Feed aggregator

Sydney Morning Herald - Peter Hannam

Subsidies for coal-fired power production almost tripled in the three years to 2016-17 among G20 nations, with Australia providing among the largest support, an international study has found.
The report by UK think tank, the Overseas Development Institute, found aid for such power stations soared from US$17.2 billion ($24.7 billion) in 2013-14 to $US47 billion in the most recent year. It's in contrast to pledges made by the 20 biggest economies in 2009 to phase out subsidies to reduce the risks of climate change.
Total support for coal, including production, was US$63.9 billion in the 2016-17 year, the report found. Of that, about US$3.1 billion went to fiscal aid for communities to transition off coal.
Exhaust plumes from cooling towers at the Jaenschwalde brown coal-fired power station in eastern Germany. Credit: Sean GallupThe highest amounts of total support to coal consumption were identified in Indonesia at US$2.3 billion per year, Italy and Australia, both about US$870 million, the US at US$708 million, and the UK with US$682 million, it reported."These tens of billions of dollars a year of G20 support to coal are not just locking in the high-carbon
economy and leading to stranded assets, they are also a missed opportunity to support a clean energy transition and to achieve other sustainable development objectives," the study said.
Those subsidies, which count public support for coal such as China's US$9.5 billion to annual aid construction of plants and mining in other nations - were likely an underestimate.
The report noted the G20 nations indirectly support the coal industry "by failing to charge companies for the health and climate damages they cause". A separate report out last month from the International Monetary Fund estimated fossil fuel subsidies by all nations for coal, gas, oil and other fossil fuels totalled US$5.2 trillion in 2017.
Comment was sought from Energy Minister Angus Taylor and the Minerals Council. A spokesman for Resources Minister Matt Canavan noted the most recent report from the Productivity Commission on trade assistance found tariff and budgetary assistance for mining to be "negligible."
The ODI paper comes as leaders of the G20 nations including Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison are due to gather in Osaka, Japan, on Friday and Saturday.
According to the Financial Times, the summit hosts have bowed to pressure from the Trump administration to downplay climate change.
The draft communique will omit the words “global warming” and “decarbonisation” and diminished the importance of the Paris climate accord compared with previous summits, the paper said.

'Ecological crisis'
Jamie Hanson, head of campaigns at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said Australia was in an "ecological crisis driven by climate change".
"Coal is the primary cause of the climate damage that is causing extinctions all over the country, drought and fire that has torched ancient rainforests, and that has killed half the Great Barrier Reef in the last five years," he said.
"Climate-destroying government handouts to the coal industry defy all logic - especially now, when we know that clean renewable energy is the cheapest form of new power."
Separately, Australia's climate ambassador Patrick Suckling has argued at a United Nations conference in Bonn, Germany that the country's carbon reduction efforts were "having a positive effect".

Links

• REPORT G20 coal subsidies: Tracking government support to a fading industry (pdf)
• IMF: Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Remain Large - An Update Based on Country-Level Estimates
• Federal Government: Australia - progress to meeting our 2020 target (pdf)
• Australia's greenhouse gas emissions up for four years in a row
• 'Huge gamble': Coalition faces $18b hole if climate plan trips up
• City of Sydney officially declares 'climate emergency'

The Interpreter - Matt McDonald

Climate change is again on the public mind but this didn’t translate to a strong message at the ballot box for action. 
Wandandian, New South Wales, during the 2018 drought. (Photo: Brendon Thorne via Getty)The latest Lowy Institute poll indicates that Australians are increasingly concerned about climate change and its implications. Three figures are particularly telling.
First, and perhaps most striking, Australians have identified climate change as the most critical threat to Australia’s “vital interests”. Almost two thirds (64%) of respondents described climate change as a critical threat, above cyber attacks (62%), terrorism (61%) or North Korea’s nuclear program (60%), for example.
While perhaps surprising, this continues a steady increase in this view of climate change in the Lowy polls over the past five years. It also builds on a 2017 Senate Inquiry into the national security implications of climate change. And as I wrote The Interpreter that same year, the results of an unofficial survey of academic researchers in the field of international security indicated that these researchers overwhelmingly identified climate change as the most pressing threat to global security.

Second, the latest poll indicates that Australians believe energy policy should primarily orient around reducing carbon emissions. This policy priority was identified as the most important by 47% of respondents, higher than reducing household bills (38%) or reducing the risk of power blackouts (15%).
Third, 61% of Australians surveyed agreed with the statement that global warming is “a serious and pressing problem (and) we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs”. This is the highest point for over a decade (since 2008).
Illustration: Matthew MartinSo is this grounds for hope that we will see substantive action on climate change in Australia? Will public attitudes ultimately drive new and ambitious climate policy?
Aside from the ideological commitments of this government, there are three big reasons to be cautious.
First, the poll indicates significant demographic differences between Australians. While younger Australians seem deeply concerned about climate change and its implications, older Australians are more ambivalent. Over three quarters of Australians aged 18-44 (76%) agreed with the proposition that “climate change is a serious and pressing problem (and) we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs”. By contrast, less than half of those aged over 45 (49%) agreed with this proposition. Combined with significant differences in attitudes to climate change between rural and urban voters, and based on levels of wealth and education, this suggests continued divisions across the country that policy-makers may struggle to overcome.

Second, Australians had a chance at the ballot box only weeks ago to send a strong and meaningful message about their desire for climate action, and largely didn’t. While the Greens did quite well, Australians ultimately voted in a government that had gone to the election with minimal emissions reduction targets, a commitment to new fossil fuel projects, no new emissions reduction policy and a track record of steadily rising emissions.
Third, we’ve been here before. One fascinating feature of the Lowy poll figures on climate change concern since 2006 is the seemingly inverse relationship between public concern and policy ambition. The high point of support for action on climate change was the first year of the survey in 2006 (68%), when John Howard was overseeing continued rises in greenhouse emissions and refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. This began to drop quickly and significantly under Labor governments, reaching a low point when the carbon tax came into effect in 2012 (36%). Under subsequent conservative governments from 2013, when Tony Abbott was elected promising to repeal the carbon tax, public concern has steadily grown to the current figure of 61% (2019).
These latter two points suggest that when Australians are ultimately faced with supporting strong climate action, they get cold feet. Perhaps this is the product of effective mobilisation by forces and voices for climate inaction. But it probably shouldn’t be this easy for public opinion to be manipulated, at least not to the scale we’ve seen with climate change.
A simpler, if more cynical, interpretation is that when we think we might need to make sacrifices to act on climate change, our concerns about climate change itself starts to wane, at least relative to other considerations.
>Protestors in Melbourne in May demand action on climate change. (Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty)The challenge for substantive policy action all this poses is significant.
It involves overcoming divisions across the country on this issue, encouraging Australians to recognise and prioritise the threat of climate change itself over action designed to address it, and developing  alternative narratives to the (often misleading) claims about the irrelevance of Australian mitigation action or the economic costs of transitioning away from fossil fuels. It should also ideally involve Australians recognising obligations to outsiders more vulnerable to climate change, less responsible for climate change and less able to adapt to it.
The big question is whether any political leaders in Australia are capable of harnessing current concern about climate change and sustaining broad community support for policy that substantively addresses it.
Time will tell. Although if the scientists are right, we’re running out of it.

Links

• Senate report: climate change is a clear and present danger to Australia’s security
• What keeps global security academics awake at night
• As Extinctions Loom, Biodiversity Warnings Fail To Resonate With Governments, Media
• Morrison Sprints To Adani Approval
• Government Accused Of Hiding Full Extent Of Climate Change
• In 2018 The Australian Government Chased Its Energy Tail. Here's A More Hopeful Story
• Australians Disagree On How Important Climate Change Is: Poll
• Climate Change Threat Now Tops Australians' Concerns, Lowy Poll Finds
• Support For Action Surges, As Majority Say We Face Climate Emergency
• A Record Share Of Australians Say Humans Cause Climate Change: Poll

The Conversation - Chris Turney


Sydney has become Australia’s first major city to declare a climate emergency. AAP Image/Stephen Saphore Late on Monday night, the City of Sydney became the first state capital in Australia to officially declare a climate emergency. With climate change considered a threat to human life, Sydney councillors unanimously supported a motion put forward by Lord Mayor Clover Moore to mobilise city resources to reduce carbon emissions and minimise the impact of future change.
The decision sees Sydney join a variety of local and national governments around the world, in a movement that is increasingly gaining momentum. In total, some 658 local governments around the world have made the same declaration, with the UK and Canada committing their national governments to the global movement in just the past two months.
An official declaration of climate emergency puts a government on a “wartime mobilisation” that places climate change at the centre of policy and planning decisions.
While interpretations differ on what a “climate emergency” means in practice, governments have established a range of measures to help meet the targets set by the Paris climate agreement. Under this agreement, 197 countries have pledged to limit global temperature rise to less than 2℃ above pre-industrial levels, and ideally no more than 1.5℃.
With 2018 having brought all manner of record-breaking climate extremes, and global average temperatures projected to reach 3.2℃ above the pre-industrial average based on current national pledges and targets for greenhouse emissions, Sydney’s recognition of a national emergency is both highly appropriate and also a major turning-point for Australia.
Although a signatory to the Paris Agreement, Australia’s greenhouse emissions have risen over the past four years since the repeal of the carbon price. With Australian emissions most notably increasing around transport, the United Nations climate discussions currently being held in Bonn have raised concerns over the nation’s ability to meet its Paris commitments.

Economic impacts
With the global cost of inaction on climate change projected to reach a staggering US$23 trillion a year by the end of the century (equivalent to around five 2008 global financial crises every year), several nations are already ramping up their Paris Agreement commitments ahead of schedule. The UK recently announced its intention to be carbon-neutral by 2050.
Australia is particularly vulnerable to the future financial costs of climate change, with economic models suggesting losses of A$159 billion a year through the impact of sea level rise and drought-driven collapses in agricultural productivity. The cost for each household has been put at about A$14,000.
After Sydney’s declaration, 150 faith leaders on Tuesday signed an open letter endorsing the decision, and describing the climate issue as a moral challenge that transcends religious belief. They have called for an urgent mobilisation to reach 100% renewable energy by the year 2030, and for an end to the approval of any new coal and gas projects, including Adani’s controversial Carmichael coal mine in Queensland.
The recent court ruling against the proposed Rocky Hill coal mine in the New South Wales Hunter Valley – a decision made partly on climate grounds – could mark a crucial turning point in the fortunes of future mining projects.
As part of its emergency declaration, Sydney has also called on the federal government to establish a “just transition authority” to support Australians currently employed in fossil fuel industries. This is an urgent issue and a crucial part of the transition to a low-emissions economy.
A major nationwide training program will be needed to help re-skill the estimated 8,000 people who work in fossil-fuelled electricity production, and to help fill the tens of thousands of new jobs in renewable energy-related fields.
With the scale of change required to decarbonise the global economy and hopefully avoid a 2℃ warmer world, the need to support communities across Australia and overseas will likely become an increasing challenge for governments around the world. Putting ourselves on an emergency footing could help provide precisely the impetus we need.

Links

• The City Of Sydney Has Officially Declared A Climate Emergency
• Blockchain and carbon offsetting can help cities reduce emissions – but sometimes simpler is better
• UK becomes first country to declare a 'climate emergency'
• Cutting cities' emissions does have economic benefits – and these ultimately outweigh the costs
• Landmark Rocky Hill ruling could pave the way for more courts to choose climate over coal
• The Climate Crisis Is Our Third World War. It Needs A Bold Response
• Climate Change Doomsday Report Predicts End Of Human Civilisation
• Time To Flick Climate Emergency Switch: A Plea To Our New Parliament
• The Heat Is On Over The Climate Crisis. Only Radical Measures Will Work
• Come Senators, MPs, There's A Climate Emergency Raging
• The Guardian View On Extinction: Time To Rebel
• Biodiversity Crisis Is About To Put Humanity At Risk, UN Scientists To Warn
• Our Carbon Budget Is All But Spent, But Who In Canberra Is Counting?

