(AU New Daily) Alan Kohler: The Coalition’s Climate Change Argument Is Really Just About Freeloading

New Daily - Alan Kohler

Global warming is already costing us plenty, writes Alan Kohler. Photo: AAP/TND

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

At the heart of the Coalition’s problem with climate change is that they’ve told Australians that dealing with it will be cost free.

It’s not true.

What it really means is that Australians are being told they can be freeloaders.

The International Energy Agency says it will cost the world $US5 trillion a year by 2030, of which Australia’s share, based on GDP, would be $110 billion a year, about three times the current defence budget … if we spent it, that is, and weren’t freeloaders.

The point about reducing emissions to (net) zero by 2050 is that it will cost much less than the alternative, which is allowing the planet to heat up by more than 1.5 degrees.

Politicians around the world, not just here, are trying to pretend they can dodge the cost and/or continue to mine fossil fuels, and in Australia this line has become especially well honed, especially in the Coalition.

The methodology has shifted over time, from outright denial that global warming is happening to: “We’re doing our bit” (Liberal Party) or “It’s too far off” and “Not our problem” (National Party).

Ex-leader of the Nationals, Michael McCormack, said in February: “I’m certainly not worried about what might happen in 30 years’ time.”

New leader Barnaby Joyce said: “We’ll all be dead by then”, or words to that effect, which is called “cut through”, so he got the job.

And the difficulty with committing to net-zero emissions by 2050, as the government will obviously have to do this year, is that it will be impossible to keep saying it will be cost-free.

Global warming is already costing plenty.

Research by Stanford University has found that since 2000, it has cost the United States and the European Union at least $4 trillion in lost output and tropical countries are 5 per cent poorer than they would have been without climate change impacts.

And, of course, Australia has seen plenty of extreme weather events in recent years, including the $100 billion bushfires in 2019-20.

The Coalition government’s song sheet for ministers is to no longer deny the science, but to say Australia will fix it with technology, not taxes.

The Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor, told Sky News recently: “That’s how we’ll achieve this, not by raising the cost of energy, not by imposing taxes on Australians, not by telling them what kind of cars to drive, but by developing and deploying technologies that allow them to bring down their emissions.”

There are two things that will expose that fallacy: First, companies are voluntarily committing to net zero by 2050 and buying carbon credits and offsets to achieve it and therefore increasing their costs and prices, and second, the imposition of carbon border adjustments by countries that have put a price on carbon emissions to stop Australia being a freeloader.

Europe already has a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) as these taxes are called, and it will soon be global.

Meanwhile, the voluntary carbon offsets market is growing rapidly, based on demand from companies trying to do the right thing.

There are four global NGOs issuing carbon abatement certificates: The Verified Carbon Standard, or Verra, Climate Action Reserve, Gold Standard and the American Carbon Registry.

An outfit called Science Based Targets has signed up 1537 companies worldwide, including 32 in Australia, to limiting warming to 1.5 degrees.

Another group called Climate Action 100+ has 167 companies, including 14 in Australasia, with a variety of emissions targets.

Many local companies have committed to being “carbon neutral” on various time frames, either because shareholders and employees are demanding it, or they believe customers want it.

For example, Telstra has been carbon neutral for 12 months by buying two million tonnes of offsets – supporting carbon-reduction projects. To do it the company investigated 1000 projects and chose less than 50.

In October last year, Australian carbon trading firm CBL Markets launched the world’s first standardised carbon offset futures contract, called the GEO (global emissions offset).

The current spot price of GEOs is $US2.50 per tonne, up from US70c when it launched; trading is brisk.

And the Australian Clean Energy Regulator has called for tenders to run a local carbon credits exchange and has been flooded with bids, including from CBL Markets and the ASX.

Not that the official market in Australia is up to much.

On Tuesday this week, the regulator had issued a total of 95,354,615 Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs), almost all of which have been bought by the federal government’s Emissions Reduction Fund, with taxpayers’ money.

What’s left – about 6 million units – can be traded on the exchange, but that represents less than 1 per cent of the emissions covered by the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting scheme that was introduced in 2007.

The last auction of ACCUs in April resulted in an average price of $15.99, less than a fifth of the European price.

Why the difference?

Simply because Australia hasn’t committed to net-zero emissions by 2050 like everyone else, which means companies are not required to buy many ACCUs so there isn’t much demand for them.

Which brings us back to where this column began: Freeloading.

A minority of companies have made a net-zero emissions commitment of some sort and are buying offsets, which mean their costs rise and they become less competitive. Their competitors are freeloading.

Some companies are offering customers the option of paying more to offset their carbon footprint caused by buying that company’s product, and some people are actually paying it, even though most are freeloading instead.

The reason for a national target of net zero by 2050 – that is, making emissions reduction mandatory rather than “preferable” – is to spread the burden of reducing emissions and share the cost.

