(Australia Institute) Australian Manufacturing At Risk From Morrison Resistance To Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism At G7 Summit

The Australia Institute

New analysis by the Australia Institute Climate & Energy Program shows that the use of carbon border adjustment mechanisms, to be under discussion at the G7 Summit this week, will put Australian industry and manufacturing processes – mainly steel, aluminium and alumina, at risk if Australia continues its recalcitrant role on the global stage.

At the G7 Summit, which runs from June 11-13 in Cornwall, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has indicated he will warn world leaders against the use of carbon tariffs at the G7 Summit, questionably labelling the carbon border adjustment mechanisms being considered by world leaders at the G7 as ‘protectionist’ without justification.

Key findings

• A carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) is a levy by a country with its own carbon pricing on the carbon content of emissions-intensive imports.
• The UK has confirmed that the G7 Summit will include discussions on CBAMs.
• The CBAM proposed by the EU is not a tariff and unlikely to be considered protectionist, as it is designed to comply with World Trade Organisation rules.
• To date, the Australian Government has not been able to justify its claims that CBAM and carbon pricing are ‘protectionist’ measures.
• Australia is exposed to a potential CBAM implementation as one of few high-income countries without a carbon price and having energy-intensive trade products that will be taxed by other countries.
  • Australia is most exposed for primary metals manufacturing: emissions-intensive alumina and aluminium are valued at $12 billion in exports.
  • Australia’s alumina and aluminium are highly reliant on coal or gas for production and would benefit from switching to clean energy.
• It is in Australia’s best interest to engage constructively in the design of CBAMs and invest in clean production methods for products such as aluminium and steel to prevent economic damage and support a resilient manufacturing sector.
  • Australia could benefit from the global transition to net-zero emissions economies if it chose to be proactive in cleaning up exposed sectors and building clean export industries.

“The Australian Government has repeatedly attacked Europe’s proposal as protectionist but not backed up this claim with serious analysis.  It is Australia’s lack of climate ambition and failure to price carbon that will be viewed as protectionist by countries making greater efforts to reduce emissions,” said Frank Muller, international climate policy expert and lead author of the report.

“Australia’s natural endowments and human resources position it better than most countries to prosper in a low carbon world.  Carbon border adjustments in destination markets will assist Australia to develop new zero emission export industries,” Mr Muller said.

“Some sectors of the economy are going to be highly vulnerable if Australia doesn’t act. Almost all Australian aluminium and alumina goes to export. Australia needs to ensure the competitiveness and future of these industries, and our broader manufacturing sector, by investing in clean production methods,” said Dr Hugh Saddler, Honorary Associate Professor Crawford School of Public Policy at ANU.

“All G7 members have locked in net zero by 2050, increased their 2030 targets and have or plan to price carbon. Border adjustments are the next logical step and in my decades of working on these issues I’ve never seen this much broad interest in the idea,” Dr Saddler said.

“The Australian Government claims that it’s approach to climate is dictated by technology not taxes. Make no mistake, if Australia continues to stonewall its trading partners and allies on climate, the taxes will come anyway. But the revenue is going to be collected outside of Australia,” said Richie Merzian, Climate & Energy Program Director at the Australia Institute.

“This isn’t trade protectionism by the G7. It’s climate protectionism. Australia needs to engage constructively on carbon border adjustment mechanisms in the interests of our economy and climate,” Mr Merzian said.

Links

• Discussion paper: Carbon Border Adjustments - What are they and how will they impact Australia? (pdf)
• States Should Use Their Power to Manage Coal’s Orderly Exit
• Groups in Australia and Japan join forces to highlight damage caused by their nations’ coal trade
• Solar Industry, Solar Consumers and Independent Experts Warn of NEM Fragmentation if Solar Exports Rule Change Goes Ahead
• Woodside’s Scarborough Gas Field Equivalent to 15 New Coal Power Plants, Risks Murujuga Rock Art
• Gas Led Retreat: Employment in Gas Shrinking as Economy Growing
• New Analysis: Australia doing less than other countries on climate
• EVs Key to Fuel Security & Emissions Reduction: National Energy Emissions Audit
• Australian fossil fuel subsidies hit $10.3 billion in 2020-21

(AU The Conversation) Tracking The Transition: The ‘Forgotten’ Emissions Undoing The Work Of Australia’s Renewable Energy Boom

The Conversation - Hugh Saddler | Frank Jotzo

Shutterstock

Authors Hugh Saddler is Honorary Associate Professor, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, Australian National University Frank Jotzo is Director, Centre for Climate and Energy Policy, Australian National University

World leaders including Prime Minister Scott Morrison will gather in the UK this weekend for the G7 summit.

In a speech on Wednesday ahead of the meeting, Morrison said Australia recognises the need to reach net-zero emissions in order to tackle climate change, and expects to achieve the goal by 2050.

So has Australia started the journey towards deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions?

In the electricity supply system, the answer is yes, as renewables form an ever-greater share of the electricity mix. But elsewhere in the energy sector – in transport, industry and buildings – there has been little or no progress.