The Guardian - Adam Morton

Open letter calls on the prime minister to block all new coal and gas projects, including Adani


More than 150 religious leaders have called on Scott Morrison to acknowledge the world faces a climate emergency and block all new coal and gas projects, including Adani’s Carmichael mine.
In an open letter headed “no faith in coal”, the leaders say the climate crisis is a profoundly moral problem and Australia’s response will be crucial in addressing it.
“Simply put, opening up new coal reserves for mining is not compatible with any global response to avoid catastrophe. We call on you to show true moral leadership,” the letter says.
Signatories to the letter include bishops, rabbis, theologians, the grand mufti of Australia and the heads of the Uniting Church, the Federation of Australian Buddhist Councils, Muslims Australia and the National Council of Churches.
It asks the prime minister to make the climate emergency his number one priority and endorses the three demands of protesting school students: stopping the Adani mine in central Queensland, not allowing new coal or gas developments and moving Australia to run entirely on renewable energy by 2030.
“Despite the differences in our faith, we all regard addressing the climate emergency as our shared moral challenge. We stand together for our common home, the Earth,” the letter says.
“Will you and your government have the courage to agree to this simple threefold agenda? We pray that you will.”
Rabbi Jonathan Keren-Black uses a rabbinical horn (shofar) to sound the end of the era of coal. Photograph: Dean Lewins/AAP The letter was organised by advocacy group the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change. It concedes the shift will be challenging, not least for people in communities reliant on fossil fuel industries, but says a courageous leader would come up with a jobs plan based on clean energy.
Loreto Sister Libby Rogerson said burning fossil fuels was worsening extreme weather, crop failures and sea level rise. By continuing the practice, Australia was moving further away from “loving God and God’s creation and loving our neighbour”, she said.
“We have a sacred responsibility to care for the Earth and all living beings, especially the vulnerable people on the frontlines,” she said.
The letter was published shortly after City of Sydney became the latest jurisdiction to declare a climate emergency. Councillors unanimously backed a motion by the lord mayor, Clover Moore, on Monday warning the climate crisis poses a serious risk to Sydneysiders.
Noting Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions have increased four years straight, Moore called on the Morrison government to respond urgently by reintroducing a price on carbon and establishing a body to help workers in fossil fuel industries to transition to other jobs.
“Successive federal governments have shamefully presided over a climate disaster, and now we are at a critical juncture,” she said.
Other cities to have declared a climate emergency include London, Auckland and Vancouver. At a meeting in March, Australia’s capital city mayors called for national action to adapt to the changing climate, including increasing storm severity, extreme heat, drought, floods and bushfire.
The government has rejected calls for additional policies to reduce emissions, which began to rise after the Coalition repealed a carbon price scheme in 2014.
In a speech to business leaders in Perth on Monday, which focused on reducing regulation, Morrison said: “We all agree you need to take action on climate change and we’re taking responsible and effective action.”

Links

• Australia's emissions still rising, says report withheld in defiance of Senate order
• Pope Francis Slams 'Stupid' Climate Change Deniers
• Letter to the Prime Minister: No Faith In Coal
• Sidelining God: Why Secular Climate Projects In The Pacific Islands Are Failing
• Could Making Climate Change A 'Pro-Life' Issue Bring Conservatives On Board?
• Cities urge national action to build resilience to climate change
• Climate Change Helped Destroy These Four Ancient Civilisations
• Major Oil Companies Commit To Carbon Pricing At Vatican
• Pope Francis Backs Carbon Pricing And 'Radical Energy Transition' To Act Against Global Warming
• Church Of England Votes To Withdraw Funds From Companies That Contribute To Climate Change
• Pope Francis Warns Against Turning Earth Into Vast Pile Of 'Rubble, Deserts And Refuse'

UNSW - Lachlan Gilbert

A multi-disciplinary team led by UNSW Sydney researchers is releasing the first large-scale summary of how our estuaries – and the 80 per cent of NSW residents living on them – will be impacted by climate change.
An estuary is defined as the area that rivers meet the sea. In NSW, about four fifths of the population lives on or near estuaries. Picture: UNSWTwo out of three Australians and four out of five people in NSW are likely to have significantly altered lifestyles if estuaries – tidal rivers and harbours – become impacted by climate change.
To address this risk, UNSW Sydney’s water engineering researchers (working with NSW’s Government Scientists and Macquarie University) have today launched a free online resource that enables scientists and all levels of government to assess and act on threats posed to our coastal estuaries by climate change.
Dr Valentin Heimhuber from the Water Research Laboratory of UNSW’s School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and a lead researcher who helped develop the guide, describes estuaries as the “canary in the coal mine” for climate change.
“Estuaries are subjected to a ‘double-whammy’ of climate change impacts,” Dr Heimhuber says.  “On the land side, climate change is influencing rainfall and temperature patterns, which is critical for agricultural productivity and healthy ecosystems. On the ocean side, we have concerns with sea level rise and oceanic warming. Estuaries are where these two forces – land and ocean – collide, and it happens to be where most Australians live.”



Associate Professor Will Glamore, Chief Investigator at the Water Research Laboratory, UNSW, sees estuaries as the lifeblood of Australian society.  “Our estuaries are where 80% of people live, work and play.” he says.  “This research highlights how the 180+ estuaries in NSW may be threatened by climate change.”
Since European settlement, A/Professor Glamore says, estuaries and harbours have been impacted to the extent that ecosystems are now at risk across the state.
“Our fear is that climate change, mixed with ongoing development, may be the tipping point for these systems,” he says.
“Sydney Harbour is an iconic example but only one of the many estuaries at risk across the state. Our harbour is fighting a battle on all fronts. This includes an urbanising catchment, changing water quality, rising temperatures and rising tides.
“This research shows that rising tides won’t just threaten our beaches. With climate change, the tide will penetrate into our harbours and estuaries, potentially impacting farm productivity and the environment.”
“Cities like Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong will need to adapt to the changing water regime. This includes our planning levels, our freshwater resources and everything that lives in and around our estuaries and harbours. The potential impact to our daily life is daunting and we are just beginning to understand the extent of the problem.”
Beyond the direct impact to humans, climate change may be devastating to the environment, A/Professor Glamore says.
“Climate change threatens our mangroves, oysters, sea grasses, fish, bird-life and saltmarsh,” he says. “Research presented in this study highlights our current knowledge on how these systems will respond when we face climate change and population growth pressures at the same time.”

Launch of a Climate Change Risk Assessment Guide
To understand the implications of climate change in estuaries, researchers from UNSW, Macquarie University, the Sydney Institute of Marine Science, and the NSW’s Office of Environment and Heritage have joined forces to prepare a guide for assessing climate change in our estuaries.
Ecosystems of estuaries are under stress from the impact of human development. Picture: UNSW
Titled, Climate change in estuaries – state of the science and framework for assessment, the eight reports bring together the latest knowledge into an easy to understand and transparent guide. The reports are designed to empower planning authorities, local councils and businesses to make informed decisions about our harbours, ports and estuaries in a rapidly changing climate.
An important component of the project is the Eco-Thresholds database developed by marine ecologists A/Professor Melanie Bishop and Dr. Gabriel Dominguez from Macquarie University’s Department of Biological Sciences. The Eco-Thresholds database is an online tool that compiles more than 300 research publications on the effects of climate change on estuarine species in Australia and worldwide.
“Understanding how individual species respond to changes in their environment, such as increasing water temperature or salinity, is a critical factor in assessing climate change impacts in estuaries. To address this, we have collated information from every previous climate change study on flora and fauna – mangroves, salt marshes, oysters, fish - you name it,” A/Professor Melanie Bishop says.
She says anyone can use the tool to see key findings from previous research or to add new research via an easy-to-use online map.
“For example, you could use the database to search how increased salinity from sea level rise will affect the abundance and health of different fish species or how saltmarsh or oysters can withstand heatwave conditions from rising water temperature.
“This work also highlights that there are many issues left to understand. The Eco-Thresholds Database and the reports are living documents, freely available to the global community.  Researchers from all over the world can now contribute new information as it becomes available.”
Mangroves, which are part of an estuary ecosystem, could be drastically affected if tidal marks are altered by climate change. Picture: UNSWRenewed hope
A/Professor Glamore says a sense of urgency is needed when acting to protect our estuaries. Thankfully, the NSW State Government has recently updated legislation protecting and planning for estuaries within the Coastal Management Act and the Marine Estate Management Act.
“The legislation is an acknowledgment that we need to understand and plan for the impact of climate change on our estuaries,” A/Professor Glamore says.
“Everyone hears about the threat of climate change, but few understand what it means to them locally.”
“We believe our detailed guide and online resources will ensure this information is open, transparent and available for all. This is just the beginning of an important process to better manage the waters where we live, work and play.”

Links

• Climate Change and Estuaries
• Climate change in estuaries – State of the science and framework for assessment
• Eco-Thresholds, a global database of ecological thresholds for estuarine species
• Shifting storms to bring extreme waves, damage to once placid areas
• Danger from extreme storms and high seas on the rise
• The secrets of the beach
• Leaving microbes out of climate change conversation has major consequences, experts warn
• 1 in 2 people in NSW’s coastal community don’t think sea level rise will impact them directly

The Conversation - Matt Curnock | Scott Heron

Tourists are experiencing ‘Reef grief’. Matt Curnock, Author provided Media coverage of mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef may have been a major tipping point for public concerns around climate change, according to research published today.
Severe and extensive bleaching during the summers of 2016 and 2017 has been directly attributed to human-caused climate change. Much of the ensuing media coverage used emotional language, with many reports of the Reef dying.
While the physical effects of the bleaching have been well documented, we wanted to understand the social and cultural impact.
Our research, including a study published today in Nature Climate Change, has compared survey responses from thousands of Australians and international visitors, before and after the bleaching event.

Reef grief
Our research team conducted face-to-face interviews with 4,681 visitors to the Great Barrier Reef region, in 14 coastal towns from Cooktown to Bundaberg, over June to August in both 2013 and 2017. We asked more than 50 questions about their perceptions and values of the Reef, as well as their attitudes towards climate change.
We found a large proportion of respondents, including Australians and overseas visitors, expressed forms of grief in response to loss and damage to the iconic ecosystem. Negative emotions associated with words given in short statements about “what the Great Barrier Reef means to you”, included sadness, disgust, anger and fear.
Emotional appeals are widely used in media stories and in social media campaigns, and appealing to fear in particular can heighten a story’s impact and spread online.
However, a side-effect of this approach is the erosion of people’s perceived ability to take effective action. This is called a person’s “self-efficacy”. This effect is now well documented in reactions to representations of climate change, and is actually a barrier to positive community engagement and action on the issue.
In short, the more afraid someone is for the Great Barrier Reef, the less they may feel their individual efforts will help to protect it.
While our results show a decline in respondents’ self-efficacy, there was a corresponding increase in how highly they valued the Reef’s biodiversity, its scientific heritage and its status as an international icon. They were also more willing to support action to protect the Reef. This shows widespread empathy for the imperilled icon, and suggests greater support for collective actions to mitigate threats to the Reef.
Researchers surveyed thousands of visitors to the Great Barrier Ref in 2013 and 2017. Matt Curnock, Author provided.Changing attitudes
We observed a significant increase in the proportion of people who believe that climate change is “an immediate threat requiring action”. In 2013 some 50% of Australian visitors to the Great Barrier Reef region agreed climate change is an immediate threat; in 2017 that rose to 67%. Among international visitors, this proportion was even higher (64% in 2013, rising to 78% in 2017).
This represents a remarkable change in public attitudes towards climate change over a relatively short period. Previous surveys of Australian climate change attitudes over 2010 to 2014 showed that aggregate levels of opinion remained stable over that time.
Comparing our findings with other recent research describing the extent of coverage and style of reporting associated with the 2016-2017 mass coral bleaching event, we infer that this event, and the associated media representations, contributed significantly to the shift in public attitudes towards climate change.