Eventually carbon border adjustments and a consensus among corporate stakeholders forcing companies to buy offsets will ensure that everyone pays in the end.

And maybe that’s the cunning political plan, to simply dodge the blame for the inevitable.

Links

• Re-Joyced Nationals open to deal on emissions
• Farmers rally to demand climate change action
• Zero-carbon kitchen offers a taste of the future
• ‘Unsupportive’: Nationals dig in on climate target
• Climate change is a threat ‘to our collective security’
• SA shows the world how to end the curse of coal
• Ignoring the climate crisis is already costing us dearly
• Australian teens in global first with court action
• Australia isolated as G7 nations abandon coal

(AU Canberra Times) Green Bank Blocked From Funding Non-Renewables

Canberra Times - Dan Jervis-Bardy

Energy Minister Angus Taylor Picture: Sitthixay Ditthavong

Australia's green bank will be blocked from funding non-renewable technologies after the Morrison government's bid to expand the agency's remit was thwarted in the Senate.

Labor, the Greens and crossbenchers teamed up in a vote late on Tuesday to torpedo new regulations allowing ARENA to invest in the federal government's favoured "low emissions" technologies, including carbon capture and storage and "clean hydrogen".

The rare defeat in parliament came less than a week after a Liberal-chaired committee and the independent Parliamentary Library cast doubt over the legality of the new regulations, on the grounds the agency was established with singular purpose of backing renewables.

The Parliamentary Library's advice suggested the changes could be invalid and vulnerable to legal challenge, which would would place "considerable uncertainty" over projects supported under the new regime.

Department officials had previously insisted the changes were "quite legitimate" and believed they would survive legal challenge.

Labor have shown their true colours - opposing investment in new clean technologies which will create jobs and economic opportunities. @AustralianLabor doesn't believe in technology to reduce emissions, only taxes, which means Australians will pay more #auspol

— Angus Taylor MP (@AngusTaylorMP) June 22, 2021

Labor and the Greens' attempt last week to block the ARENA overhaul was voted down in the House of Representatives, where the Coalition holds an absolute majority.

But the two parties were successful in the Senate, securing a one-vote victory with the help of independents Jacqui Lambie and Rex Patrick.

The government will berueing the absence of One Nation senator Pauline Hanson, whose vote on Tuesday night would have tipped the Coalition over the line.

Energy Minister Angus Taylor slammed Labor after the vote, saying its decision to team up with the Greens would result in the loss of $192 million in planned investment and 1400 jobs.

Nah mate. We’ve opposed and defeated your efforts to water-down ARENA’s commitment to renewables and give yourself (yes, you!) the power to determine what a “low emissions technology” is. You keep attacking ARENA and CEFC and we’ll keep defending them. https://t.co/KtAaqqJcE0

— Chris Bowen (@Bowenchris) June 22, 2021

"Labor has walked away from clean tech jobs, and blue-collar jobs," he said.

"Despite the Australian Labor Party platform explicitly supporting these technologies, every Senator in the Australian Labor Party room has now voted against them.

"It has not only shown that Labor is economically reckless, but that their promises cannot be trusted."

Labor's climate and energy spokesman, Chris Bowen, dismissed Mr Taylor's attack, arguing if that the government wanted to fund technologies such as carbon capture and storage it could so so through other programs.

"This [change] was always wrong, it was probably illegal," he said.

"It is just the latest attack on ARENA and CEFC [Clean Energy Finance Corporation] by a government which is prejudiced against renewable energy.

"Angus Taylor doesn't believe in renewable jobs."

Labor Hunter MP Joel Fitzgibbon criticised his party's stance.

"It will take more than wind turbines and solar panels to create a cleaner economy," he said. "We need a broad mix of technologies including carbon capture and storage, and those which reduce vehicle emissions.

"We should never vote against more money to do more things, regardless of the agency being used to spend the money."

Greens leader Adam Bandt said Tuesday night's vote was a "really big win for climate".

"As a result, the government cannot use public money to fund coal and gas projects through the renewable energy agency," he said. 

Links

• Australian Renewable Energy Agency
• Australian Renewable Energy Agency - Wikipedia
• Senate sinks Angus Taylor’s plan to allow renewables agency to invest in fossil fuel technologies
• Senate rejects Taylor’s bid to redirect renewable energy funds to fossil fuel projects
• Minister’s plot to axe renewable energy agency for fossil fuel funding scuttled
• Gas inquiry follows agency funds block 
• Angus Taylor moves to allow renewable energy agency to fund carbon capture and hydrogen
• Questions over whether ARENA can legally fund non-renewable energy research 

(AU The Conversation) Australian Government Was ‘Blindsided’ By UN Recommendation To List Great Barrier Reef As In-Danger. But It’s No Great Surprise

The Conversation - Jon C. Day | Scott F. Heron | Terry Hughes

Shutterstock

Authors Jon C. Day is PSM, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University Scott F. Heron is Associate Professor, James Cook University Terry Hughes is Distinguished Professor, James Cook University

The Australian government on Tuesday expressed shock at a draft decision to list the Great Barrier Reef as “in danger”.

