal exports to fall.

Low standards

“Economists have no professional standards and no professional body that can discipline consultants who basically lie for their clients.

“The Australia Institute has called for a code of conduct for economic modellers, but this has never been supported by big players like EY and Deloitte. “Why would they, when they can profit from the rush to approvals as the coal industry realises the music is about to stop?”, said Campbell.

The jarring conflict of interest has been chronicled here before. Deloitte has been exposed for conflating royalties with tax in its “independent” expert reports for coal peak body the Minerals Council of Australia.

Minerals Council’s masterclass in spin and corporate lobbying

The big consultants all make hundreds of millions of dollars a year from both government contracts and the resources industry. That makes them cautious about criticising governments but also compromised when it comes to offering independent advice as they are also highly paid by their corporate clients.

The numbers just don’t stack up when it comes to adding more coal production to a falling market.

NSW coal production peaked in 2014, yet current pending approvals in the state could see over 165 million tonnes produced in 2030.  More specifically, “Coal production in NSW doubled from 130 million tonnes in 2000 to 260 million tonnes in 2014”.

During this boom, both state and federal government and lobbyists in the coal industry forecasted even greater returns throughout the 2020s and 2030s.

Predictions for coal exports laid out by the government’s official forecasters in 2012 (shown below) now stand at clear odds with present-day reality; the gap reaching 65 million tonnes in the space of five years.

The 2012 estimates have also proven overly ambitious in respect to royalty payments. The report notes that “Coal royalties were predicted to reach $2.5 billion in 2012, [however] $1.2 billion was the eventual payment in 2016”.

Another indication of the industry’s decline is that many coal mines are producing below their capacity. A prime example is BHP’s Mt Arthur mine in the Hunter Valley. In 2019, it produced 25 million tonnes, well short of its 36 million tonne capacity.

“BHP is trying to sell the Mt Arthur mine and recently revised its value down by $US1.2 billion to around $US300 million,” says Campbell. 

In Queensland, there is speculation BHP may divest a number of its thermal coal mines. BHP did not respond to questions for this story regarding the sale of its coking coal assets and whether decarbonisation of the steel sector is occurring faster than anticipated.

The NSW government however remains deaf to the reality of sinking coal exports. It has 23 new coal mine proposals on the books, almost half of which were added in 2020. 

According to TAI, this influx “likely reflects a rush by proponents to progress projects as quickly as possible before a potential major shift in the coal market due to climate action and cheaper renewable energy”.

The Upper Hunter region in NSW accounts for 11 of the 23 new proposals – equivalent to 10 Adani coal mines – though it is already home to some of the worst air quality in the country. Over the weekend, the influence of the coal lobby over NSW politicians was on display when the Deputy Premier John Barilaro was photographed with other prominent pro-coal politicians in NSW mining lobby regalia.

Plenty of cross-party support for the Hunter’s coal mining industry at the @NSWMC round today. Couldn’t quite get the same unanimous support for the @NRLKnights #nrlknightsdragons #voiceformining @JohnBarilaroMP @RealMarkLatham pic.twitter.com/ukZceY0XoJ

— Joel Fitzgibbon (@fitzhunter) April 4, 2021

TAI’s report recommends the NSW Government, namely the Department of Planning Industry and Environment, “introduce a moratorium on new coal mine projects until it has undertaken a cumulative assessment of the economic, environmental and social consequences of pursuing so many new coal projects”.

It also lists six points of contention surrounding the responsibility of companies in the coal industry in their mitigation of financial and environmental risks, rehabilitation standards and obligations, plus the adequacy of oversight from the state government.

Another contradiction to coal mine expansion, especially in the Hunter, is the limitations imposed on the export terminal at the Port of Newcastle. With an annual terminal capacity of around 200 million tonnes, it is simply not capable of handling the added capacity of these new proposals against that of the existing mines in the Hunter Valley.

The tired rationale echoed by government and coal lobbyists alike is the injection to the economy and employment generated by these new projects. However, considering the reduced performance of existing mines, limited capacity of the Port of Newcastle and shortfall from the global market, employment will be significantly lower than that which is being claimed.

There is also the environmental threat to existing biodiversity which populate the regions. The problem with the NSW government’s approval process is that “each mine is evaluated separately rather than evaluated within a coherent regional framework.”