Moving beyond fear
As a source of national pride and with World Heritage status, the Great Barrier Reef will continue to be a high profile icon representing the broader climate change threat.
Media reports and advocacy campaigns that emphasise fear, loss and destruction can get attention from large audiences who may take the message of climate change on board.
But this does not necessarily translate into positive action. A more purposeful approach to public communication and engagement is needed to encourage collective activity that will help to mitigate climate change and reduce other serious threats facing the Reef.
Examples of efforts that are underway to reduce pressures on the Reef include improvements to water quality, control of crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks, and reducing poaching in protected zones. Tourism operators on the Reef are also playing an important role in restoring affected areas, and are educating visitors about threats, to improve Reef stewardship.
Clearly there remains an immediate need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to ensure the Reef’s World Heritage qualities are maintained for future generations.
However, maintaining hope, and offering accessible actions towards attainable goals is critical to engaging people in collective efforts, to help build a more sustainable future in which coral reefs can survive.

Note: The authors would like to acknowledge Nadine Marshall, who co-wrote this article while employed by CSIRO. We thank our other co-authors of the Nature Climate Change paper, including Lauric Thiault (National Center for Scientific Research, PSL Université Paris), Jessica Hoey and Genevieve Williams (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority), Bruce Taylor and Petina Pert (CSIRO Land and Water) and Jeremy Goldberg (CSIRO & James Cook University). The scientific results and conclusions, as well as any views or opinions expressed herein, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Australian Government or the Minister for the Environment, or the Queensland Government, or indicate commitment to any particular course of action.

Links

• Back-to-back bleaching has now hit two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef
• Hope and mourning in the Anthropocene: Understanding ecological grief
• US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries – shrinking this war machine is a must
• Inequality and climate change: the rich must step up
• To tackle the climate crisis we need more democracy, not less
• Cognitive dissonance: Canada declares a national climate emergency and approves a pipeline

The Guardian - Gay Alcorn

Australia has been warned it risks ‘drifting into the future’ if it fails to respond to challenges in a fast-changing world
Australia is facing challenges from the rise of Asia, rapid technological change, climate change and the environment, changing demographics, declining trust in institutions and business, and strains on social cohesion. Photograph: johan63/Getty Images/iStockphotoAustralia is at a crossroads. Drift towards a future of slow decline economically and socially or, if action is taken now to address our most important challenges, create a future of greater prosperity for all, globally competitive industries and a sustainable environment.
That is the conclusion of a major report bringing together the thinking of more than 50 leaders in business, academia, NGOs and the community sector, working with the CSIRO to model alternative futures for Australia. The report is described as a “clarion call” for the nation.
The Australian National Outlook 2019, two years in the making, aims to “help kickstart a national conversation about where Australia is heading”, says its co-chair, Dr Ken Henry, the chairman of the National Australia Bank and former secretary of the Treasury department.
Participants met as a group with the nation’s leading science agency, the CSIRO, to identify the most critical long-term challenges facing Australia and what needed to change. They included senior leaders from Shell Australia, the Red Cross, McKinsey & Company, Australia Post, PwC, the Cochlear company, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, the Grattan Institute, major universities, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and UnitingCare Australia.
Individuals included the former New South Wales premier Nick Greiner, former chairman of the Australian competition and consumer commission Allan Fels and co-chair of the report, the CSIRO’s chairman, David Thodey.
The report concludes that while Australia has enjoyed almost three decades of economic growth, with enviable social cohesion and strong institutions, it risks “drifting into the future” if it fails to respond to challenges in a fast-changing world. Those identified are the rise of Asia, rapid technological change, climate change and the environment, changing demographics, declining trust in institutions and business and strains on social cohesion.


To deal with them and reach its potential by 2060, Australia must make “key shifts” in five areas: an industrial shift, an urban shift, an energy shift, a land shift and a culture shift.
The director of CSIRO Futures, James Deverell, led the project and said the sense of urgency came from the participants, who gathered for eight workshops, beginning with around 100 priorities for Australia before identifying the most crucial.
“There was this strong sense that we need to take action now,” Deverell said. “The group sees this as a clarion call, a call to arms for action.
Dr Ken Henry says the Australian National Outlook report aims to ‘help kickstart a national conversation about where Australia is heading’. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP “When you look at the shifts, there’s a couple of things in common. One is the need to focus on the long term, that these shifts are going to play out over a generation or more, but that doesn’t mean we can kick the can down the road and ignore them. The other one is the need for strong leadership, for bold action.”
The report references the 1980s, when strong productivity growth was driven by a consensus on economic reform supported by both major parties, big business and unions.
The report does not give specific policy recommendations but suggests the “levers” the country needs to pull to get the best outcomes. One of its strongest conclusions is that there is no tradeoff between strong economic growth and transitioning to zero-emission renewable energy, an argument that has crippled political debate in Australia for more than a decade.


In both scenarios modelled by the CSIRO – slow decline or what the report calls outlook vision – almost all electricity is generated by renewables by 2060 due to drops in the cost of renewables and the decline in the demand for fossil fuels. The global disruption in the energy market is underway, so whether the Australian government encourages new coal-fired power stations or not, renewables will be cheaper and replace them.
In Australia, most of the transition will happen between 2020 and 2040 as ageing coal-fired power plants are retired and replaced with renewables.
“We’ve seen costs come down so much in solar and wind they are now the low-cost solution,” Deverell said. “Once you hit a certain level of renewables on the grid you need to add storage to the cost, but that’s factored into our modelling and we see the cost of storage coming down over time.”
Deverell said even if Australia continued its policy uncertainty around energy and environment policy, we would still get to almost 100% renewable energy by 2060 purely because of the market. But the warning to politicians and policy makers is that “the transition happens more slowly and ultimately it makes electricity prices higher”.


Thodey argues in the report that if Australia pulls the right levers, “it is possible to achieve higher GDP per capita (as much as 36%) while ensuring growth is inclusive and environmentally sustainable”.
“In a global context, strong cooperation on climate change and trade can deliver a better outcome for Australia without significantly impacting our economic growth, where before it may have been thought impossible.”
Domestically, the report says that whatever happens in the rest of the world, Australia can make big strides to reduce our emissions through improving energy productivity, which means using less energy for the same outcome.
 The report suggests the biggest benefits will come to Australia if the world takes concerted action on climate change to limit global warming to a maximum 2C by 2100. Photograph: Michael Masters/Getty ImagesAustralia was weak compared with best practice internationally because it was not using the best technology available. It had the potential to become one of the most productive users of energy in the world through energy efficiency and electrification. Electric vehicles, for instance, are expected to be the cheapest form of transport after 2025 and would dominate sales by 2040.
Australia needs to prepare to adapt to global conditions whatever they are, but the biggest benefits will come if the world takes concerted action on climate change to limit global warming to a maximum 2C by 2100 rather than the catastrophic 4C rise if little action is taken.
If there is cooperative global action on climate change, Australia stands to be a big winner, the report finds. The CSIRO modelling indicates that “lower emissions from energy and greater sequestration on the land could enable Australia to achieve ‘net zero’ emissions by 2050 under the outlook vision”. Australia could capitalise on low-carbon exports such as hydrogen produced by renewable energy, countering the decline in global demand for our fossil fuels exports.
“Although other countries are also pursuing energy productivity and renewables, modelling suggests that Australia’s vast natural resources for renewable generation should lead to lower cost electricity in 2060,” the report says.


With reliable, low-carbon electricity and investor confidence in long-term policy, along with rising wages and improved energy efficiency, “by 2060 Australians are spending between 58% and 64% less on electricity as a proportion of income than they are today”.
Even if the world balks at strong action on climate change, Australia does better economically if it if embraces energy efficiency to reduce emissions.
The report’s proposed land shift would see a “stretch goal” of increasing agricultural productivity to 3% per year, meaning intensifying agriculture on the best land, using emerging technologies and boosting research and development. For instance, increasing productivity could result in revenue for crops such as winter cereals doubling by 2060.
The report suggests increasing agricultural productivity could result in revenue for crops such as winter cereals doubling by 2060. Photograph: Michele Mossop/Getty Images Agriculture in Australia had not yet fully embraced the “digital revolution” and doing so would be a boon.
Strong global action on global warming would present opportunities for land owners to sequester carbon through carbon and environmental planting, a “significant land use shift” that would protect prime agricultural land for food. As much as half of the least productive agricultural land could be profitably switched to carbon plantings, which would offset Australia’s own greenhouse gas emissions. Additional emissions abatement could be sold as carbon credits to other countries.
“Australia has one of world’s best and largest solar resources and we can capture that and export low emissions energy to countries that don’t have that resource, to places like Japan, Korea and potentially even China,” Deverell said.
Overall, the report says that “Australia is not well prepared and that action is required to avoid the slow decline scenario”. That scenario is not a disaster, but is far less positive than it could be. CSIRO modelling found GDP growth would be 2.1% annually, real wage growth would be 40% higher in 2060 than it is now and there would be only a modest increase in energy productivity. Major cities would continue to sprawl, adding to stressful commutes and long distances to education and services.
It is possible to achieve higher GDP per capita (as much as 36%) while ensuring growth is inclusive and environmentally sustainable.
David Thodey, CSIRO chairmanWith bold action, the modelling found a far more prosperous and dynamic Australia, with GDP growth of 2.76% to 2.8% annually, real wages 90% higher, average density of major cities increasing 60% to 88%, only a 6% to 28% increase in total energy use, a more than doubling of energy productivity, and net zero emissions by 2050 with global cooperation.
“This decoupling of emissions from GDP demonstrate that stronger action on environmental measures need not come at the expense of economic outcomes.”
Deverell said the report wasn’t intended as a list of policy recommendations or predictions for the future, but a chance to “get together a group of senior leaders, public sector, private sector, NGOs, (to) have an informed consensus on where we need to go”.
While trust and social cohesion were difficult to model, they were crucial for Australia’s future, he said. Trust in governments and CEOs was low, which meant Australians had little faith that decisions were made in the long-term interest of all. Without that trust, bold decisions were more difficult.
There was no “silver bullet” to restore trust, but efforts were needed to address policy over-promising, the perceived unrepresentative nature of politicians who came from narrow backgrounds and the perception that politicians favour vested interests over the public interest.
The report also emphasised equity. “We didn’t just want this to come through as a ‘here’s what we need to do to grow our economy’, but ‘here’s what we need to do to grow our economy and increase living standards for all Australians’.”
In the industry shift, the report says productivity can be boosted with increased adoption of technology, greater investment in education and skills to ensure a globally competitive workforce, and reversing the decline in education in key areas such as maths and science.
In both the slow decline and outlook vision scenarios, the report accepts official estimates that Australia’s population will reach 41 million by 2060, with Sydney and Melbourne home to between 8 million and 9 million people, and Brisbane and Perth between 4 million and 5 million. The slow decline model shows millions more living in the outer suburbs, making it harder to travel to jobs, education and services. Housing affordability remains a major problem, and social cohesion is strained.
The urban shift requires a big change in the way planning and policy supports our cities, with a growth in medium and high density living, and a focus on multiple “centres” of growth apart from the CBD, a policy that Sydney and Melbourne are already embracing.
Well-designed apartments, semi-detached homes and townhouses make up just over half of the housing stock, with a mix of reasonably priced accommodation so that essential workers can afford homes. People live closer to jobs, to education and to services and recreation.
Electric vehicles are expected to be the cheapest form of transport after 2025 and would dominate sales by 2040. Photograph: Dan Peled/AAP Car use is down, mass transit is up and electric vehicles make up over 80% of new vehicle sales in 2060. An alternative model outlined is one in which satellites cities such as Geelong and Newcastle grow quickly, and 5 million more people choose to live outside the capital cities, easing the density in the capitals.
It is the second Outlook report, following a 2015 release that focused more narrowly on water, energy and food. The 2019 report is more ambitious and brings in outside leaders to identify Australia’s key challenges and opportunities.
Deverell said it was aimed first at senior decision makers in the public and private sector, as well as NGOs and community groups. But it was “a message to all Australians that we can take control of the kind of future we want for the country”.
“By using those two scenarios we were trying to illustrate just how different the future is depending on the path that we take. We’re saying that Australians need to get together and these are the things we need to be focusing on. This is what’s really important.”