But the recommendation has been looming for some time. The recommendation, by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), acknowledges Australia’s commitment to implementing the Reef 2050 Plan, an overarching framework to protect the natural wonder for future generations.

But the “outstanding universal value” of the Great Barrier Reef has continued to decline.

The draft decision will now be considered at the World Heritage Committee meeting, to be held online next month. The development is significant for several reasons – not least that Australia’s progress under the Paris Agreement is being linked to its stewardship of the reef.

Last year, severe bleaching struck all three regions of the Great Barrier Reef. ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies

What did UNESCO say?

In recommending the in-danger listing, UNESCO and IUCN cited a 2019 report by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority which found the ecosystem’s long-term outlook had deteriorated from poor to very poor.

It said global warming had also triggered coral bleaching events in 2016 and 2017 – which were followed by another mass bleaching event in 2020.

The report said Australia’s progress on the Reef 2050 Plan “has been insufficient in meeting key targets”. It said the plan requires stronger and clearer commitments, in particular on urgently addressing threats from climate change, and improving water quality and land management.

Among other recommendations, the draft decision called on the international community to “implement the most ambitious actions to address climate change […] and fulfil their responsibility to protect the Great Barrier Reef”.

The 2020 coral bleaching event was the second-worst in more than two decades. ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies

No real surprise

Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley’s said the government was “blindsided” by the draft recommendation.

However the move has been a long time coming.

As noted above, the government’s 2019 Outlook Report documented the impacts and threats to the Great Barrier Reef in no uncertain terms, and identified climate change as the most serious threat.

There were other indicators the recommendation was looming. In 2020, the IUCN World Heritage Outlook listed the Great Barrier Reef as “critical” due to threats including climate change and poor water quality. The rating – the worst on a four-point scale — was a decline from the 2017 rating of “significant concern”.

And in 2018, a report predicted that without major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, all 29 World Heritage coral reefs, including the Great Barrier Reef, will cease to be “functioning ecosystems by the end of the century”.

Finally in 2012, the World Heritage Committee warned the Great Barrier Reef could be placed on the in-danger list “in the absence of substantial progress”.

Climate change isn’t the only concern

While climate change is a major concern in the draft decision, it is but one of numerous pressures on the Great Barrier Reef. Poor water quality due to nutrient and sediment runoff – the latter linked to land clearing – are also big problems.

The IUCN outlook report said climate change is the biggest threat to all the world’s natural heritage places. In this regard, this week’s draft decision sets an important precedent for the World Heritage Committee. It would seem the committee is now prepared to directly address the issue of climate change, after being less so inclined in previous years.

The Reef 2050 Plan does not adequately address the climate change threat. The UNESCO report calls on Australia to correct this, and ensure the plan sufficiently addresses other threats including water quality.

Decisions by the World Heritage Committee are not binding on any country. Still, we expect the committee’s concerns to result in Australia amending the Reef 2050 Plan to better acknowledge climate change as a significant issue.

The draft decision will be considered at the annual meeting of the World Heritage Committee in July, chaired by China and comprising 21 countries.

Getting placed on the in-danger list isn’t likely to impact tourism. Shutterstock

An end to tourism?

The experience of other major tourist destinations suggests an in-danger listing may not damage tourism at the Great Barrier Reef, as some have feared.

Take the Everglades in the United States, Belize in the Caribbean and the Galapagos Islands. An analysis of these World Heritage properties showed no discernible tourism downturn after an in-danger listing. However, if the Great Barrier Reef’s condition continues to deteriorate, industries that rely on a healthy Reef are likely to endure long-term damage.

An in-danger listing is not permanent, nor does it mean the Great Barrier Reef will be permanently removed from the World Heritage list. Currently, 53 World Heritage properties are on the in-danger list; others were taken off the list once concerns were addressed.

The Great Barrier Reef will continue to be harmed until nations collectively adopt more ambitious climate goals, global emissions of greenhouse gases fall to net-zero and sea temperatures stabilise.

Without real and urgent actions at all levels — global, national, and local — the values that make all heritage places special will decline. That makes it less likely that future generations will be able to enjoy these wonders as we have done.

Links

• 'Severely threatened and deteriorating': global authority on nature lists the Great Barrier Reef as critical
• We just spent two weeks surveying the Great Barrier Reef. What we saw was an utter tragedy
• Does tourism really suffer at sites listed as World Heritage In Danger?
  