This situation needs to change. These other parts of the energy system contribute nearly 40% of all national greenhouse gas emissions – and the share is growing. In a new working paper out today, we propose a way to track the low-carbon transition across the energy sector and check progress over the last decade.

Energy emissions from buildings, such as from gas cooktops, have largely escaped scrutiny. Shutterstock

A stark contrast

     The energy sector can be separated into three major types of energy use in Australia:

• electricity generation
• transport and mobile equipment used in mining, farming, and construction
• all other segments, mainly fossil fuel combustion to provide heat in industry and buildings.

In 2018-19, energy sector emissions accounted for 72% of Australia’s national total. Transition from fossil fuels to zero-emissions sources is at the heart of any strategy to cut emissions deeply.

The transition is already happening in electricity generation, as wind and solar supplies increase and coal-fired power stations close or operate less.

But in stark contrast, elsewhere in the sector there is no evidence of a meaningful low-emissions transition or acceleration in energy efficiency improvement.

This matters greatly because in 2019, these other segments contributed 53% of total energy combustion emissions and 38% of national greenhouse gas emissions. Total energy sector emissions increased between 2005 (the reference year for Australia’s Paris target) and 2019.

As the below graphic shows, while the renewables transition often gets the credit for Australia’s emissions reductions, falls since 2005 are largely down to changes in land use and forestry.


Let’s take a closer look at the areas where Australia could do far better in future.

1. Transport and mobile equipment

 Transport includes road and rail transport, domestic aviation and coastal shipping. Mobile equipment includes machinery such as excavators and dump trucks used in mining, as well as tractors, bulldozers and other equipment used in farming and construction. Petroleum supplies almost 99% of the energy consumed by these machines.

Road transport is responsible for more than two-thirds of all the energy consumed by transport and mobile equipment.

What’s more, prior to COVID, energy use by transport and mobile equipment was steadily growing – as were emissions. The absence of fuel efficiency standards in Australia, and a trend towards larger cars, has contributed to the problem.

Electric vehicles offer great hope for cutting emissions from the transport sector. As Australia’s electricity grid continues to decarbonise, emissions associated with electric vehicles charged from the grid will keep falling.

Electric vehicles would slash road transport emissions. Shutterstock

2. Other energy emissions

Emissions from all other parts of the energy system arise mainly from burning:

• gas to provide heat for buildings and manufacturing, and for the power needed to liquefy gas to make LNG
• coal, for a limited range of heavy manufacturing activities, such as steel and cement production
• petroleum products (mainly LPG) in much smaller quantities, where natural gas is unavailable or otherwise unsuitable.

Emissions from these sources, as a share of national emissions, rose from 13% in 2005 to 19% in 2019.

These types of emissions can be reduced through electrification – that is, using low- or zero-carbon electricity in industry and buildings. This might include using induction cooktops, and electric heat pumps to heat buildings and water.

However the data offer no evidence of such a shift. Fossil fuel use in this segment has declined, but mainly due to less manufacturing activity rather than cleaner energy supply.

And in 2018 and 2019, the expanding LNG industry drove further emissions growth, offsetting the decline in use of gas and coal in manufacturing.

How to track progress

Over the past decade or so, Australia’s emissions reduction policies – such as they are – have focused on an increasingly narrow range of emission sources and reduction opportunities, in particular electricity generation.
Only now are electric vehicles beginning to be taken seriously, while energy efficiency – a huge opportunity to cut emissions and costs – is typically ignored.

Our paper proposes a large set of new indicators, designed to show what’s happening (and not happening) across the energy sector.

The indicators fall into four groups:

• greenhouse gas emissions from energy use
• primary fuel mix including for electricity generation
  
• final energy consumption including energy use efficiency
  
• the fuel/technology mix used to deliver energy services to consumers.

Our datasets excludes the effects of 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns. They’re based on data contained in established government publications: The Australian Energy Statistics, the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory and the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ national accounts and population estimates.

By systematically tracking and analysing these indicators, and combining them with others, Australia’s energy transition can be monitored on an ongoing basis. This would complement the great level of detail already available for electricity generation. It would also create better public understanding and focus policy attention on areas that need it.

In some countries, government agencies monitor the energy transition in great detail. In some cases, such as Germany, independent experts also conduct systematic and substantial analysis as part of an annual process.

The road ahead

 Australia has begun the journey to a zero-emissions energy sector. But we must get a move-on in transport, industry and buildings.

The technical opportunities are there. What’s now needed is government regulation and policy to encourage investment in zero-emissions technologies for both supplying and using all forms of energy.

And once available, the technology should be deployed now and in coming years, not in the distant future.