Links

• Australia missing out on huge cuts in emissions through energy efficiency failure
• Australia's emissions still rising, says report withheld in defiance of Senate order
• Australia isn't doing its part for the global climate. Sooner or later we’ll have to pay our share
• Coalition could indemnify new coal projects against potential carbon price
• 'Investors are mostly concerned about political risks': energy minister Angus Taylor – full interview
• Coal in decline: Adani in question and Australia out of step
• Coal in decline: an energy industry on life support
• Australia's peak business lobby calls for emissions intensity scheme
• Turnbull kicks the energy hornets' nest and goes Full Metal Export
• Big Australian banks invest $7bn more in fossil fuels than renewables, says report

New Yorker - Michele Moses

Polar bears reflect the otherworldly beauty that rising temperatures threaten to destroy. Photograph by Irina Yarinskaya / AFP / GettyLast Sunday, a polar bear turned up in Norilsk, an industrial city in Siberia known for the production of nickel, for the first time since 1977.
Visibly sick—thin and weak, with diarrhea and watering eyes—she roamed the city, feeding from a garbage dump and resting in the lot of a sand and gravel factory.
In one haunting image, the polar bear walks toward a line of cars, her paws dirtied, her head bowed in a way that seems serene, almost deferential.
A few drivers have opened their doors and are standing beside their cars, peering out at the animal.
To reach Norilsk from the Arctic, she would have had to travel hundreds of miles.
Polar bears rely on sea ice to hunt seals, and, as it melts, they must either seek other sources of food or go hungry.
The bear’s pilgrimage, some local environmentalists speculated, was likely undertaken out of starvation.
This one image, then, seemed to encapsulate both the tragedy of climate change and the resilience of nature.
Only, it turned out, this was not what happened. A team of specialists examined the polar bear and found that her coat (still white) was too clean to have weathered such a journey. It was possible that she had been captured as a cub and raised by nearby poachers, who, fearing a recent crackdown, released her to stay out of trouble.
In any case, the wildlife experts have transferred her to a zoo, where she can be cared for and treated for the illnesses she contracted by eating garbage.
This was not the first disputed image of a starving polar bear. In 2017, Paul Nicklen and Cristina Mittermeier captured a video of a polar bear ambling across an iceless archipelago in the Canadian Arctic and feeding from trash cans. The bear was skeletal, with a patchy coat, and weak to the point of collapsing.
After National Geographic published the video, overlaid with the text “This is what climate change looks like,” it was viewed by an estimated two and a half billion people. But some scientists accused National Geographic of being loose with the facts.
There was no way of knowing that climate change was the sole cause of the animal’s starvation, they contended; it may have been merely ill or old.
In response, National Geographic published an explanation, written by Mittermeier, titled “Starving-Polar-Bear Photographer Recalls What Went Wrong” that included the line “Perhaps we made a mistake in not telling the full story—that we were looking for a picture that foretold the future and that we didn’t know what had happened to this particular polar bear.”
The photographers’ incomplete, if not incorrect, knowledge undermined the larger truth that they were trying to communicate.
The story of climate change has been told, in part, through pictures of polar bears. And no wonder: in their glittering icy habitat, they reflect the otherworldly beauty that rising temperatures threaten to destroy.
The photographs from Norilsk this past week were not precisely of a species forced out of its habitat by climate change—though, as a story of human cruelty, they are no less disturbing—but the visceral reactions they inspired were arguably an appropriate response, nonetheless, given the current crisis. Because of its nickel-mining and smelting industry, Norilsk is one of the most polluted places on Earth—the average life expectancy is about ten years shorter than in the rest of Russia.
In 2016, industrial waste from the nickel factory caused the city’s Daldykan River to run red. The presence of an animal that we are accustomed to seeing in pristine natural beauty makes the whole setting seem even bleaker and more corrosive.
Yet to see a line of cars stop to observe a creature whose habitat their emissions are destroying is like an instance of restorative justice—the culprit and victim encounter each other face to face.
It provides a rare opportunity for us to confront the far-reaching moral consequences of our seemingly benign actions, like driving.
No revelation about the situational truth of the image should feel like permission for us to simply look away and get back in our cars.

Links

• Why a city visit by an exhausted polar bear is worrying
• A starving polar bear wandered into a Russian city, scavenging for food
• Polar Bears and Climate Change
• Polar bear population decline a wake up call for climate change action
• Polar Bears Really Are Starving Because of Global Warming, Study Shows
• A starving polar bear that was seen scavenging for food in an industrial city has been captured

SBS - Charlotte Lam

City of Sydney councillors have voted to declare that climate change should be treated as a national emergency.
Activists from the Extinction Rebellion, Lord Mayor Clover Moore, Councillor Jess Miller, Councillor Jess Scully and Councillor Robert Kok at Sydney Town Hall. City of SydneySydney has officially declared a climate emergency, with the city's councillors voting that climate change poses a serious risk to the people of Sydney and the rest of Australia.
Lord Mayor Clover Moore asked the council Monday night to call on the Federal Government to respond urgently to the emergency, by reintroducing a price on carbon to meet the Paris Agreement emissions reduction targets.
The City of Sydney has officially declared a climate emergency. pic.twitter.com/RobatF87IK— Clover Moore (@CloverMoore) June 24, 2019In 2007, the City of Sydney revealed its long-term strategic plan, Sustainable Sydney 2030, in which 97 per cent of residents said they wanted strong climate action.
“We set a goal to reduce our emissions by 70 per cent by 2030, and following the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, we set a more ambitious goal to reach net zero emissions by 2050”, the Lord Mayor said.
The council is also calling on the Federal Government to establish a Just Transition Authority to ensure Australians employed in fossil fuel industries find appropriate alternate employment.
We also call on the Government to establish a Just Transition Authority to ensure Australians employed in fossil fuel industries find appropriate alternate employment.— Clover Moore (@CloverMoore) June 24, 2019“We became Australia’s first carbon neutral council in 2007, and as of June 2017, we’d reduced emissions in our own operations by 25 per cent, Ms Moore said.
"In 2020, we will be powered by 100 per cent renewable energy, allowing us to meet our 2030 target by 2024 – six years early.”



The Climate Council's chief executive Amanda McKenzie said Sydney’s declaration - which the City Council is expected to easily approve - underlined “just how serious the climate change issue is.”
“It is a genuine crisis,” she said. “Sydney has responded in an appropriate way.”
Earlier this year, a group of Australian councils declared a ‘climate emergency’ after a UN report warned urgent, widespread action was needed to prevent the two degrees Celsius temperature increase that could tip the planet into catastrophic global warming.

Links

• The Climate Crisis Is Our Third World War. It Needs A Bold Response
• Climate Change Doomsday Report Predicts End Of Human Civilisation
• Time To Flick Climate Emergency Switch: A Plea To Our New Parliament
• The Heat Is On Over The Climate Crisis. Only Radical Measures Will Work
• Come Senators, MPs, There's A Climate Emergency Raging
• The Guardian View On Extinction: Time To Rebel
• Biodiversity Crisis Is About To Put Humanity At Risk, UN Scientists To Warn
• Our Carbon Budget Is All But Spent, But Who In Canberra Is Counting?

The Conversation - Trivess Moore | Michael Ambrose | Stephen Berry

Most new houses being built in Australia do no better than comply with the minimum energy performance required by regulations. Brendon Esposito/AAPNew housing in Australia must meet minimum energy performance requirements. We wondered how many buildings exceeded the minimum standard. What our analysis found is that four in five new houses are being built to the minimum standard and a negligible proportion to an optimal performance standard.
Before these standards were introduced the average performance of housing was found to be around 1.5 stars. The current minimum across most of Australia is six stars under the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS).
This six-star minimum falls short of what is optimal in terms of environmental, economic and social outcomes. It’s also below the minimum set by many other countries.
There have been calls for these minimum standards to be raised. However, many policymakers and building industry stakeholders believe the market will lift performance beyond minimum standards and so there is no need to raise these.

What did the data show?
We wanted to understand what was happening in the market to see if consumers or regulation were driving the energy performance of new housing. To do this we explored the NatHERS data set of building approvals for new Class 1 housing (detached and row houses) in Australia from May 2016 (when all data sets were integrated by CSIRO and Sustainability Victoria) to December 2018.
Our analysis focuses on new housing in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the ACT, all of which apply the minimum six-star NatHERS requirement. The other states have local variations to the standard, while New South Wales uses the BASIX index to determine the environmental impact of housing.
The chart below shows the performance for 187,320 house ratings. Almost 82% just met the minimum standard (6.0-6.4 star). Another 16% performed just above the minimum standard (6.5-6.9 star).
Only 1.5% were designed to perform at the economically optimal 7.5 stars and beyond. By this we mean a balance between the extra upfront building costs and the savings and benefits from lifetime building performance.

NatHERS star ratings across total data set for new housing approvals, May 2016–December 2018. Author provided
 
  The average rating is 6.2 stars across the states. This has not changed since 2016.

Average NatHERS star rating for each state, 2016-18. Author provided  
The data analysis shows that, while most housing is built to the minimum standard, the cooler temperate regions (Tasmania, ACT) have more houses above 7.0 stars compared with the warm temperate states.

NatHERS data spread by state. Author provided  
The ACT increased average performance each year from 6.5 stars in 2016 to 6.9 stars in 2018. This was not seen in any other state or territory.
The ACT is the only region with mandatory disclosure of the energy rating on sale or lease of property. The market can thus value the relative energy efficiency of buildings. Providing this otherwise invisible information may have empowered consumers to demand slightly better performance.

We are paying for accepting a lower standard
The evidence suggests consumers are not acting rationally or making decisions to maximise their financial well-being. Rather, they just accept the minimum performance the building sector delivers.
Higher energy efficiency or even environmental sustainability in housing provides not only significant benefits to the individual but also to society. And these improvements can be delivered for little additional cost.
The fact that these improvements aren’t being made suggests there are significant barriers to the market operating efficiently. This is despite increasing awareness among consumers and in the housing industry about the rising cost of energy.
Eight years after the introduction of the six-star NatHERS minimum requirement for new housing in Australia, the results show the market is delivering four out of five houses that just meet this requirement. With only 1.5% designed to 7.5 stars or beyond, regulation rather than the economically optimal energy rating is clearly driving the energy performance of Australian homes.
Increasing the minimum performance standard is the most effective way to improve the energy outcomes.
The next opportunity for increasing the minimum energy requirement will be 2022. Australian housing standards were already about 2.0 NatHERS stars behind comparable developed countries in 2008. If mandatory energy ratings aren’t increased, Australia will fall further behind international best practice.
If we continue to create a legacy of homes with relatively poor energy performance, making the transition to a low-energy and low-carbon economy is likely to get progressively more challenging and expensive. Recent research has calculated that a delay in increasing minimum performance requirements from 2019 to 2022 will result in an estimated A$1.1 billion (to 2050) in avoidable household energy bills. That’s an extra 3 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
Our research confirms the policy proposition that minimum house energy regulations based on the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme are a powerful instrument for delivering better environmental and energy outcomes. While introducing minimum standards has significantly lifted the bottom end of the market, those standards should be reviewed regularly to ensure optimal economic and environmental outcomes.