• Morrison savages ‘appalling’ UNESCO ruling on barrier reef
• (AU ABC) Environment Minister Says Government Will Challenge UNESCO Move To List Great Barrier Reef As 'In Danger'
• Great Barrier Reef should be listed as ‘in danger’, UNESCO recommends
• Australia criticises United Nations warning that Great Barrier Reef is in danger
• Great Barrier Reef has lost half of its corals since 1995
• Great Barrier Reef Is Bleaching Again. It’s Getting More Widespread.
• Value of the Reef
• State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List
• World Heritage in Danger
• Government spent at least $400,000 lobbying against Great Barrier Reef 'danger' listing
  
• A leaked UN report warns ‘worst is yet to come’ on climate change. Here’s how you can help

(The Guardian) Legal Experts Worldwide Draw Up ‘Historic’ Definition Of Ecocide

The Guardian - Haroon Siddique

Draft law is intended to prosecute offences against the environment

Polly Higgins led a decade-long campaign for ecocide to be recognised as a crime against humanity before her death in 2019. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian

Legal experts from across the globe have drawn up a “historic” definition of ecocide, intended to be adopted by the international criminal court to prosecute the most egregious offences against the environment.

The draft law, unveiled on Tuesday, defines ecocide as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts”.

The Stop Ecocide Foundation initiative comes amid concerns that not enough is being done to tackle the climate and ecological crisis.

If adopted by the ICC’s members, it would become just the fifth offence the court prosecutes – alongside war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression – and the first new international crime since the 1940s when Nazi leaders were prosecuted at the Nuremberg trials.

Prof Philippe Sands QC, of University College London, who co-chaired the panel that spent the past six months hammering out the definition, said: “The four other crimes all focus exclusively on the wellbeing of human beings.

"This one of course does that but it introduces a new non-anthropocentric approach, namely putting the environment at the heart of international law, and so that is original and innovative.

“For me the single most important thing about this initiative is that it’s part of that broader process of changing public consciousness, recognising that we are in a relationship with our environment, we are dependent for our wellbeing on the wellbeing of the environment and that we have to use various instruments, political, diplomatic but also legal to achieve the protection of the environment.”

An ecocide law has been mooted for decades, with the late Swedish prime minister, Olof Palme, pushing the concept at the 1972 UN environmental conference in Stockholm.

More recently, ecocide was considered for inclusion in the 1998 Rome statute establishing the ICC before being dropped.

The Scottish barrister Polly Higgins led a decade-long campaign for it to be recognised as a crime against humanity before her death in 2019.

The members of the panel, which also included experts from Samoa, Ecuador and the US, are hopeful that now is the right time for agreement.

The other co-chair, Dior Fall Sow, a UN jurist and former prosecutor from Senegal, said: “The environment is threatened worldwide by the very serious and persistent damage caused to it, which endangers the lives of the people who live in it.

"This definition helps to emphasise that the security of our planet must be guaranteed on an international scale.

“In the current context, where serious damage to the environment is increasingly important and affects a large number of states, their support could be gained for this new definition of the crime of ecocide.

"One can think, among others, of island developing states that are subject to ecological ecocides committed by corporations.”

Several small island nations, including Vanuatu, in the Pacific, and the Maldives, in the Indian Ocean, called for “serious consideration” of a crime of ecocide at the ICC’s annual assembly of states parties in 2019.

The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has championed the idea, as has the Pope, and other European countries have expressed an interest.

The ICC has been criticised for not investigating major environmental crimes. In 2016, it said it would assess existing offences, such as crimes against humanity, in a broader context to include environmental destruction and landgrabs.

Sands said some panel members had pushed for the definition to explicitly mention climate change but that was rejected because of a desire to make it more difficult for countries – and corporations – to oppose the proposed new law.

Instead, it created “a definition that catches the most egregious acts but doesn’t catch the kinds of daily activity that so many of us, myself included, and regions and peoples and countries are involved in which cause significant harm to the environment over the long term”.

He cited transboundary nuclear accidents, major oil spills and Amazon deforestation as potential examples of ecocide but, on a smaller geographical scale, also the unlawful killing of a significant protected species such as the two remaining northern white rhinos.

Jojo Mehta, from Stop Ecocide Foundation, said it was a “historic moment”, adding: “The resulting definition is well pitched between what needs to be done concretely to protect ecosystems and what will be acceptable to states.

"It’s concise, it’s based on strong legal precedents and it will mesh well with existing laws. Governments will take it seriously, and it offers a workable legal tool corresponding to a real and pressing need in the world."