This results in a lack of transparency when considering environmental impacts such as disruption to the water table or river health and the threat to local wildlife. When assessed individually, the impacts of one project will naturally favour the cumulative consequences of 11 mines or expansions in the same region.

Questions have been put to the NSW Department of Planning Industry and Environment, and NSW Minister for Energy and Environment, Matt Kean.

Links

• One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: New coal mines in the Hunter Valley (pdf)
• Land and Environment Court New South Wales: Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning
• Australia Institute: Economic Modelling Code of Conduct
• Green steel threatens to leave Dalrymple Bay coal port stranded
• Asleep at the Wheel: why Australia’s emissions policy debacle puts hundreds of communities at risk
• Hydrogen Hype: Angus Taylor’s last throw of the dice for brown coal
• Fossil fuel-backed Great Barrier Reef Foundation mimics plastics campaign, sidesteps climate change
• Why Labor is soft on Climate Change
• Fossil fuel gaslighting: accept climate change but undermine action
• ALP climate policy: from the “great moral challenge” to conservative-lite

Japan Just Recorded Its Earliest Cherry Blossom Bloom In 1,200 Years. Scientists Warn It's A Symptom Of The Larger Climate Crisis

CNN - Jessie Yeung | Selina Wang | Derek Van Dam

Think of Japan in the spring, and the image that comes to mind is likely the country's famous cherry blossoms, also known as "sakura" -- white and pink flowers, bursting across cities and mountains, petals covering the ground.

The flowers, which experience a "peak bloom" that only lasts a few days, have been revered in Japan for more than a thousand years.

Crowds celebrate with viewing parties, flocking to the most popular locations to take photos and have picnics underneath the branches.

People flock to Tokyo city parks to view the blooming cherry blossoms on March 21.

But this year, cherry blossom season has come and gone in the blink of an eye, in one of the earliest blooms on record -- and scientists warn it's a symptom of the larger climate crisis threatening ecosystems everywhere.

Yasuyuki Aono, a researcher at Osaka Prefecture University, has gathered records from Kyoto back to 812 AD from historical documents and diaries. In the central city of Kyoto, cherry blossoms peaked on March 26, the earliest in more than 1,200 years, Aono said.

"As global temperatures warm, the last spring frosts are occurring earlier and flowering is occurring sooner," said Dr. Lewis Ziska from Columbia Universities Environmental Health Sciences.

 The peak bloom dates shift every year, depending on numerous factors including weather and rainfall, but have shown a general trend of moving earlier and earlier.

In Kyoto, the peak date hovered around mid-April for centuries, according to Aono's data, but began moving into early April during the 1800s. The date has only dipped into late March a handful of times in recorded history.

 "Sakura blooms are very temperature sensitive," said Aono. "Flowering and full bloom could be earlier or later depending on the temperature alone," he said. "The temperature was low in the 1820s, but it has risen by about 3.5 degrees Celsius (6.3 degrees Fahrenheit) to this day."

Kyoto cherry blossoms blooming earlier

Cherry blossoms in Kyoto, Japan, are blooming about 10 days earlier than they did 100 years ago, according to research in the International Journal of Biometeorology. The earlier bloom coincides with rising temperatures, suggesting climate change is affecting the length of growing seasons. The grey dots represent the date of peak blooms from the year 900 through 2015. The red line shows the 10-year moving average.
Source: Yasuyuki Aono and Shizuka Saito; International Journal of Biometeorology, 2010
Graphic: Curt Merrill, CNN

This year's seasons in particular influenced the blossom dates, he added. The winter was very cold, but the spring came fast and unusually warm, so "the buds are completely awake after enough rest."

Their early bloom, however, is just the tip of the iceberg of a worldwide phenomenon that could destabilize natural systems and countries' economies, said Amos Tai, assistant professor of earth science at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

There are two sources of increased heat, which is the main factor making the flowers bloom earlier: urbanization and climate change.

With increased urbanization, cities tend to get warmer than the surrounding rural area, in what is called the heat island effect.

But a bigger reason is climate change, which has caused rising temperatures across the region and the world.

And these earlier dates aren't just a matter of tourists scrambling to catch peak bloom before the petals all fall -- it could have a lasting impact on entire ecosystems, and threaten the survival of many species.