Links

• G7: why major economies are delaying a break with the fossil fuel industry
• Check your mirrors: 3 things rooftop solar can teach us about Australia's electric car rollout
• G7 summit: What is it and why is it in Cornwall?
• Prime Minister Q&A, Perth USAsia Centre
• Australian Energy Transition Indicators
• The Australian energy system: Is it moving towards sustainability? Can it move faster? (pdf)
• National Greenhouse Gas Inventory – Paris Agreement Inventory
• Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: December 2020  (pdf)
• Australia has failed miserably on energy efficiency – and government figures hide the truth

(USA NYT) Our Response To Climate Change Is Missing Something Big, Scientists Say

New York Times - Catrin Einhorn

Yes, planting new trees can help. But intact wild areas are much better. The world needs to treat warming and biodiversity loss as two parts of the same problem, a new report warns.

Migrating cranes near Straussfurt, Germany. Climate change and biodiversity are “more deeply intertwined than originally thought,” one of the leaders of the new report said. Credit...Jens Meyer/Associated Press

Some environmental solutions are win-win, helping to rein in global warming and protecting biodiversity, too. But others address one crisis at the expense of the other. Growing trees on grasslands, for example, can destroy the plant and animal life of a rich ecosystem, even if the new trees ultimately suck up carbon. What to do?

Unless the world stops treating climate change and biodiversity collapse as separate issues, neither problem can be addressed effectively, according to a report issued Thursday by researchers from two leading international scientific panels.

“These two topics are more deeply intertwined than originally thought,” said Hans-Otto Pörtner, co-chairman of the scientific steering committee that produced the report. They are also inextricably tied to human well being. But global policies usually target one or the other, leading to unintended consequences.

“If you look at just one single angle, you miss a lot of things,” said Yunne-Jai Shin, a marine biologist with the French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development and a co-author of the report. “Every action counts.”

How we got here

For years, one set of scientists and policymakers has studied and tried to tackle the climate crisis, warning the world of the dangers from greenhouse gases that have been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. The lead culprit: burning fossil fuels.

Another group has studied and tried to tackle the biodiversity crisis, raising alarms about extinctions and ecosystem collapse. The lead culprits: habitat loss because of agriculture, and, at sea, overfishing.

The two groups have operated largely in their own silos. But their subjects are connected by something elemental, literally: carbon itself.

The same element that makes up heat-trapping carbon dioxide, methane and soot is also a fundamental building block of the natural world. It helps form the very tissue of plants and animals on earth. It’s stored in forests, wetlands, grasslands and on the ocean floor. In fact, land and water ecosystems are already stashing away half of human-generated emissions.

Another connection between climate and biodiversity: People have created emergencies on both fronts by using the planet’s resources in unsustainable ways.

For the last couple of decades, the climate crisis has largely overshadowed the biodiversity crisis, perhaps because its threat seemed more dire. But the balance may be shifting. Scientists warn that declines in biodiversity can lead to ecosystem collapse, threatening humanity’s food and water supply.

“Climate change of four or five degrees is just such an existential threat to people, it’s hard to imagine,” said Paul Leadley, one of the authors and an ecologist at Paris-Saclay University.

And, he continued, “if we lose a really large fraction of species on earth, that’s an existential threat.”

What’s not working

Businesses and countries have increasingly looked to nature as a way to offset their emissions, for example, by planting trees to absorb carbon. But the science is clear: Nature can’t store enough carbon to let us keep on spewing greenhouse gases at our current rates.

“A clear first priority is emissions reductions, emissions reductions and emissions reductions,” Dr. Pörtner said.

Just last month, the world’s leading energy agency declared that if the world wants to avoid the worst impacts of global warming, nations would need to stop approving new coal, oil and gas projects immediately.

Saplings planted by volunteers in a reforestation project in Jordan. Credit...Khalil Mazraawi/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

To make matters worse, some measures being used or proposed to address climate change could devastate biodiversity.

“Some people are out there selling this message that if we cover the whole planet with trees, that will solve the climate problem,” Dr. Leadley said. “That’s a mistaken message on many levels.”

In Brazil, parts of the Cerrado, a biodiverse savanna that stores large amounts of carbon, have been planted with monocultures of eucalyptus and pine in an attempt to meet a global reforestation goal. The result, researchers have written separately, is an “impending ecological disaster” because they destroy the native ecosystem and the livelihoods of local communities, including Indigenous people.

Europe once hoped to lead the world in biofuels until realizing they led to deforestation and increased food prices. Another kind of bioenergy, wood pellets, is currently booming in the southeastern United States, despite concerns about pollution and biodiversity loss.

Climate interventions tend to hurt biodiversity more than the other way round, and some trade-offs must occur, the authors wrote. Solar farms, for example, eat up wildlife habitat, a particular concern for places with threatened species. But, critically, they generate clean energy.

The report highlights ways to mitigate the damage to biodiversity, for example by grazing livestock around them, improving carbon soil stocks and avoiding intact habitat. Pollinator gardens on solar farms can help nurture insects and birds. While wind farms can hurt migrating birds, the authors note that modern turbines cause much less damage.

The solutions

By protecting and restoring nature, the report said, we can safeguard biodiversity, help limit warming, improve human well being and even find protection from the consequences of climate change, like intensified flooding and storms.

In the Casamance region of Senegal, for example, local communities restored mangroves and adopted sustainable fishing measures, improving their catch, bringing back dolphins and 20 species of fish, storing carbon and protecting their coastline, said Pamela McElwee, an environmental anthropologist at Rutgers University who was one of the authors.