Links

• Low-energy homes don't just save money, they improve lives
• Energy star ratings for homes? Good idea, but it needs some real estate flair
• Sustainable housing's expensive, right? Not when you look at the whole equation
• Buildings produce 25% of Australia's emissions. What will it take to make them 'green' – and who'll pay?

CBS Sixty Minutes - Steve Kroft

A lawsuit filed on behalf of 21 kids alleges the U.S. government knowingly failed to protect them from climate change. If the plaintiffs win, it could mean massive changes for the use of fossil fuels
The plaintiffs in Juliana v. United StatesOf all the cases working their way through the federal court system, none is more interesting or potentially more life changing than Juliana versus the United States.
To quote one federal judge, "This is no ordinary lawsuit." It was filed back in 2015 on behalf of a group of kids who are trying to get the courts to block the U.S. government from continuing the use of fossil fuels.
They say it's causing climate change, endangering their future and violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property.
As we first reported earlier this year, when the lawsuit first began hardly anyone took it seriously, including the government's lawyers, who have since watched the supreme court reject two of their motions to delay or dismiss the case.
Four years in, it is still very much alive, in part because the plaintiffs have amassed a body of evidence that will surprise even the skeptics and have forced the government to admit that the crisis is real.
The case was born here in Eugene, Oregon, a tree-hugger's paradise, and one of the cradles of environmental activism in the United States.
The lead plaintiff, University of Oregon student Kelsey Juliana, was only five weeks old when her parents took her to her first rally to protect spotted owls.
Today, her main concern is climate change, drought and the growing threat of wildfires in the surrounding Cascade Mountains.
Kelsey JulianaKelsey Juliana: There was a wildfire season that was so intense, we were advised not to go outside. The particulate matter in the smoke was literally off the charts. It was past severe, in terms of danger to health.
Steve Kroft: And you think that's because of climate change.
Kelsey Juliana: That's what scientists tell me.

It's not just scientists. Even the federal government now acknowledges in its response to the lawsuit that the effects of climate change are already happening and likely to get worse, especially for young people who will have to deal with them for the long term.
"The government has known for over 50 years that burning fossil fuels would cause climate change. And they don't dispute that we are in a danger zone on climate change."Steve Kroft: How important is this case to you?
Kelsey Juliana: This case is everything. This is the climate case. We have everything to lose, if we don't act on climate change right now, my generation and all the generations to come.

She was 19 when the lawsuit was filed and the oldest of 21 plaintiffs. They come from ten different states and all claim to be affected or threatened by the consequences of climate change. The youngest, Levi Draheim, is in sixth grade.

Steve Kroft: You're 11 years old, and you're suing the United States government, that's not what most 11-year-olds do, right?
Levi Draheim: Yeah…

He's lived most of his life on the beaches of a barrier island in Florida that's a mile wide and barely above sea level.

Steve Kroft: What's your biggest fear about this island?
Levi Draheim: I fear that I won't have a home here in the future.
Steve Kroft: That the island will be gone.
Levi Draheim: Yeah. That the island will be underwater because of climate change.
Steve Kroft: So you feel like you've got a stake in this.
Levi Draheim: Yes.

The plaintiffs were recruited from environmental groups across the country by Julia Olson, an oregon lawyer, and the executive director of a non-profit legal organization called "Our Children's Trust." She began constructing the case eight years ago out of this spartan space now dominated by this paper diorama that winds its way through the office.

Steve Kroft: So what is this?
Julia Olson: So this is a timeline that we put together…

It documents what and when past U.S. administrations knew about the connection between fossil fuels and climate change. The timeline goes back 50 years, beginning with the presidency of Lyndon Johnson.

Julia Olson: During President Johnson's administration, they issued a report in 1965 that talked about climate change being a catastrophic threat.

Whether it was a Democrat or a Republican in office, Olson says, there was an awareness of the potential dangers of carbon dioxide emissions.

Julia Olson: Every president knew that burning fossil fuels was causing climate change.

Fifty years of evidence has been amassed by Olson and her team, 36,000 pages in all, to be used in court.

Julia Olson: Our government, at the highest levels, knew and was briefed on it regularly by the national security community, by the scientific community. They have known for a very long time that it was a big threat.
Steve Kroft: Has the government disputed that government officials have known about this for more than 50 years and been told and warned about it for 50 years?
Julia Olson: No. They admit that the government has known for over 50 years that burning fossil fuels would cause climate change. And they don't dispute that we are in a danger zone on climate change. And they don't dispute that climate change is a national security threat and a threat to our economy and a threat to people's lives and safety. They do not dispute any of those facts of the case.

The legal proceedings have required the government to make some startling admissions in court filings. It now acknowledges that human activity - in particular, elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases - is likely to have been the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-1900s… That global carbon dioxide concentrations reached levels unprecedented for at least 2.6 million years… That climate change is increasing the risk of loss of life and the extinction of many species and is associated with increases in hurricane intensity, the frequency of intense storms, heavy precipitation, the loss of sea ice and rising sea levels.
Julia Olson with correspondent Steve KroftJulia Olson: It's really the most compelling evidence I've ever had in any case I've litigated in over 20 years.

The lawsuit claims the executive and legislative branches of government have proven incapable of dealing with climate change. It argues that the government has failed in its obligation to protect the nation's air, water, forests and coast lines. And it petitions the federal courts to intervene and force the government to come up with a plan that would wean the country off fossil fuels by the middle of this century.

Steve Kroft: You're just saying, "Do it. We don't care how."
Julia Olson: Do it well and do it in the timeframe that it needs to be done.
Steve Kroft: You're talking about a case that could change economics in this country.
Julia Olson: For the better.
Steve Kroft: Well, you say it changes the economy for the better, but other people would say it would cause huge disruption.
Julia Olson: If we don't address climate change in this country, economists across the board say that we are in for economic crises that we have never seen before.

The lawsuit was first filed during the final years of the Obama administration in this federal courthouse in Eugene.

Steve Kroft: Did they take this case seriously when you filed it?
Julia Olson: I think in the beginning they thought they could very quickly get the case dismissed.

In November 2016, a federal judge stunned the government by denying its motion to dismiss the case and ruling it could proceed to trial. In what may become a landmark decision, Judge Ann Aiken wrote, "Exercising my reasoned judgment, I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society."

Steve Kroft: A federal judge ever said that before?
Julia Olson: No judge had ever written that before.

The opinion was groundbreaking because the courts have never recognized a constitutional right to a stable climate.
Ann CarlsonAnn Carlson: That's a big stretch for a court.

Ann Carlson is a professor of environmental law at UCLA. Like almost everyone else in the legal community, she was certain the case was doomed.

Ann Carlson: There's no constitutional provision that says the that environment should be protected.
Steve Kroft: Why is the idea that the people of the United States have a right to a stable environment such a radical idea?
Ann Carlson: Well, I think that Judge Aiken actually does a very good job of saying it's not radical to ask the government to protect the health, and the lives and the property of this current generation of kids. Look, If you can't have your life protected by government policies that save the planet, then what's the point of having a Constitution?
Steve Kroft: How significant is this case?
Ann Carlson: Well, if the plaintiffs won, it'd be massive, particularly if they won what they're asking for, which is get the federal government out of the business of in any way subsidizing fossil fuels and get them into the business of dramatically curtailing greenhouse gases in order to protect the children who are the plaintiffs in order to create a safe climate. That would be enormous.

So enormous that the Trump administration, which is now defending the case, has done everything it can to keep the trial from going forward. It's appealed Judge Aiken's decision three times to the ninth circuit court in California and twice to the Supreme Court. Each time it's failed.

Julia Olson: They don't want it to go to trial.
Steve Kroft: Why?
Julia Olson: Because they will lose on the evidence that will be presented at trial.
Steve Kroft: And that's why they don't want one.
Julia Olson: That's why they don't want one. They know that once you enter that courtroom and your witnesses take the oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth the facts are the facts and alternative facts are perjury. And so, all of these claims and tweets about climate change not being real, that doesn't hold up in a court of law.

The Justice Department declined our request for an interview, but in court hearings, in briefs, it's called the lawsuit misguided, unprecedented and unconstitutional. It argues that energy policy is the legal responsibility of Congress and the White House, not a single judge in Oregon. And while climate change is real it's also a complicated global problem that was not caused and cannot be solved by just the United States government.
In other words, it's not responsible.
“As the district court in a similar suit recently ruled, the plaintiffs in these climate cases would have the courts ‘regulating all statutory, regulatory, budgetary, personnel, and administrative Executive actions that relate to the environment.’ Under our laws, making such important decisions about the Nation’s energy and climate policy is entrusted to elected officials, not the courts. It’s also important to note that this lawsuit was originally filed against and opposed by the Obama Administration because the role of elected officials was being circumvented.”
— Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources DivisionSteve Kroft: Why is the federal government responsible for global warming? I mean it doesn't produce any carbon dioxide. How are they causing it?
Julia Olson: They're causing it through their actions of subsidizing the fossil fuel energy system, permitting every aspect of our fossil fuel energy system, and by allowing for extraction of fossil fuels from our federal public lands. We are the largest oil and gas producer in the world now because of decisions our federal government has made.
Steve Kroft: What about the Chinese government? What about the Indian government?
Julia Olson: Clearly, it's not just the United States that has caused climate change but the United States is responsible for 25 percent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide that has accumulated over the many decades.

Julia Olson is confident they're going to prevail in court. Ann Carlson and most of the legal community still think it's a longshot, but she says she's been wrong about this case every step of the way.

Ann Carlson: Courts have asked governments to do bold things. The best example would be Brown versus the Board of Education, when the court ordered schools to desegregate with all deliberate speed. So there have been court decisions that have asked governments to do very dramatic things. This might be the biggest.
Steve Kroft: You've been stunned by how far this case has gotten. Why has it gotten this far?
Ann Carlson: I think there are several reasons this case has actually withstood motions to dismiss. I think the first is that the lawyers have crafted the case in a way that's very compelling. You have a number of kids who are very compelling plaintiffs who are experiencing the harms of climate change now and will experience the harms of climate change much more dramatically as they get older. I think the hard question here is the law.
Jayden FoytlinThe latest oral arguments in Juliana versus the United States were heard earlier this month in portland. But whatever happens next will certainly be appealed. Two-thousand miles away, in the aptly named town of Rayne, Louisiana, the family of one of the plaintiffs, 15-year-old Jayden Foytlin, is still rebuilding from the last disaster in 2016 that dumped 18 inches of rain on Rayne and Southern Louisiana in just 48 hours.

Jayden Foytlin: That's just something that shouldn't happen. You can't really deny that it, climate change has something to do with it. And you can't deny that it's something that we have to pay attention to. I'm not sure if most of Louisiana, of South Louisiana is going to be here, that's just a really big worry of mine.

For the foreseeable future, it's impossible to predict when and how the storms and the lawsuit are likely to end.