Cherry blossoms at Kitanomaru Park in Tokyo, Japan, on March 23.

For every action there is a reaction

Plants and insects rely heavily on each other, and both use environmental cues to "regulate the timing of different stages of their life cycles," said Tai.

For instance, plants sense the temperature around them and if it's warm enough for a consistent period, they start to flower and their leaves start to emerge. Similarly, insects and other animals depend on temperature for their life cycles, meaning higher heat can cause faster growth.

"The relationship between plants and insects and other organisms have developed over many years -- thousands to millions of years," said Tai. "But in the recent century, climate change is really wrecking everything and perturbing all of these relationships."

Different plants and insects may respond to the rise in heat at different paces, throwing their life cycles out of sync.

Whereas they once timed their growth simultaneously each spring, now flowers may bloom before insects are ready, and vice versa -- meaning "the insects may not find enough food to eat from the plants, and the plants don't have enough pollinators (to reproduce)," he said.

A bird next to cherry blossoms at a park in Tokyo, Japan, on March 23.

Over the past decade, some plant and animal populations have already begun shifting to both "higher altitudes" and "higher latitudes" to escape the effects of climate change, according to a 2009 study in Biological Conservation.

But it's becoming harder for ecosystems to adapt, with climate change making the weather more and more unpredictable. Though the trend of flowering dates is generally moving earlier, unexpected and extreme weather means that there is still huge variability year-by-year.

"Ecosystems are not accustomed to these kinds of large fluctuations, it causes them a lot of stress," said Tai. "Productivity may be reduced, and ecosystems may even collapse in the future."

Not limited to cherry blossoms

This year's change in flowering dates isn't limited to just Japan; the cherry blossoms that adorn the Tidal Basin in Washington, DC, have also bloomed early.

According to the National Park Service, the peak bloom date of the Washington cherry blossoms has advanced forward by nearly a week from April 5th to March 31.

Climate change may doom 1 in 3 species of plants and animals in the next 50 years

And the effects of climate change aren't just limited to cherry blossoms.

"Cherry blossoms catch the eye, people love to go see them, but lots of other plants are experiencing changes in their life cycle as well, and may have even stronger influence on the stability of their ecosystems," said Tai.

The same phenomenon is already happening to many crops and economically valuable plants, he said -- posing big problems for food security and farmers' livelihoods.

Food supplies in some of the most vulnerable regions in the world are being directly affected by droughts, crop failures and locust swarms.

In some regions, farmers may be forced to change the types of crops they grow. Some climates will become too hot for what they are growing now, while other climates will see more flooding, more snow, more moisture in the air, which will also limit what can be grown.

"(Farmers) have a much harder time predicting when they will have a good year, when they will have a bad year," Tai added. "Agriculture now is more like a gamble, because climate change is randomizing the things happening in our ecological systems."
       
Fly above the cherry blossom bloom in Washington DC 00:45 Source: CNN

Links

• Climate crisis 'likely cause' of early cherry blossom in Japan
• The Earliest Cherry Blossom Season in 1,200 Years Is Here Due to Climate Change 
• The impact of climate change on cherry trees and other species in Japan
• Onset of spring starting earlier across the Northern Hemisphere
• Early cherry blossoms in Washington DC point to climate crisis
• Climate Impacts: Shifting Seasons
• How Does Climate Change Affect the Seasons?

(AU) Barrier Reef Doomed As Up To 99% Of Coral At Risk, Report Finds

Sydney Morning Herald - Nick O'Malley | Mike Foley

The Great Barrier Reef is all but doomed, with between 70 and 99 per cent of corals set for destruction unless immediate “transformative action” is taken to reverse global warming, according to a new report.

The Australian Academy of Science says the more ambitious target of the Paris Climate Agreement of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees has now slipped out of reach and is “virtually impossible”.

Coral bleaching near Lizard Island on the Great Barrier Reef during 2016. Credit: EarthJustice, EJA

“Limiting the temperature rise to the lower Paris Agreement target is exceedingly difficult, and with only three or four more years of emissions at current levels remaining, the target has become virtually impossible to achieve,” says The Risks to Australia of a 3C Warmer World.

If 1.5 degrees of warming was sustained, the Great Barrier Reef would cease to exist as we know it, says one of the authors, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a biologist and climate scientist specialising in coral reefs.