Young mangrove trees on the outskirts of Ziguinchor, the main town in the Casamance region of Senegal. Credit...John Wessels/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

“Mangroves are a really special type of ecosystem,” she said, “in that they do it all for humans.”

While mangroves are themselves vulnerable to climate change, Dr. McElwee said they appear less threatened than once thought, because restoration efforts are working.

In the Hindu Kush mountains of South Asia, a project has conserved an area about the size of Belgium, restoring high-altitude forests and rangelands and protecting threatened snow leopards and musk deer, the report says, while keeping carbon out of the atmosphere. The 1.3 million people who live there, straddling Nepal, India and the Tibet Autonomous Region of China, have seen enhanced household incomes through tourism and sustainable farming.

Urban areas, too, can do their part with native trees, green spaces and coastal ecosystems, the researchers said.

The report was the first collaboration between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

John P. Holdren, an environmental scientist at Harvard University and a former White House science adviser who was not involved in the report, called it “a must-read for our time.”

Links

• Report on Biodiversity and Climate Change
• Nations Must Drop Fossil Fuels, Fast, World Energy Body Warns
• Afforestation of savannas: an impending ecological disaster (pdf)
• The biodiversity cost of carbon sequestration in tropical savanna
• Europeans Reconsider Biofuel Goal
• There’s a Booming Business in America’s Forests. Some Aren’t Happy About It.
• Mangroves give cause for conservation optimism, for now
• A ‘Crossroads’ for Humanity: Earth’s Biodiversity Is Still Collapsing
• The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof

(NZ Stuff) What Does The Climate Change Commission's Roadmap Mean For Our Lives?

Stuff - Olivia Wannan

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern lists some of the recommendations from the final Climate Commission report.

The Climate Change Commission has released its final advice to the Government, laying out a carbon-cutting roadmap that could change the way we live.

From 2022 onwards, the commission wants us to meet a shrinking “carbon budget”, which is essentially the amount of greenhouse gas the country is allowed to “spend” each year.

Our emissions grew in 2019 (our pollution went up, but we also changed the way we count them). If we’re racing to net zero, this means the starting line moved a bit further back.

To compensate, the commission adjusted the distances (or legs) we’ll need to run each year. So the annual carbon budgets have also risen in the commission’s finalised report:

• 2022 to 2025: 69.5 million tonnes (67.7m tonnes in draft advice)
• 2026 to 2030: 59.7m tonnes (57.3m tonnes in draft)
• 2031 to 2035: 47.9m tonnes (44.6m tonnes in draft)
  
  

But that finishing line of net zero by 2050 hasn’t moved. We’ll have to cover a bit more ground in the first leg, though we’ll have to make up for the majority of the extra distance in future legs.

All up, we must knock 5.4m tonnes of emissions annually for the next four years, compared to 2019.

The cost of our transition – a subject that generated a lot of debate – has been refined. The draft advice found our GDP would grow at a slower rate, knocking off less than 1 per cent by 2050. That’s now 1.2 per cent by 2050. However, there’s also a cost if we do nothing, the commission warned – about 2.3 per cent of GDP.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said the journey would be tough at times, but the numbers supported the country’s plan to decarbonise. “It’s a safer, smarter and cheaper choice to act now.”

The commission has no law-making powers, so the Government will need to decide whether to pass the plan into legislation. Ardern already pledged to uphold the budgets, though her ministers may tweak some of the proposals. We’ll find which ideas were thrown on the scrapheap when the Government releases an Emissions Reduction Plan in December.

But if the Government chooses to back all aspects of the commission’s roadmap, here’s what it means for cars, homes, energy bills and farmers.

On the road

Petrol and diesel car imports will be banned, ideally by 2030 – but no later than 2035. Electric vehicles will be an increasingly common sight on our roads. Half of all cars and motorbikes entering the country will be plug-ins by 2029, courtesy of a “feebate” or subsidy (the design of which is still to be announced).

By 2035, drivers who switch to electric will save more than $1300 each year. Electric charging stations will pop up on national and local roads. The Ministry of Transport has floated a petrol car ban in 2035. It’s not clear whether the ministry will bring the ban forward to better align with the commission’s roadmap.

Petrol will be mixed with an increasing proportion of biofuels. By 2035, 5 per cent of the petrol and diesel powering existing cars, trucks and planes will be sourced from organic matter, mixed in with fossil fuels.

Cars will be replaced with more bikes, scooters, pedestrians, buses, trains and ferries. One in seven journeys will be taken using these low-carbon modes by 2035, under the commission’s roadmap. Green transport campaigners were critical of a lack of ambition in the draft advice. For those who can, remote work will be common. We’ll also be less likely to own a car and more likely to subscribe to a car-share scheme. When urbanites do drive, they may pay a congestion charge. We’ll be more active and breathe cleaner air.

Publicly funded buses would become cheaper. Colin Smith/Stuff

Lower public transport fares for everyone. To boost demand, ferry, train and bus services will also be more frequent and reliable.