Links

• Kids Suing The US Over Climate Change Are Getting Global Support
• White House Effort To Stop Youth Climate Lawsuit Is 'Drastic And Extraordinary'
• My Student Missed Class... To Sue The Government Over Climate Change
• Landmark Children’s Climate Lawsuit Hits New Roadblock
• 2018 In Climate Liability: When A Trend Became A Wave
• In Courtrooms, Climate Change Is No Longer Up For Debate
• Climate Change Activists Worldwide Look To Courts As A Powerful New Ally
• Support Is Surging For Teens’ Climate Change Lawsuit

The Age - Benjamin Preiss and Adam Carey

Rising seas are threatening to encroach on low-lying parts of Melbourne within 20 years, causing flooding and erosion in suburbs including St Kilda, Point Cook, Mordialloc, Seaford and Frankston.
Other places at risk include areas around Queenscliff and Barwon Heads on the Bellarine Peninsula; the south-west Victorian towns of Port Fairy and Portland; and Tooradin, Lang Lang and Seaspray in the state's south-east.
Melbourne bayside areas are among those ranked as at risk. Credit: Luis AscuiA report tabled in Victoria's Parliament last week examines the myriad threats to the state’s fragile coastline, painting an alarming picture of damage to the environment and suburban Melbourne if no action is taken.
The Victorian Environmental Assessment Council report cites a 20-centimetre sea-level rise by 2040 and between 40 centimetres and one metre by century’s end.
“Sea-level rise will lead to more frequent inundation of low-lying areas, loss of coastal habitat, cliff, beach and foreshore erosion,” the report says.
“Climate change will also put pressure on ageing coastal infrastructure and ultimately impact on feasibility of living in or developing some coastal locations.”
Locals Dave Sutton (left) and Phillip Heath on the remaining strip separating the surf beach from the road at Inverloch, where erosion has caused major problems. Credit: Justin McManusIncreasing storm intensity, coupled with rising seas, will cause extensive erosion of the Victorian coastline by 2040, the report says.
“The most extensive area vulnerable to erosion by 2040 is the Gippsland coast,” it says. “Other coasts at risk include west of Portland, beaches in Port Phillip Bay between Mordialloc and Frankston, and the coast between Cape Paterson and Cape Liptrap in South Gippsland.”
Coastal erosion has already had a dramatic impact on the foreshore at Inverloch, which has receded 33 metres since 2012.
Erosion has also caused major problems in Port Fairy, where the local council has stepped up research and planning to tackle the problem.
The report also considers the impact of other coastal threats, including tourism and development. It outlines how a growing population may increase water pollution, with higher levels of treated sewage effluent and industrial wastewater expected to be discharged into the sea.
School students protesting for greater action on climate change. Credit: Justin McManusThe report is intended as a planning tool for the state government, which is developing a policy for coastal protection.
A government spokeswoman said action was being taken to protect the coastline in the face of climate change.
"We’re preparing the Victorian coast for the climate change challenges ahead through research, policy change and on-ground action – investing more than $60 million into marine and coastal projects since 2014," she said.
The spokeswoman said the government was working with communities and councils on a range of projects, including a beach "renourishment program" to mitigate erosion.
It has also spent $10 million on its Port Phillip Bay Fund, which provides grants for community projects that protect and preserve the health of the bay.
Victorian Environmental Assessment Council member Geoff Wescott said the modelling and predictions contained in the report laid out the consequences of failing to take action.
“When you see those maps of St Kilda or the Elwood Canal flooding, that is what happens if nothing is done,” he said.
The government has also commissioned the CSIRO to begin a fresh assessment of the likely coastal hazards that rising seas and bigger storm surges will create along the shores of Port Phillip Bay.
The swollen Elster Creek flooded the Elwood Canal in 2016. Credit: Penny StephensThat work by Australia’s national science agency is due to be finished by the middle of next year.
Melbourne University senior property lecturer Georgia Warren-Myers said even small sea-level rises coupled with storm surges could have a major impact on some densely populated parts of Melbourne.
A report Dr Warren-Myers co-wrote found that 33 per cent of properties in the City of Port Phillip would be affected by a sea-level rise of half a metre when combined with storm surges.
But she warned property taxes, a key revenue source for state and federal governments, would also be impacted if buyers began rejecting particular areas due to their vulnerability to flooding.
“There are future economic implications that haven’t been really thought out,” she said.
Dr Warren-Myers called for local governments to include more information about sea-level rise and potential flood risk in planning overlays, so they had to be included in Section 32 legal documents that sellers are required to provide to potential buyers.
Port Phillip Baykeeper Neil Blake said erosion and sea-level rises posed huge challenges and may eventually force some Victorians to move from currently populated areas. “There will have to be a major adaptation required to address that,” he said.
Mr Blake said it was beyond time to be discussing climate change in theoretical terms as its consequences were now having a tangible impact on the community and environment.
But he said plastic litter was one of the biggest threats to the health of Victoria’s coastline.
Predicted coastal erosion impact along Victoria’s coastline. VEAC ReportLinks

• Report: Assessment of the Values of Victoria’s Marine Environment (pdf)
• Victorian Environmental Assessment Council
• Rising Seas Threaten Australia's Major Airports
• This Is What Happens To Australia If We Don't Act
• Sea Levels Could Rise An Extra 60cm If Emission Reductions Are Delayed Until 2035, Study Finds
• 'Truly Desperate Times': Pacific Nations Despair At Australia's Climate Action Stasis
• Climate Change: Sea Level Rise Could Displace Millions Of People Within Two Generations
• Sea level rise - additional links

Phys.org - Nala Rogers

Credit: CC0 Public Domain If the world were on track to meet the Paris Agreement goal of less than 2 degrees Celsius of global warming, methane levels in the atmosphere would theoretically be dropping.
Instead, they have been rising since 2007, and shooting up even faster since 2014.
A perspective published in the journal Science discusses the potential causes and consequences of our planet's out-of-control methane.
Methane decays in the atmosphere faster than carbon dioxide does, but it is a far more powerful greenhouse gas.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a molecule of methane will cause 28-36 times more warming than a molecule of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period.
Recent data shows that methane concentrations in the atmosphere have risen from about 1,775 parts per billion in 2006 to 1,850 parts per billion in 2017.
The emissions targets in the Paris Agreement were based largely on data from the 1990s and early 2000s, when methane levels were flatter, said Sara Mikaloff Fletcher, a climate scientist with New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in Wellington and first author of the new article.
The only emissions scenario that achieves Paris Agreement goals in climate models assumes that methane levels have been declining since 2010, when in fact they have been rising since 2007, she said.
There may be other ways of keeping climate change under 2 degrees Celsius, but they would involve compensating for rising methane with more drastic cuts to other greenhouse gases.
Scientists aren't sure why methane levels are rising.
A 2017 study attributes about half of the increase to cows and other ruminant livestock, which burp methane as they digest food.
Another contributing factor could be that people are releasing more fossil fuel emissions while burning less wood and other biomass.
In Mikaloff Fletcher's view, the most alarming possibilities are the ones we have little control over.
Rising temperatures could be triggering wetlands to release more methane, and changes in atmospheric chemistry could be slowing the rate at which methane breaks down. 

Links

• Rising methane: A new climate challenge
• Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Could turning it into CO2 fight climate change?
• Bacteria that oxidizes methane found in common soil
• Defusing the methane bomb—we can still make a difference
• Methane in the atmosphere is surging, and that's got scientists worried
• Study reveals what natural greenhouse emissions from wetlands and permafrosts mean for Paris Agreement targets

TIME - Farhana Yamin

Farhana Yamin is an international environmental lawyer and activist with the Extinction Rebellion movement. Over the past three decades, she has co-authored a number of international treaties on climate change, including the Paris climate agreement. She is a contributor to This Is Not a Drill: An Extinction Rebellion Handbook.

At this point in human history we have three choices: to die, to survive or to thrive.
From the wildfires in the U.S., coral die-back in the tropics and the deadly hurricanes battering small islands, the signs are crystal clear: climate devastation is already here.
The world’s poorest people and indigenous communities are on the front line. They are also bearing the brunt of the sixth mass extinction, which is under way due to conversion of their forests, wetlands and other wild landscapes into concrete cities, dam reservoirs and fields growing soya.
I joined Extinction Rebellion to fight against the climate and ecological emergency we are now facing – an emergency that threatens the very conditions of all life on Earth.
 I have been an environmental lawyer for thirty years, working to create new treaties, E.U. agreements and national laws aiming to prevent the situation we now find ourselves in. Sadly, I know this emergency cannot be averted by governments signing weak compacts and voluntary agreements with the biggest polluters on Earth. Nor by tweaking carbon markets that have been gutted of climate ambition by fossil-fuel lobbyists. We need to overhaul our political systems to limit access to government by big business. We need citizens’ assemblies to allow ordinary people to decide the scale and pace of transition on the basis of independent scientific advice.
Normal politics has failed us. It has brought the whole planet to the brink of ecological disaster. We cannot invoke and rely on the inadequate legal tools of the past 30 years that have allowed this crisis to happen. We need everyone to unite – from the left, the right, and every shade in between, and especially young people, many of whom are too disillusioned to vote or are excluded because they are only 16. We need everyone to undertake mass civil disobedience to create a new political reality the whole world over.
But we can’t get there if we work in silos and factions. We need a “movement of movements” to model the unity and urgency we need right now. The new movement of movements must be led by our youth and by those who have been resisting “business as usual,” especially communities of color and those at the forefront of oppression.