What will happen to our cities (and beaches) at 3 degrees of warming?

At 1.5 degrees of warming, the reef would shrink by 70 to 90 per cent. At 2 degrees, just 1 per cent of the reef would survive.

If warming was stabilised, surviving corals suited to warmer temperatures may eventually return to cover the reef.

Should it continue unabated, corals would vanish entirely to be replaced by other organisms such as seaweeds and bacteria, said Professor Hoegh-Guldberg.

“It’s questionable that this would produce the $5 billion in income the reef now produces in tourism,” he said.

Another of the authors, Distinguished Professor Lesley Hughes of Macquarie University, said at current rates of emissions the world is likely to burn through its 1.5 degree “carbon budget” by 2025.

According to the report, the earth has already warmed by 1.1 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era.

However, warming does not impact on the world uniformly and, according to Professor Hughes, Australia is already experiencing 1.4 degrees warming.

“The observations that we are seeing of things like unprecedented bushfires and regular frequent bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef are consistent with the predictions that have been made previously about a 1.5-degree world,” she said.

“This is already a difficult world and really the main point of the academy report was to show that if you think this is difficult, then imagine double or triple the warming that we’ve had.”

Coral 'IVF' at Great Barrier Reef continues
In a world-first, researchers have successfully pioneered small-scale coral restoration using a technique dubbed Coral IVF.

In this scenario Black Summer fires would likely be an annual event and one in a 100-year floods would happen more commonly.

Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said it would be “disastrous” for politicians and policymakers to consider the report an excuse for giving up on reducing emissions.

Rather, he said it was further evidence that governments needed to shift from “gradualism to transformative action”.

This meant committing not only to net zero targets by 2050, but substantial annual cuts guided by a significant reductions target for 2030.

Professor Frank Jotzo, another contributor to the paper and director of the Australian National University’s Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, said he agreed 1.5 degrees was likely out of reach, but serious and immediate action could still see the world stabilise at between 1.5 and 2 degrees, which would make a huge difference to the quality of life on earth.

According to Professor Jotzo the unprecedented growth of wind and solar power over the past few years showed not only that the world has the technology to replace fossils with clean energy, but the energy produced will be cheaper than for traditional fossil sources such as oil and gas.

As a result we can afford to spend on storage technologies such as batteries and pumped hydro, he said.

At the Paris Climate Conference in 2016 Australia signed up to the agreement to keep global warming below 2 degrees and as close to 1.5 degrees as possible.

At the time Australia committed to reduce its emissions by 26-28 per cent based on 2005 levels by 2030.

The agreement included a so-called ratchet mechanism designed to encourage nations to raise their targets.

Over the past year the number of countries with targets of net zero by mid-century has leapt from about 25 per cent to 75 per cent.

Now, pressure is mounting on countries to make 2030 targets more ambitious. Professor Jotzo said he believes that the US, which is hosting a climate summit of 40 world leaders this month, will probably double its 2030 target by around 50 per cent, increasing pressure on Australia to significantly raise its target.

Make electric cars cheaper: Labor promises tax breaks for EVs, battery storage

A spokesman for Energy and Emissions Reductions Minister Angus Taylor said global warming was “a global problem requiring a global solution”.

“The only pathway for all countries to get to net zero is by getting low emissions technologies to commercial parity with existing alternatives,” the spokesman said.

“When developing countries are no longer forced to choose between growth and decarbonisation, then global emissions will fall.

“Australia has strong targets, an enviable track record, and a responsible plan to get the cost of low emissions technologies down.”

Links

• Report: The Risks to Australia of a 3°C Warmer World
• (AU) Great Barrier Reef Outlook Worsens To 'Critical' As Climate Change Named Number One Threat To World Heritage Sites
• (AU) Great Barrier Reef Outlook 'Critical' As Climate Change Called Number One Threat To World Heritage
• (AU) 'There Is No Time To Lose': Great Barrier Reef Has Lost Half Its Corals
• (AU) Australia Cannot Wait For Climate Decision To Save Reef: Foundation
• Why This Year Is Our Last, Best Chance For Saving the Oceans
• (AU) This Sculpture Is A Mood Ring For The Great Barrier Reef
• (AU) If We Can Put A Man On The Moon, We Can Save The Great Barrier Reef