Some goods shipped on trucks will move onto ships and rail lines. Ferries and cargo ships will be electrified, in the commission’s roadmap.

Domestic flights will be powered by electricity by 2030. The commission wants electric planes on short-haul routes such as Wellington to Nelson.

What’s new? Electric planes by 2030 and electric ships after 2025 are significant additions. The commission wanted lower public transport fares for young people, now it’s asked for fare cuts across the board. The commission is now recommending the Government set its own targets to boost walking, cycling and public transport trips.

It’s possible an import ban on new fossil fuelled cars could kick in several years before used vehicles.

We’ll blend a little bit more biofuel into our petrol and diesel supply (5 per cent, up from 3). There’s ever-so-slightly more urban trips on bikes and public transport. There’s a slight delay as to when electric car imports overtake petrol and diesel cars – 2029, not 2027. The commission originally wanted to electrify the main rail lines, but it’s more open to other zero-carbon fuels (such as biodiesel) to power our long-distance trains.

At home

Gas appliances will be switched for electric (and wood). The commission believes electricity is an efficient green fuel source to power our homes, so it recommends the Government set a date after which homes or business can no longer hook up to the natural gas network – 2025 is floated. The gas industry strongly opposed the proposal in the draft advice.

The commission also wants the Government to start phasing out natural gas appliances in the 2030s.

Natural gas, petrol and diesel will get more expensive. According to the commission’s modelling, the rising cost of carbon pollution under the Emissions Trading Scheme will make it increasingly costly to buy these fossil fuels. The average natural gas bill could be $300 higher by 2035. Petrol prices are expected to rise by 30 cents per litre.

Gas hobs would become less common, as the commission recommends they are replaced with electric elements. Kwon Junho/Unsplash

Solar panels on homes will be common. Communities will also run small-scale wind and solar farms, to help generate the electricity we need for our homes and cars.

New houses will be snugger, warmer and drier. By keeping our homes naturally comfortable, less energy will be required to heat them in winter and cool them in summer. Occupants will be healthier, and low-income households should enjoy cheaper energy bills.

Neighbourhoods will become increasingly dense. New houses will be constructed on existing transport routes, giving more people access to buses, trains, ferries, cycleways and paths.

Green bins will be commonplace. Our food and garden waste will be collected and composted, or sent to a landfill that captures the methane producing when organic matter rots.

What’s new? The draft advice told the Government to halt hook-ups to the natural gas network by “no later than 2025 and earlier if possible”. After public backlash, the commission has left it up to the Government to pick a date – though the commission’s roadmap still uses 2025. Landfills will capture more methane than under the draft plan. The household bills for those sticking with fossil fuels have been tweaked.

The organic waste we produce will be increasingly composted, or directed to landfills that capture and combust methane. 123RF

At work

Up to 1400 people in the oil and gas industries will retire or change jobs. The government will identify at-risk workers and offer financial support and advice for those transitioning to a cleaner industry.

Up to 2300 vehicle mechanics will also retire or change jobs. This is because electric cars require less maintenance.

Factories will substitute coal and gas for electricity, wood waste and (potentially) hydrogen. Coal boilers (except for businesses requiring very high temperatures) have already been banned, which is one of the first things on the commission’s to-do list. Food processing facilities, such as the factories using coal to dry milk into powder, will ditch coal between now and 2040. Buildings will stop burning coal for heat by 2030, and start phasing out natural gas after that.

Products and packaging will be re-designed. The stuff we make should be increasingly reusable and recyclable, to minimise emissions from manufacturing and waste. We’ll stop buying products containing hydrofluorocarbon gases, as these refrigerants are very powerful greenhouse gases.

What’s new? The impact on vehicle mechanics is new and significant: between 900 and 2300 fewer jobs by 2035 (though the commission warns this could be an overestimate). The jobs lost in the fossil fuel sectors are now modelled to be 1400, the draft advice gave the figure of 1100.

However, the commission also named the industries that should grow: electricity generation, battery refurbishment, waste and forestry. The commission gave the food processing industry a bit of wiggle room to phase out coal, from an end-date of 2037 to “before 2040”, though the major players and the Government have already started working towards the 2037 date. Methanex may stick around a bit longer, from 2029 to 2040.

Under the Climate Change Commission’s plan, farmers will select sheep breeds that breathe out less methane gas. 123RF

On the marae

New policies will be developed with iwi and Māori input. Any new schemes will need to work for Māori land that’s owned by a collective. Iwi will be able to calculate their collective carbon footprint.

Skills and re-training programmes assisting Māori will be designed by Māori. Tangata whenua may be more likely to switch industries, under the commission’s roadmap. However, more jobs will be gained than lost.

Iwi will receive assistance to meet new rules, particularly any restricting land development. For example, a collective developing land with older forests might get financial assistance to replant trees elsewhere as offsets.

What’s new? The final advice puts more emphasis on the Crown-Māori relationship in designing our low-carbon transition.