Links

• Ecocide must be listed alongside genocide as an international crime
• To Stop Climate Disaster, Make Ecocide An International Crime. It's The Only Way
• Stop Ecocide: Protecting The Future Of Life On Earth
• Olof Palme and Ecocide Law
• Incorporating ecocide into French law
• ‘Historic moment’: Legal experts unveil new definition of ecocide
• The push to make 'ecocide' an international crime takes a big step forward
• Ecocide - Wikipedia

(AU New Daily) Australian Farmers Line Up To Demand Action On Climate Change

New Daily - Cait Kelly | AAP

Australian farmers say they want stronger action on climate change, including from Barnaby Joyce. Photo: Getty

AUDIO Australian farmers line up to demand action on climate change

Hundreds of Australian farmers have called on Australia’s new Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce to make serious moves on climate change, saying the cost of doing nothing has already hit hard in their communities.

Disquiet in the Nationals’ camp surrounding the Prime Minister’s softening stance on a net-zero carbon emissions target is thought to have prompted Mr Joyce’s return to the party leadership through a spill on Monday.

The Nationals have flagged they are open to discussing the PM’s preference for net zero by 2050, but say they want to make sure regional Australia is kept financially comfortable in the process.

In the past, Mr Joyce has taken a somewhat stiff stance against tackling climate change – in 2013, he said: “What is this insane lemming-like desire to go to renewables going to do to our economy?”

On Monday, he was more tempered in his responses.

“It is not Barnaby policy, it’s Nationals’ policy, and Nationals’ policy is what I will be an advocate for,” he told reporters in Canberra, when asked his thoughts on a net-zero target.

Deputy Nationals leader David Littleproud told Sky News on Tuesday that his party “get it”, but they won’t be trading themselves away on climate policy until they’re assured of the detail and what’s in it for them.

“We copped it in the neck in regional Australia for everyone to sleep soundly in metropolitan Australia and it is time our mob got repaid for it,” Mr Littleproud said.

Mr Littleproud’s line seems at odds with the farmers of the country, who say they’ve already copped it in the neck thanks to climate change inaction.

Farmers react to return of Joyce

David Chadwick is a beef cattle farmer from Coonamble in New South Wales.

He said the Nationals had sold out regional Australia in favour of big fossil-fuel dollars.

“When have The Nats backed farming over mining? The answer is never,” he told The New Daily. 

“The Nationals will ride this sinking ship to the bottom of the harbour.

“The Liberals haven’t been any different. Morrison has only been dragged to the table because of global pressure to make them pull their heads in.

Beef farmer David Chadwick

“That’s the problem.”

He described the feeling in his community at the moment of being like “lambs to the slaughter” as they try to plan their future farming practices around a warming planet.

Mr Chadwick said it was disappointing to watch those who are meant to advocate for rural Australians throw their support behind new coal projects.

Prominent members within the Nationals party room have become vocal advocates for more taxpayer funding for coal-fired power stations, including a new plan in Collinsville in Queensland.

They have also called for agriculture to be left out of any net-zero policy the government develops.

This is despite the farming industry’s peak body, the National Farmers Federation, voting in favour of an economy-wide target of net-zero carbon by 2050 last year.

It called on the government to do the same. 

The industry is making strong headway in reducing its emissions, with red meat expected to be carbon neutral by 2030, pork by 2025, and work well under way for grains and dairy.

Farmers fear climate change

 Within 15 hours of Mr Joyce being sworn in, 800 farmers signed a petition run by Farmers for Climate Action asking for stronger action on climate change.

Farmers for Climate Action deputy chair Charlie Prell said Australian farmers wanted strong leadership on this issue.

“There is so much evidence now. The road to a low-carbon future will be hugely beneficial to regional Australians, particularly farmers,” Mr Prell said.

Australia was best positioned globally to lead the world in renewables. It just needed clear policy and serious investment, he said.

“It’s driving me crazy that people can’t see the opportunities that are being presented. They are being held right in our face and we keep turning our backs,” Mr Prell told The New Daily.

Many of the Nationals are opposed to any change in Australia’s current commitment of 26 to 28 per cent cut in emissions by 2030, which is only half the goal set by the United States.

Mr Morrison will now have to juggle the concerns of the Nationals and growing international pressure to act.

The United Nations has called 2021 the “the make it or break it year” for climate change, with the highly anticipated COP26 summit, which is tasked with finalising rules for the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, being held in November.

“We must achieve success at COP26,” UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa said earlier in June. 

Australian farmers are calling for the government to join our major trading partners in stronger action.

One of Queensland’s major winemakers, Mike Hayes, lost nearly all of his 2020 vintage thanks to a combination of extreme weather events and the coronavirus pandemic.

Mike Hayes lost nearly all of his 2020 vintage.

“The wine industry is the canary in the coal mine,” he said.

“If there’s anything that’s so delicate to climate change, it’s Australia’s wine industry.”

Mr Hayes talks like a meteorologist when explaining the impacts of climate change on his crops.

He reels off the ice ages and the science that shows why what’s happening now is different.

“I’m disappointed with a lot of the governments. We are the greatest country on the planet for solar and wind ability,” Mr Hayes said.

“We need to wake up as a nation. If we haven’t got people in politics who want to do better there is only one answer – vote them out.”