The new movement must be based on the reality that the legacy of colonialism, combined with current forms of capitalism based on never-ending extractive growth, is literally killing us. The reality is that four environmental defenders a week are being killed in the Global South. We in the Global North need to honor their work and join their struggles by also throwing our own bodies on the line.
We need a socially just transition for everyone on Earth, not just for workers trapped in the toxic industries that need to be phased out, but for everyone at the sharp end of austerity and ecological destruction. Climate and ecological destruction are at heart issues about social and intergenerational justice. We can’t just fixate on the maths and science of climate change and leave people and fairness out of the equation.
These are the facts that justify the unification and intensification of our shared struggles and which will only succeed if we have a worldwide rebellion. Climate-change denialists cannot cover up the fact that the struggle for access to natural resources, especially fresh water and arable land, is intensify- ing, and that large parts of the planet are already becoming uninhabitable due to food and water scarcity.
Farhana Yamin, Extinction Rebellion activist speaks at the Climate emergency protest in Parliament Square outside the Houses of Parliament on May 01, 2019 in London, England. John Keeble—Getty ImagesThe world’s insect population has fallen by 60 per cent since the 1970s. Large parts of Europe look green but are ‘biodiversity deserts’ – the birds and bees are dying. Current extinction rates are at least tens, and possibly hundreds, of times greater than background rates, destroying entire eco- systems both on land and in the sea. Climate change is warming up the atmosphere, oceans are acidifying and the cryosphere – the parts of the world covered in ice – is literally in meltdown. Abrupt, non- linear, irreversible changes are underway in the Arctic, Antarctica, Greenland and the world’s glaciers, which are crucial to food, water and agricultural production.
The human consequences of these changes – economic instability, large- scale involuntary migration, conflict, famine and the collapse of economic and social systems – are plain to see and reported daily, but these stories are not linked in mainstream political and media coverage to the climate and ecological emergency that is already upon us.
Between 2006 and 2011, 60 per cent of Syria suffered the worst long- term drought and crop failures in the country’s history. Two to three million people became poor and many more were internally displaced. The resulting social instability amplified the political factors that led to war in Syria, with now half its original population of 13 million having migrated or been internally displaced. Something similar is occurring in Yemen, where up to 10 million people face starvation, despite millions trying to move to safer, once fertile areas.
The received political wisdom that people in rich countries can sit tight and buy their way out of catastrophic environmental outcomes, or know that the welfare state will save them, is looking more and more fanciful as we remain in the grip of austerity politics. Anyone with an understanding of how the global food system works, especially how much of the world’s food supply passes through less than a dozen ‘choke point’ ports, will know that our economies are deeply intertwined. Everyone will be affected, joining the millions who already are all over the world. Poor communities, especially people of color, whether in the Global North or the Global South, who have always been on the front lines of environmental injustice, will likely also bear the brunt of the new catastrophes.
Climate change activists from the Extinction Rebellion group march up to block the street at Bank in the heart of the City of London financial district in protest that the government is not doing enough to avoid catastrophic climate change and to demand the government take radical action to save the planet, on 25th April 2019 in London, England, United Kingdom. Mike Kemp—In Pictures via Getty ImagesAre humans destined to become extinct as a species? Will we be slugging it out for what little remains by arming our- selves and building walls to keep out those less fortunate than ourselves? Can we really dismantle the toxic systems that have given rise to these gargantuan problems in the short window we now have?No one knows what will happen, and no one can say for sure whether or not fundamental ecological tipping points have already been breached. The good news is that there are millions of people mobilizing to stop humanity falling off a cliff.
And they also have some sharp new ideas to create kinder, regenerative societies that can start the process of restoring nature and create communities of resistance and resilience to the impacts we cannot avoid. They want to do more than just avoid extinction or merely survive. They are building a movement built on solidarity and well- being so everyone, and every part of everyone, can flourish. Ending domination over nature goes hand in hand with tackling all forms of domination and hierarchy. The struggle for climate justice is also the struggle for racial, gender, sexual and economic equality. We are not alone. Actions are now happening all over the world.
In Ghana, Extinction Rebellion activists recently held an event calling for action on the climate and ecological emergency in Africa. The event was staged in solidarity with those in the Global South and the entire world. ‘The impact of the climate catastrophe is part of our daily life. This is why this event is important,’ says the Ghanaian activist Mawuse Yao Agorkor.
These voices cannot be ignored any longer. This year, Extinction Rebellion has injected a new sense of energy and urgency into the climate movement. Thousands of people have joined, participating in non- violent actions by blocking bridges, blockading roads and shutting down government buildings.
Members of the Extinction Rebellion Youth group locked themselves to the fence of Parliament demanding climate change action on May 3rd 2019 in London, United Kingdom. Kristian Buus—In Pictures via Getty ImagesWhile media headlines have focused on our work in the United Kingdom, Extinction Rebellion has started an International Solidarity Network to support existing resistance in the majority world, working closely with activists in West Papua, Bangladesh, Mongolia and the Caribbean. Extinction Rebellion is also linking with and learning from other movements.
At the U.N. Conference on Climate Change, Extinction Rebellion supported the Alliance of Small Island States and the Climate Vulnerable Forum – together representing over 80 countries with 1 billion people. We helped pull together an international ‘emergency coalition’ to reject weak language that would have condemned them to extinction. While we in the Global North might only just be feeling the effects of climate change, the majority world has long since known the tragedy that the climate crisis brings.
Support is also being provided to the youth-led school strike movement started by Greta Thunberg, and to the newly emerging Birthstrike movement which is taking off in many countries to support people who are choosing not to bring children into this world unless, and until, conditions improve. In the U.S., the Sunrise Movement is building bipartisan support for a ten year mobilization and investment plan called the Green New Deal.
What all these movements have in common is a complete rejection of neoliberal economics and ‘business as usual’ politics. Yes, it is too late to prevent all the negative impacts of climate change. But this cannot destroy our capacity to nurture. It cannot destroy our capacity to love and our sense of justice.We can and now must redesign human societies based on love, justice and planetary boundaries so that no person or society is left to face devastating consequences and we learn to restore nature together.
Faced with toxic systems that are destroying all life on Earth, affirmation of this vision and rebelling against whatever gets in its way becomes a sacred duty for all. We can and must succeed in catalyzing a peaceful revolution to end the era of fossil fuels, nature extraction and capitalism.
Life on Earth depends on it.

Links

• Good News For Climate Activists: Marching Might Work
• Environment Leaders Reflect On Their Role In The 'Climate Election'
• Kids Suing The US Over Climate Change Are Getting Global Support
• Students From 1,600 Cities Just Walked Out Of School To Protest Climate Change. It Could Be Greta Thunberg's Biggest Strike Yet
• 'We're Worried The Planet Is Dying': Thousands Of Climate Protesters Bring CBD To Standstill
• ‘Now I Am Speaking To The Whole World.’ How Teen Climate Activist Greta Thunberg Got Everyone To Listen
• Tears Outside PM's Office As Students Skip School To Demand Climate Action Again

ABC News - Peter Ryan

A 'Kodak moment" refers to the film giant that failed to see the rapid rise of the digital world. (Reuters: Stefan Wermuth) Key points:

• Senior APRA official Geoff Summerhayes says it is clear that climate change financial risks are now "orthodox economic thinking"
• Mr Summerhayes says "government spending decisions may need to be reprioritised" to spread the costs of climate change
• NAB chairman and former Treasury secretary Ken Henry says Australia will move to 100pc renewable electricity by mid-century, even without a carbon price

Climate change pain is inevitable with the only question being "how much and when", a top prudential regulator has warned.
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority executive Geoff Summerhayes said businesses that ignore climate change risks could confront their own "Kodak moment", referring to the film giant that failed to foresee the rapid rise of the digital world and went into bankruptcy protection.
"Companies that delay or avoid adjusting to new economic realities, no matter how famous or successful, can quickly find themselves on the verge of a Kodak moment," Mr Summerhayes warned an insurance conference in Singapore.
Mr Summerhayes said the warnings about foreseeable and potentially catastrophic climate change as a first-order economic risk were no longer limited to fringe groups and environmentalists but now include conservative bodies, such as the Reserve Bank of Australia, APRA and corporate regulator ASIC.
"When a central bank, a prudential regulator and a conduct regulator, with barely a hipster beard or hemp shirt between them, start warning that climate change is a financial risk, it's clear that position is now orthodox economic thinking," he said.
"Debate has largely moved on from whether there is a threat that requires a response to questions about the urgency of threat, who should carry the financial burden of addressing it, and whether the benefits are worth the cost.
"Regardless of their choice, some pain will be felt; the only questions being how much and when."Mr Summerhayes said while businesses around the world were struggling to find the appropriate balance, data around how to best manage climate change "remains under-developed, making informed debate challenging … and decision-making difficult."

Local electricity sector will be '100pc renewables'
Mr Summerhayes told the International Insurance Society Global Insurance Forum that, while climate change debates exist around the world, they are particularly sensitive in Australia given the nation's exports of iron ore, coal, natural gas and crude petroleum.
Australian bosses have started
caring about climate change
Australian company directors nominate climate change as the number one issue they want the government to address in the long-term, in a survey of more than 1,200 business leaders.
"Government spending decisions may need to be reprioritised, and not every member of society will be able to bear these short-term costs equally comfortably," Mr Summerhayes said.
"The benefit of such an approach is a substantial reduction in the expected catastrophic physical risks of climate change in the long-term."
Earlier this week, outgoing National Australia Bank chairman and former Treasury secretary Ken Henry told The Business that the corporate sector was already moving ahead to confront climate change, rather than waiting for government or regulatory action.
"Australia's energy transition is going to happen anyway," he told the program. "Almost no matter what the policy framework is, the decisions taken by business leaders today will ensure that by about mid-century Australia's electricity sector will be 100 per cent renewables. It's almost irrespective of what decisions are taken at a policy level."
Extended interview with outgoing National Australia Bank Chairman and former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry. The Business

Mr Summerhayes repeated earlier calls for the finance industry to disclose their climate risks to put themselves in the best position to adjust to "a new economic reality".

Links

• Fund set up to fight climate change considers 'insane' idea to give money to coal-fired power
• Pope Francis backs carbon price in appeal to climate deniers
• World's largest sovereign wealth fund to dump billions in coal investments
• Nearly a billion people on the frontlines of climate change, including millions of Australians: report
• Heavyweights Now Speaking With One Voice On Climate Change Risks 
• 'Disastrous': Australia's Carbon Emissions Jump As Coal-Fired Power Ramps Up 
• Insurance Premiums To Rise As Extreme Weather Conditions Become More Common 
• Climate Change: Three Of Australia’s Big Four Banks Reviewing Exposure To Fossil Fuels

Washington Post - Ian Livingston

The 129 degrees (53.9C) in Mitribah, Kuwait, in 2016 was deemed the hottest on record in Asia.
People cool off during a heat wave in Pakistan. (K.M. Chaudhry/AP) (K.M. Chaudary/AP)Following years of tireless investigation, the World Meteorological Organization has announced two recent temperature readings have been accepted among the hottest recorded on Earth.
One of the scorching marks came from the Middle East, the other from South Asia.
It hit 129 degrees (53.9 Celsius, plus or minus 0.1 degrees uncertainty) in Mitribah, Kuwait, on July 21, 2016, and 128.7 degrees (53.7 Celsius, plus or minus 0.4 degrees uncertainty) in Turbat, Pakistan, on May 28, 2017.
“The Mitribah, Kuwait temperature is now accepted by the WMO as the highest temperature ever recorded for the continental region of Asia,” the organization wrote in a statement. It continued, “The two observations are the third (tied within uncertainty limits) and fourth highest WMO-recognized temperature extremes.”
These are the highest recognized temperatures in 76 years.



Notably, the WMO list of highest global temperatures does not include a 129.2 degree temperature (54.0 Celsius) recorded in Furnace Creek at Death Valley, Calif., on June 30, 2013. But there is a reason.
That location was even hotter in 1913 when it reportedly hit 134 degrees (56.7 Celsius). This temperature is recognized as the hottest recorded on Earth. But some experts question its validity. It was recently described as “essentially not possible from a meteorological perspective” in a detailed analysis.
It is a similar story for the planet’s second-highest recognized temperature, which is 131 degrees (55.0 Celsius) from Kebili, Tunisia, set July 7, 1931, which also is Africa’s hottest temperature. This record has “serious credibility issues,” according to Christopher C. Burt, an expert on extreme weather data.
We asked Randall Cerveny, chief rapporteur of the WMO committee for evaluating climate and weather extremes, why the Death Valley reading in 2013 is not officially considered among the hottest recorded temperatures. Even if you consider the 1913 Death Valley and 1931 Tunisia readings legitimate, the 2013 Death Valley reading should still rank third hottest.
“The WMO does not verify a record through its extreme evaluation process unless it is a new global, hemispheric or continental extreme record,” Cerveny responded in an email. “ . . . the Death Valley 2013 temperature was not proposed to the WMO as an extreme at any of those categories,” given it was not as high as the 1913 record at that same location.
Considering the questions that swirl around two hottest recorded temperatures (Death Valley in 1913 and Tunisia in 1931), the Death Valley (2013) and Kuwait (2016) temperatures could in fact be the highest reliably measured on record. Since it is unclear whether the 2013 Death Valley reading will ever be formally recognized and/or the 1913 reading invalidated, we may never know for sure.

Links

• WMO verifies 3rd and 4th hottest temperature recorded on Earth
• Two Middle East locations hit 129 degrees, hottest ever in Eastern Hemisphere, maybe the world
• New analysis shreds claim that Death Valley recorded Earth’s highest temperature in 1913
• Qld To Cop Dramatic Rise In Extreme Heat
• New Studies Increase Confidence In NASA's Measure Of Earth's Temperature
• Satellite Confirms Key NASA Temperature Data: The Planet Is Warming — And Fast
• March Was Australia's Hottest On Record, With Temperatures 2c Above Average
• 'Monster' El Nino A Chance Later This Year, Pointing To Extended Dry Times
• Australia Breaks Weather Records With Hottest Ever Summer
• It’s Official: 2018 Was The Fourth-Warmest Year On Record
• UN Warns World On Track To Breach 3c Rise By 2100; Last Year Was Fourth Warmest On Record
• Are We Living Through Climate Change’s Worst-Case Scenario?
• Australia Swelters Through Hottest Month On Record, With January Mean Temperature Exceeding 30c

Sydney Morning Herald - Broede Carmody

When Jennifer Mills began writing her Miles Franklin longlisted book Dyschronia in 2011, there weren't a great deal of Australian novels grappling with a post climate change world.
Fast forward several years and a large number of critically-acclaimed works have featured some sort of environmental catastrophe. Australian publishers and booksellers have even adopted a term to help classify the string of books blurring the lines between genre and literary fiction: cli-fi.
"It's an exciting time to be a novelist," Mills says. "But in some ways I wish it wasn't."