On the farm

Cow and sheep numbers will fall by 13.6 per cent by 2030. The country will still produce roughly the same amount of milk and meat, but with fewer animals burping out the potent greenhouse gas methane. The commission is predicting herd numbers will drop by 8 per cent anyway, but its advice recommends stepping this shrinkage up by roughly another 6 per cent. Some farms will replace animals with horticulture. The remaining meat and dairy farms will track carbon stored in their trees, soils and wetlands, and adopt best-practice animal and feed management.

Low-methane sheep will be selected. This will help the country to meet its goal of cutting methane by 10 per cent by 2030. A similar programme for cows kicked off this year, but this isn’t factored into the commission’s first budgets.

Fertiliser use will decrease. When there’s too much nitrogen available in the soil, bugs produce the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide, but selective fertiliser application can help break this cycle. The commission has floated the idea of pricing artificial nitrogen fertilisers as part of our Emissions Trading Scheme, rather than waiting to include them in the new pricing system for livestock emissions (known as He Waka Eke Noa).

A methane-cutting technology will need to emerge – or we may have to make greater cuts to herd numbers. Without a vaccine or food additive that reduces methane, we may just scrape into our 2050 targets but are unlikely to be on track to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the commission says. The commission wants to see a boost towards research into promising techniques.

What’s new? Feedback to the commission said it would be harder to cut agricultural emissions by improving how we farm. The herd reduction estimates have been revised from 15 per cent, down to 13.6 per cent. The idea to price agricultural nitrous oxide in one way (under our Emissions Trading Scheme) and agricultural methane in another wasn't in the draft advice.

Animal numbers in Aotearoa are expected to fall by 8 per cent, but the roadmap ramps this up by an additional 6 per cent. TOM LEE/Stuff

On the grid

The Huntly power station will ditch coal by 2030. The commission proposes that natural gas be used as a back-up fuel after that date, though that’s at odds with the Government’s plan to have a back-up power plant running on renewables by the end of the decade. Watch this space.

New wind and solar farms will appear on hills and sunny flats. Renewable power plants will need to generate 20 per cent more power to meet the new demand for electricity by 2035.

Geothermal plants play a role, alongside wind and solar. Owners of geothermal stations are hoping to come up with a technical solution (such as reinjecting greenhouse gases back into the ground) to reduce the emissions they produce.

What’s new? The commission originally thought geothermal generation plants with high emissions may be forced to close, but it now notes their footprints decreased in recent years, and should continue to.

In our forests

Native deforestation will be banned from 2025. Instead of losing native forest, the country will start to gain it: planting at least 12,000 hectares in 2021, rising to 25,000 hectares annually by 2030. These new forests will suck up carbon for centuries. We’ll start to notice more native birds and lizards and increasing water quality from the new forests.

Exotic forest planting will also ramp up between now and 2030. After that, new pines will taper off, with an increased focus on permanent native planting.

What’s new? No major changes. The commission agreed that pest control is essential to ensuring our newly planted forests survive.

Links

• (NZ) Climate Change Commission releases final report, says nearly all cars imported by 2035 must be electric
• (NZ) Get moving or pay the cost, says Climate Change Commission's advice to Government
• (NZ) Farmers could pay two prices for greenhouse emissions
• (NZ) Stop coal mine extensions now, says influential energy report
• (NZ) The Climate Change Commission's model is under fire
• (NZ) Climate Commissioner warns farmers they have no wiggle room
• (NZ) 'Incredibly timid': Call for clampdown on agriculture as emissions plan finalised
• (NZ) Climate Change Commission sends final report to government
• (NZ) Climate activists hold low expectations for budget's climate focus
• (NZ) Govt's climate change actions falling short - activists
• (NZ) Fiji's response to covid, climate crises gets boost from NZ, Americans

(USA NPR) The Drought In The Western U.S. Is Getting Bad. Climate Change Is Making It Worse

NPR - Lauren Sommer

Warmer temperatures are leading to emptier reservoirs across the West, such as Lake Oroville in Northern California. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

By almost every measure, the drought in the Western U.S. is already one for the record books.

Almost half the country's population is facing dry conditions. Soils are parched. Mountain snowpacks produce less water. Wildfire risk is already extreme. The nation's largest reservoir, Lake Mead, is headed to its lowest level since it was first filled in the 1930s.

The past year has been the driest or second driest in most Southwestern states since record-keeping began in 1895. Farms and cities have begun imposing water restrictions, but Western states are facing a threat that goes deeper than a single bad year. The hotter climate is shrinking water supplies, no matter what the weather brings.

Warming temperatures make it less likely for a raindrop or snowflake to reach a reservoir due to increased evaporation. As a result, the people who manage the West's complex water systems are realizing that with climate change, they can no longer rely on the past to predict the future.

That's creating a fundamental threat to the way Western water systems operate, because they were built around the idea that the climate would remain constant. Historical climate data such as river flows and rainfall totals told engineers how big to build reservoirs and canals. The data also told them how much water was available to divide up among cities and farms.