Links

• Farmers for Climate Action
• (AU) Climate Change To Force Farmers To Become More Efficient
• (AU The Conversation) Pay Dirt: $200 Million Plan For Australia’s Degraded Soil Is A Crucial Turning Point
• (AU) The Five Principles Of Regenerative Farming And How To Apply Them
• (AU) Climate Crisis: Business, Farming And Environment Leaders Unite To Warn Australia 'Woefully Unprepared'
• (AU) Climate Change-Driven Disasters Making Insurance Premiums Too Dear For Farmers
• Farmers need support, not dress-ups, to reap benefits of climate action
• Nationals plan to pay farmers to cut emissions in deal on net zero
• Australia’s farmers want more climate action – and they’re starting in their own (huge) backyards
• How farmers are adapting to climate change in Australia
• Farmers Taking Action on Climate Change
• Meet the young farmers pushing for climate change action

(AU The Conversation) Tasmania’s Reached Net-Zero Emissions And 100% Renewables – But Climate Action Doesn’t Stop There

The Conversation - Rupert Posner  Simon Graham

Shutterstock

Authors Rupert Posner is Systems Lead - Sustainable Economies, ClimateWorks Australia Simon Graham is Senior Analyst, ClimateWorks Australia

Getting to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% renewable energy might seem the end game for climate action.

But what if, like Tasmania, you’ve already ticked both those goals off your list?

Net-zero means emissions are still being generated, but they’re offset by the same amount elsewhere.

Tasmania reached net-zero in 2015, because its vast forests and other natural landscapes absorb and store more carbon each year than the state emits.

And in November last year, Tasmania became fully powered by renewable electricity, thanks to the island state’s wind and hydro-electricity projects.

The big question for Tasmania now is: what comes next? Rather than considering the job done, it should seize opportunities including more renewable energy, net-zero industrial exports and forest preservation – and show the world what the other side of net-zero should look like.

Hydro-electric power and wind energy mean Tasmania runs on 100% renewable energy. Shutterstock

A good start

The Tasmanian experience shows emissions reduction is more straightforward in some places than others.

The state’s high rainfall and mountainous topography mean it has abundant hydro-electric resources. And the state’s windy north is well suited to wind energy projects.

What’s more, almost half the state’s 6.81 million hectares comprises forest, which acts as a giant carbon “sink” that sucks up dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere.

Given Tasmania’s natural assets, it makes sense for the state to go further on climate action, even if its goals have been met.

The Tasmanian government has gone some way to recognising this, by legislating a target of 200% renewable electricity by 2040.

Under the target, Tasmania would produce twice its current electricity needs and export the surplus. It would be delivered to the mainland via the proposed A$3.5 billion Marinus Link cable to be built between Tasmania and Victoria. The 1,500 megawatt cable would bolster the existing 500 megawatt Basslink cable.

But Tasmania’s climate action should not stop there.

The Marinus Link would provide a second electricity connection from Tasmania to the mainland. www.marinuslink.com.au

Other opportunities await

Tasmania can use its abundant renewable electricity to decarbonise existing industrial areas. It can also create new, greener industrial precincts – clusters of manufacturers powered by renewable electricity and other zero-emissions fuels such as green hydrogen.

Zero-emission hydrogen, aluminium and other goods produced in these precincts will become increasingly sought after by countries and other states with their own net-zero commitments.

Tasmania’s vast forests could be an additional source of economic value if they were preserved and expanded, rather than logged. As well as supporting tourism, preserving forests could enable Tasmania to sell carbon credits to other jurisdictions and businesses seeking to offset their emissions, such as through the federal government’s Emissions Reduction Fund.

The ocean surrounding Tasmania also presents net-zero economic opportunities. For example, local company Sea Forest is developing a seaweed product to be added to the feed of livestock, dramatically reducing the methane they emit.

Retaining, rather than logging, Tasmania’s forests presents an economic opportunity. Shutterstock

Concrete targets are needed

The Tasmanian government has commissioned a review of its climate change legislation, and is also revising its climate change action plan.

These updates give Tasmania a chance to be a global model for a post-net-zero world. But without firm action, Tasmania risks sliding backwards.

While having reached net-zero, the state has not legislated or set a requirement to maintain it. The state’s current legislated emission target is a 60% reduction by 2050 on 1990 levels – which, hypothetically, means Tasmania could increase its emissions in future.

Also, despite reaching net-zero emissions, Tasmania still emits more than 8.36 million tonnes of CO₂ each year from sources such as transport, natural gas use, industry and agriculture. Tasmania’s emissions from all sectors other than electricity and land use have increased by 4.5% since 2005.

Without a net-zero target set in law – and a plan to stay there – these emissions could overtake those drawn down by Tasmania’s forests. In fact, a background paper prepared for the Tasmanian government shows the state’s emissions may rise in the coming years and stay “positive” until 2040 or later.