Climate change is putting that system under increasing stress, shrinking water supplies for tens of millions of people and for the farmland that produces most of the country's fruits and vegetables. Water cutbacks are reverberating through California's $50 billion agricultural industry, which employs tens of thousands of people in many small towns.

Southwestern states recently negotiated a temporary agreement to use less water as reservoirs keep falling. But tough conversations remain about how the West and its complex system of water rights will adapt to a future for which it wasn't designed.

"We can really no longer look at the past and say: The amount of water we've had in the last 100 years is what we can expect in the future," says Eric Kuhn, an author who worked on water policy for decades at the Colorado River Water Conservation District. "That is no longer true because of climate change."

As the West grew, states divided up water held behind the Hoover Dam, outside Las Vegas, but they allocated more water than the Colorado River typically provides on average. Ansel Adams/National Archives

"A painful reduction"

The Colorado River is the main source of water for much of the Southwest. In late April, Arizona water management officials held a public meeting that everyone had hoped to avoid. The Central Arizona Project, which supplies Colorado River water to millions of people in the state, announced it expects to take 30% less water than usual.

Lake Mead, the largest reservoir on the Colorado River, just outside Las Vegas, has been falling rapidly, and was just 38% full by late April. When water supplies get so low, some states are required to cut back on use. Arizona's reductions will primarily hit farmers. Some will be made up through groundwater pumping or with water previously stored in reservoirs and banked for future use.

The cuts are "a painful reduction to Arizona," says Tom Buschatzke, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. "If the reservoir continues to decline, more aggressive actions will be taken by the lower basin users, including California, to slow the decline in the system."

That decline in the Colorado River's flow is exacerbated by both a 20-year drought and climate change. But it has been a century in the making.

As cities from Denver to Los Angeles began growing in the early 1900s, planners knew they'd need to secure a reliable water supply in such an arid region. Engineers drafted plans to build a massive reservoir in a steep rock canyon that is now Lake Mead.

But with seven states vying for Colorado River water, officials met in 1922 to negotiate how they would share it. The first step was determining how much there was to share.

The officials looked at the previous 20 years of the Colorado River's flow, which was high due to above-average precipitation. They divided up the river water anyway based on those atypical numbers despite warnings from a hydrologist.

"They ended up appropriating more water than the river could actually produce," Kuhn says. "Once the commissioners negotiated the compact, which was very difficult, they just didn't want to hear that they'd overstated the amount of water supply."

The promise of that water spawned a vast network of reservoirs and canals, carrying it hundreds of miles through the desert and eventually reaching millions of homes. Anyone in the U.S. who eats lettuce during winter has likely tasted Colorado River water, which irrigates the fields in Arizona and California that produce most of the season's crop.

Yet since the water was divided up, the Colorado River has been shrinking. Average flows have been drier, compounded by a drought beginning in 2000. The water level in Lake Mead has fallen around 140 feet, leaving a telltale white "bathtub ring" around its perimeter.

Climate amplifying bad luck

Like a run-of-the-mill streak of bad luck, droughts are normal in the West. Now, climate change is exacerbating their effects.

"Over the last 22 years or so, there's been quite a bit of bad luck because precipitation totals have on average been low," says Park Williams, associate professor of hydroclimatology at UCLA. "But the effect of that bad luck has been really amplified because of warmer temperatures."

As farmers in California's Central Valley face drought restrictions, some are removing almond trees to reduce water use, especially in aging orchards. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

A hotter atmosphere is thirstier, drawing water out of plants and soils and into the air. Snowpacks melt earlier, which in turn boosts that evaporation, because without the reflective surface that snow creates, soils heat up faster. And when soils are dry, they act like a sponge. They need to soak up more moisture before they're saturated enough for the water to run off into rivers and streams.

Studies show that since 2000, about half the reduction in the Colorado River's flow has been due to warmer temperatures. For every degree Celsius of warming, the river's flow is expected to shrink by 9%, according to another study.

The same climate impacts are being felt elsewhere in California, where a massive network of reservoirs and canals connects the water-rich Northern California mountains to the Bay Area and Southern California, where most people live. That water also flows to the Central Valley and other agricultural areas, which grow two-thirds of the country's fruits and nuts.

The state's snowpack in the Sierra Nevada up north is a vital source of water. But in a hotter climate, it's shrinking and melting earlier in the season. And as in the Colorado River basin, less of that snowpack is turning into water supply.

"We're getting a lot less streamflow coming off the same amount of snowpack," says Andrew Schwarz, climate action coordinator at California's Department of Water Resources. "We're not seeing as much water showing up in our rivers as we would have expected with the same amount of rain or snow that we had gotten historically."

According to state research, California's water supply, which reaches 25 million residents through two state and federal water projects, will shrink with every degree of warming, even if the state gets more rain than average.

Bumpy road ahead

With long-term decline on the horizon, water managers across the West are grappling with a system that wasn't built with flexibility in mind.

Water rights follow a pecking order of "first in time, first in right," with the oldest water rights taking priority over others. For many, those rights are considered untouchable, and any effort to curtail them spawns numerous lawsuits.

Seeing the writing on the wall, states on the Colorado River negotiated a hard-fought plan in 2019 to deal with water shortages. As Lake Mead drops, Arizona and Nevada face cutbacks first. If water levels continue to fall, other states such as California will also face restrictions.

The solution is temporary, however. States will need to negotiate another plan that would start in 2026, and reservoirs are projected to keep dropping over the next two years. Reexamining the water allotments in the original agreement in 1922 is a far thornier prospect. It was ratified by both states and Congress, making it federal law.

"It's difficult," Kuhn says. "It creates a lot of legal conflicts. It's a bumpy road, but we'll get there because we have to."

Western snowpacks are melting earlier, which in turn boosts evaporation and leads to less runoff reaching reservoirs such as California's Lake Oroville. Kelly M. Grow/California Department of Water Resources

California has its own system of rights where water users have claimed more water than is available on average. During the state's last drought, some water users challenged the state's authority to regulate them. California officials released a report this year identifying a need to have more adaptable water rights in a changing climate as well as better water use data.

"California's water system was designed for a climate we don't have anymore," says Alvar Escriva-Bou, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. "What we are seeing, especially in some parts of California, is that we have been using more water than we have. And that's causing problems. So the reality here is that we have to make a reduction of water use over the long term."

Conservation will be critical in a hotter climate. The vast majority of water used in the West goes to agriculture, and some regions have conserved by investing in more efficient irrigation. Other regions, with older water rights less at risk, have had less incentive to do so.

The good news is that some drought measures seem to stick. Since California's last drought from 2012 to 2016, residential water use has remained lower than it was before the drought hit. It's more than just shorter showers. Residents made investments such as water-efficient fixtures and low-water landscaping that lock in water savings for years to come. 

Links

• (USA Axios) Southwest's New Climate Peril
• Severe Drought, Worsened by Climate Change, Ravages the American West
• A very, very, very dry future for the U.S. West
• Drought stokes fears of severe fire season in West
• Drought Is the U.S. West’s Next Big Climate Disaster
• Large contribution from anthropogenic warming to an emerging North American megadrought
• Western U.S. may be entering its most severe drought in modern history
• Creeping toward Permanent Drought
• Megadrought emerging in western U.S. could be the worst in 1,200 years, study finds
• ‘Megadrought’ persists in western U.S., as another extremely dry year develops
• The megadrought parching 77 percent of the Western US, explained

(AU Canberra Times) Scott Morrison And G7+ Leaders Implored To Act On Climate Change As 'Colossal' Risk To Humanity

Canberra Times - Karen Barlow

An unprecedented grouping of 126 Nobel Prize winners including the Dalai Lama and ANU Vice-chancellor Brian Schmidt are imploring the major G7-plus world leaders meeting this week to act on climate change, warning of 'colossal risks' to humanity.

It comes as Prime Minister Scott Morrison warns, ahead of the summit, that Australia is going to chart its own path to net zero.

So, Mr Morrison is among the leaders targeted by the statement which has been led by Professor Schmidt.

"Without transformational action this decade, humanity is taking colossal risks with our common future," reads the Nobel grouping statement.

ANU Vice-chancellor Brian Schmidt is among an unprecedented grouping of 126 Nobel Prize winners imploring G7-plus leaders to act on climate change. Picture: Sitthixay Ditthavong

The large Nobel Prize grouping includes climate science experts, Nobel Prize winning scientists and Peace Prize laureates, including Northern Ireland peace activist Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, Australian immunologist Professor Peter Doherty, the Dalai Lama and Australian gastroenterologist Professor Barry Marshall.

"As I've said previously, Australia is on the pathway to net zero," he is expected to tell the Perth USAsia Centre.

Mr Morrison insists Australia should chart its own path, a nod to his favoured technology-focused approach.

"Australia does not support setting sectoral targets or timeframes for decarbonising particular parts of our economy or setting false deadlines for phasing out specific energy sources."

"It's not an argument about climate change," he is expected to say. "It's about how Australia best advances our interests as part of a world that is dealing with climate change. It's not about if or when. Protecting and advancing Australia's interests is about the how."

Mr Morrison leaves Perth on Thursday for Singapore before heading to Europe for the G7-plus summit. He'll be under pressure from other leaders, who are more progressive over climate change such as US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, to join the global shift towards a net-zero energy economy by 2050.

"Time is running out to prevent irreversible changes," they said the statement.

"Ultimately, this means valuing the resilience of societies and the resilience of Earth's biosphere."

Links

• Nobel Prize Laureates and Other Experts Issue Urgent Call for Action After ‘Our Planet, Our Future’ Summit
• The G7 and a crucial moment for the climate 
• U.K. Calls For Climate ‘Marshall Plan,’ But Will The G7 Deliver?
• Carbon Borders: How the G7 might come down on Australia’s climate negligence
• Morrison will warn G7 nations not to put carbon tariffs on trade
• Your G7 greenwashing guide: How Australia will feign climate ambition
• Scott Morrison’s claim Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are falling does ‘not stack up’