The legislation update should also include a process to set emissions targets for each sector of the economy, as Victoria has done. It should also set ambitious targets for “negative” emissions – which means sequestering more CO₂ than is emitted.

Tasmania must cut emissions from industry and other sectors. Shutterstock

Action on all fronts

Under the Paris Agreement, the world is pursuing efforts to limit global warming to 1.5℃ this century. For Australia to be in line with this goal, it must reach net-zero by the mid-2030s.

Meeting this momentous task requires action on all fronts, in all jurisdictions. Bigger states and territories are aiming for substantial emissions reductions this decade. Tasmania must at least keep its emissions net-negative, and decrease them further.

Tasmania has a golden opportunity. With the right policies, the state can solidify its climate credentials and create a much-needed economic boost as the world transitions to a low-carbon future.

Links

• Tasmania achieves zero net emissions for the first time
• Tasmania surges to 100% renewable energy
• Tasmania’s Forest Management System
• Renewable Energy Target to deliver for Tasmania
• Tasmania's Climate Change Action Plan 2017–2021
• Renewable Energy Industrial Precincts
• For hydrogen to be truly ‘clean’ it must be made with renewables, not coal
• Seaweed driving down emissions and driving up jobs
• Net-zero, carbon-neutral, carbon-negative ... confused by all the carbon jargon? Then read this
• 'Green steel' is hailed as the next big thing in Australian industry. Here's what the hype is all about
• In a landmark judgment, the Federal Court found the environment minister has a duty of care to young people

(Yahoo News) From Burgers To Chocolate To Beer: How Climate Change Will Affect What We Eat

Yahoo News - David Knowles



Unless climate change can be greatly minimized, rising temperatures will disrupt food production around the world and potentially alter the way we eat, a new study finds. 

The continued buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could imperil "nearly one-third of global food crop production and over one-third of livestock production" by 2081-2100, the peer-reviewed study, published in May by researchers at Aalto University in Espoo, Finland, concludes. 

The findings put a fine point on what climate scientists have warned for decades: that climate change will render certain parts of the globe incapable of producing food for the people who live there. 

The study notes that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate, the most vulnerable areas will be South and Southeast Asia, as well as Africa's Sudano-Sahelian zone. But the vast majority of land on earth will be affected. 

There is hope, however: If the world's nations are successful in their goal of limiting global mean temperatures to warming between 1.5° and 2°C, the impacts on food production will be lessened. 

Numerous other studies have looked at how climate change will affect individual crops or growing areas, and some have concluded that global warming is already wreaking havoc on food production. Others make the case that dietary changes are imperative to prevent temperatures from rising even further. 

The following is a sample of the growing body of research on how climate change will affect the world's diet. As certain food industries feel the impact, their products won't go away, but prices could rise and change behaviors.

Wine

A worker picks grapes at a vineyard in California's Napa Valley. (Robert Galbraith/Reuters)

In early April of this year, following an unusually warm March, France experienced several days of severe frost that devastated grape crops, resulting in an estimated $1.7 billion to $2.3 billion in losses. A study released by the research consortium World Weather Attribution concluded that climate change had made the "false spring" event 60 percent more likely. 

Previous studies have concluded that rising temperatures will shrink the area in California's Napa Valley and other vaunted wine-growing regions in the U.S. that will be able to continue producing premium grapes. 

"Over the next century, the area suitable for premium wine grape production is likely to shrink and shift," a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded. "According to the higher emissions projections, premium wine grapes could only be grown in a thin strip of land along the coast of California, with premium wine-producing regions shifting northward to coastal Oregon and Washington."

Beer

Beer mugs in Abensberg, Germany. (Michael Dalder/Reuters)

A 2018 study published in the journal Nature found that weather disruptions spurred by climate change will also affect the production of beer, thanks to the impact on barley crops. 

"Beer is the most popular alcoholic beverage in the world by volume consumed, and yields of its main ingredient, barley, decline sharply in periods of extreme drought and heat," the study's authors wrote.

Depending on the severity of drought and rising temperatures, barley yields are forecast to decline anywhere from 3 to 17 percent annually. As a result, the Chinese and American researchers concluded, beer prices could double in some parts of the world by the end of the century. 

Coffee and chocolate

Coffee beans in the window of a store in Dublin, Ireland. (Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Alarm bells went off in Europe, which accounts for one-third of global coffee consumption, when research released this month found that 35 percent of the regions where the EU imports crops, including coffee beans, will be threatened by severe drought brought on by climate change that will likely disrupt food production. 

An April study found that coffee production in Ethiopia will be especially vulnerable. "We conclude that depending on drivers of suitability and projected impacts, climate change will significantly affect the Ethiopian speciality coffee sector and area-specific adaptation measures are required to build resilience," wrote the authors of the study, published in Nature. 

Cocoa beans, which are used to make chocolate, face a similar threat due to rising temperatures and drought. A 2018 study published in the journal PLOS One concluded that "drought effects on cocoa agroforestry could be a ‘canary in the coal mine’ warning of problems to come both in agriculture and in semi-natural and natural vegetation due to increased intensity and frequency." 

Meat

Cattle at a ranch in Tomales, Calif. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, meat and dairy production accounts for 14.5 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions.

Citing deforestation that is carried out to create grazing land for livestock, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change included a section in its landmark 2019 special report that declared that the prospect of eating less meat could "present major opportunities for adaptation and mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of human health." 

“We don’t want to tell people what to eat,” Hans-Otto Pörtner, an ecologist who co-chairs the IPCC’s working group on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, told Nature. “But it would indeed be beneficial, for both climate and human health, if people in many rich countries consumed less meat, and if politics would create appropriate incentives to that effect.”

Beef is, by far, one of the worst food sources in terms of its impact on climate change, in part because of the methane gas that cows produce. Beef production generates 60 kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of meat, more than double that of lamb, which ranks second, Forbes reported. 

Wheat and corn

A damaged corn crop in Kansas in 2012. (Jeff Tuttle/Reuters)

A staple of the global diet that accounts for 20 percent of all calories consumed by people, wheat is one crop that humans need to ensure survives in the coming decades. While wheat yields have, in some countries, increased in the short term as the concentration of carbon dioxide has risen in the atmosphere, a major concern is the prevalence of drought in parts of the world where it is grown. 

A 2019 study published in Science Advances found that unless global mean temperatures can be kept from rising, major droughts will affect 60 percent of areas where wheat is grown. That is dramatically higher than the current 15 percent of wheat-growing areas affected by drought conditions. The backdrop to the rise in the prevalence of drought, the study noted, is that demand for wheat was projected to increase 43 percent from 2006 to 2050. 

A similar dynamic is at play with corn, 30 percent of the world's supply of which is grown in the U.S. Weather patterns resulting in drought or widespread flooding that can overlap with the growing season for corn are projected to reduce yields by 20 to 40 percent over the decade spanning 2046-2055, a study released in April concluded. 

"That poor weather can take the form of extremes in temperature such as cold snaps or heat waves during the growing season," the authors wrote. "It can also be expressed as excessive variation in rainfall resulting in drought or flood, including floods before a crop’s growing season that prevent the planting of that crop in the first place."

Almonds

A field of dead almond trees next to a field of growing almond trees in California's Central Valley in 2015. (Lucy Nicholson/Reuters)

California, which is currently in the grip of a mega-drought, is the world's leading producer of almonds, growing roughly 80 percent of the global supply. Thanks to rising temperatures and the drought, which has depleted groundwater and deprived the state of a robust snowpack, the future of the water-intensive crop has been made more precarious. 

Yet, as with many other crops, climate change may present the opportunity for almonds to be grown in latitudes currently too cold to support them. 

Researcher Lauren Parker of the University of California, Davis, is studying whether, as temperatures continue to rise, almond trees could thrive in states like Oregon and Washington. 

"Under climate change, what we anticipate is seeing a reduction in the frost risk even for almonds, which bloom pretty early in the year," Parker told Yale Climate Connections.  

Pet food

Fly larvae waiting to be harvested at a farm near Cape Town, South Africa. (Mike Hutchings/Reuters)

What people feed their pets, it turns out, also has a big impact on climate change. A 2020 study published in the journal Global Environmental Change found that the annual production of pet food worldwide resulted in average greenhouse gas emissions of 106 million metric tons of CO2. In terms of emissions, that is the equivalent of a country the size of the Philippines, the study noted. 

In part, that's due to the rise in "premium" pet food, according to the study, which more closely mirrors a meat-heavy human diet. At present, pets consume roughly 20 percent of the meat and fish in a given country. But what if humans changed what they fed their pets, substituting insect protein for meat? While that idea may sound lifted from a dystopian science fiction film, it's already happening in many countries. 

In fact, a 2017 study recommended that insect protein replace that of meat for humans, too, as a way to fight climate change, though with some caveats attached.

"Insect production has great potential with respect to sustainably providing food for the growing population," the study authors wrote. "However, further technological development of this sector and monitoring of the effects of these developments on the environmental impact of insect production are needed."

Links

• Climate change risks pushing one-third of global food production outside the safe climatic space
• The consequences of climate change are happening now, studies show
• Up to 40% of Losses from Frost Damage at French Vineyards Are Uninsured
• Climate change to blame for devastating French wine spring
• Climate Hot Map: Global Warming Effects Around the World
• Decreases in global beer supply due to extreme drought and heat (pdf)
• Record-high temperatures scorch Western states in preview of climate change future