Australia lacks a national environment policy amid the increasing impact of climate change according to a scathing independent environment report. Courtesy ABC News 24.

Mills believes climate change seeping its way into fiction reflects a broader trend in Australia: one in which we debate school students protesting in the streets and people from all sides of politics coming together to remember the legacy of former prime minister Bob Hawke as a strong leader on environmental issues.
"All novels are Anthropocene novels," she says (the Anthropocene is the current geological age characterised by human-induced climate change and mass extinction, according to scientists). "I don't feel very positive about the future – I feel quite angry and upset. We're stuck in this real sense of loss and grief. But it's also too soon for grief. There's still a lot we can do. Stories create catharsis. We can use that catharsis to get past the paralysis."
"All novels are Anthropocene novels... We're stuck in this real sense of loss and grief"Jane Rawson, who has written a novel set in a future, tropical Melbourne, isn't surprised that climate change is a more prominent theme in Australian fiction than 10 years ago.
"Drought and fire, in particular, are long-running themes in Australian literature," she says. "So a climate-changed version of that is pretty comfortable terrain for an Australian writer."
Australian author Mireille Juchau believes writers can help make the climate change debate more nuanced and empathetic. Credit: James Brickwood
Sydney-based author Mireille Juchau is another writer who explores ecological disasters. Her most recent novel, The World Without Us, won a Victorian Premier's Literary Award in 2016 and was also shortlisted for the Stella Prize. The book explores grief and family through a world in which bees are dying out as a result of climate change. It has also been optioned for television.
Juchau believes climate change novels are popular because Australians are increasingly bombarded with alarming statistics. Fiction, she believes, is uniquely placed to explore what happens when those projections become reality.
"I feel like the current political debate – not just in this country, but particularly in this country – is impoverished," she says. "Fiction can help fill those gaps by providing a much more nuanced, exciting, imaginative and profound exploration of what is happening in our current moment. Fiction has this unique ability to articulate the inner life."
James Bradley, who has featured climate breakdown in several of his books, agrees.
Jennifer Mills says she hopes fiction can help people work through their fear and anger over climate change. "It's not a coincidence there are so many dystopias around or that we keep telling stories about zombies and the undead, or even time travel stories," he says. "They're all expressions of a larger sense of a future that's slipping out of our control."
But Victoria University professor and author of the new book The White Girl, Tony Birch, is sceptical about what kind of impact "cli-fi" books can have on people's opinions – let alone government policy.
"I've read some really great fiction dealing with climate change and I hope the genre continues," he says. "But like any other form of communication, its impact will remain limited while we are subject to the deafening shriek of denialism."
Potential outcomes aside, Mills says one thing is clear: these themes aren't going away any time soon. Frequent bushfires and rising oceans haven't been restricted to fiction, either. Flood Damages, a book by young Australian poet Eunice Andrada, recently won the prestigious Anne Elder Award.
"Having done six years of fiction editing ... I've read a lot of emerging writers' submissions," Mills says. "If anything, the new  generation of writers are more passionate about this, more engaged and more aware."

Links

• 7 Novels That Will Fire You Up About Climate Change 
• Could Cli-Fi Help Inspire Real Climate Change Action?
• How Climate-Change Fiction, Or “Cli-Fi,” Forces Us To Confront The Incipient Death Of The Planet
• Planet Earth Calling Doctor Who’s New Time Lady: Save Us
• 10 Climate Change Books To Help You Understand Our Environment
• 8 Ways To Teach Climate Change In Almost Any Classroom

NBC News - Ben Kesslen

"The global climate crisis is the greatest challenge that humanity will ever face," the Pink Floyd frontman said.
David Gilmour performs live at the United Center on April 4, 2016 in Chicago. Rob Grabowski / Invision/AP filePink Floyd frontman David Gilmour sold his guitars for US$21 million (A$31m) at auction on Thursday to raise money for a nonprofit fighting climate change.
Gilmour, the guitarist, singer, and songwriter of the legendary English rock band, offered the largest and most comprehensive sale of guitars ever offered at auction, according to Christie’s, which sold the instruments.
On Wednesday, Gilmour announced all proceeds would go to ClientEarth, a “charity that uses the power of the law to protect the planet and the people who live on it,” according to its website.


Pink Floyd's David Gilmour sells guitar collection to fund climate change activists

On Twitter, Gilmour said he chose ClientEarth because “the global climate crisis is the greatest challenge that humanity will ever face, and we are within a few years of the effects of global warming being irreversible.”
Gilmour sold a total of 126 items, including the iconic “black strat” guitar, which for nearly $4 million, far exceeding its pre-sale estimate of $150,000. Gilmour purchased the “black strat” in New York in 1970, and it was used to record “Dark Side of the Moon,” according to Caitlin Graham, a Christie’s consultant.
ClientEarth CEO James Thornton expressed his gratitude for Gilmour’s donation in a statement: "This is a truly humbling and extraordinary gift, which goes beyond our wildest expectations. It’s difficult to express just how deeply grateful we are to David for choosing ClientEarth as the beneficiary of this historic auction.”
“We need a civilised world that goes on for all our grandchildren and beyond in which these guitars can be played and songs can be sung,” Gilmour said on Twitter.
I am pleased to announce that all the proceeds from the #GilmourGuitars Sale at @ChristiesInc in New York tomorrow will be donated to the charity @ClientEarth. (1/5) pic.twitter.com/uFJ1CvA6QK— David Gilmour (@_DavidGilmour) June 19, 2019Links

• David Gilmour's Guitars Sell for Millions at Charity Auction
• David Gilmour auctions guitars to raise $21M for climate change charity
• 'Cartoons For Future': Artists React To The Climate Crisis
• Here There Be Monsters (Made Of Coal, Plastic And Pesticides)
• It Looks Like Banksy Just Created An Extinction Rebellion Mural
• Why This Climate Change Data Is On Flip-Flops, Leggings, And Cars
• How Sci-Fi Could Help Solve Climate Change
• Ten Of The Best Books About Climate Change, Conservation And The Environment of 2018

ABC News - AP

The once-classified spy satellite images provide crucial missing evidence to scientists. (NRO via AP)Cold War-era spy satellite images are showing scientists that glaciers on the Himalayas are now melting about twice as fast as they used to.The Asian mountain range, which includes Mount Everest, has been losing ice at a rate of about 1 per cent a year since 2000, according to a study published on Wednesday in the journal Science Advances.
"The amount of ice [lost] is scary but what is much more scary is the doubling of the melt rate," said Josh Maurer, a glacier researcher at Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory and lead author of the study.
Forget the queues on Everest,
this is the real crisis in the Himalayas
A leading climate scientist says the change happening to mountain environments is "mind-boggling".The Himalayas, part of an area that is referred to as the "third pole" because it has so much ice, has only 72 per cent of the ice that was there in 1975.
It has been losing about 7.5 billion tonnes of ice a year, compared to 3.9 billion tonnes a year between 1975 and 2000, according to the study.
The Himalayan melt does not contribute much to sea level rise, Mr Mauer said, because it is dwarfed by melting in Greenland and Antarctica.
But the loss of the ice means current and future disruptions of water supplies — both surges and shortages — for the hundreds of millions of people in the region who rely on it for hydropower, agriculture and drinking, said study co-author Jorg Schaefer, a climate geochemistry professor at Columbia.
"Disaster is in the making here," Mr Schaefer said.
The Changri Nup Glacier in Nepal, much of it covered by rocky debris. (AP: Joshua Maurer)Scientists lacked some critical data on ice in the Himalayas until Mr Maurer found once-classified 3D images from US spy satellites that had been put online.
Those images allowed Mr Maurer to calculate how much ice was on the Himalayas in 1975. He then used other satellite data to measure ice in 2000 and then again in 2016.
Past research looked at individual Himalayan glaciers over short time periods, but this is the first to look at the big picture — 650 glaciers over decades, Mr Schaefer said.
For years, scientists have looked at many possible causes for melting glaciers, including pollution and changes in rainfall.
But when the team was able to see trends using long-term data, they found the major culprit: "it's clear it's temperature and everything else doesn't matter as much," Mr Schaefer said.
A still of a 3D model that researchers made from the NSO pics, showing the Himalayan glaciers in the mid-1970s. (NSO)Mr Maurer double-checked that conclusion by feeding the data into a computer model. It "predicted" the same type of ice melt that happened over the four decades.
NASA climate scientist Josh Willis, who wasn't part of the study, said it provided important confirmation of what scientists suspected and what models showed.
"As a scientist, it's nice to hear that we're right, but then again as a civilian, it's sometimes a little scary to hear that we're right," Mr Willis said.

Links

• Forget the queues on Everest, this is the real crisis in the Himalayas
• Nearly 2 Billion People Depend On Himalayan Glaciers. What If They Melt?
• Melting Himalayan Glaciers: A Big Drop In A Bucket That’s Already Full
• Rising Temperatures Could Melt Most Himalayan Glaciers by 2100
• First-Ever Everest Drill: World’s Highest Glacier More Sensitive To Climate Change Than Expected
• Warm Ice In Mount Everest’s Glaciers Makes Them More Sensitive To Climate Change – New Research
• In Mount Everest Region, World's Highest Glaciers Are Melting, Receding

Reuters - Megan Rowling

Climate change is an "existential issue", and stepping up efforts to keep warming to agreed limits is urgent, the U.N. climate chief says
People stand and watch the sunset on Grand Anse Beach in St. George's, Grenada, November 27, 2016. REUTERS/Carlo AllegriBARCELONA - Climate change is an "existential issue" for humankind, and stepping up efforts to keep warming to globally agreed limits is urgent, the U.N. climate chief said on Monday, calling on governments to make progress at talks in Bonn.
The mid-year climate negotiations are tasked with resolving outstanding issues in setting rules for the 2015 Paris climate accord, ahead of an annual conference in Chile in December.
Patricia Espinosa, head of the U.N. climate change secretariat, said existing country pledges to cut planet-warming emissions would heat the planet by 3 degrees Celsius (5.4F) from pre-industrial times.
"That is just not possible," she said, adding it would leave people sicker and result in battles over resources such as water and land, with coastal residents losing homes to rising seas.
"We are literally in a climate emergency, and... we are increasingly hearing that this is the fight of our lives," she said.
The Paris Agreement, now ratified by 185 countries, set a goal to limit the rise in average global temperatures to "well below" 2C and to strive for 1.5C. Temperatures have increased by about 1C already.
"It's time that all people open their eyes to just how urgent things are," Espinosa told journalists on the first day of the talks. "We need to get to the 1.5 degree goal."
Doing so would provide benefits in the form of less air pollution - much of which is caused by burning fossil fuels for transport, power and industry - better health for children, cleaner water and green jobs, she stressed.
As the Bonn talks got underway, developing countries that are suffering some of the worst impacts of wilder weather - from sizzling temperatures in India to cyclone devastation in Mozambique - need more funding to try to cope, campaigners said.
Harjeet Singh, who leads on climate change for charity ActionAid, said "it's all about life and death" for impoverished communities facing wilder weather with very little protection.
Simon Stiell, Grenada's minister for climate resilience, told media in a telephone briefing that small island developing states were experiencing everything from flooding, sea surges and droughts to coastal erosion and loss of coral reefs.
"All of these phenomena are a direct and real threat to life and the livelihoods of our people," he said, urging more European states to follow Britain in setting a target for net-zero emissions by mid-century.

Carbon Market
Stiell and Daryl Vaz, a Jamaican minister who leads efforts to deal with climate change, also called on wealthy governments to boost contributions to the Green Climate Fund, which is helping the Caribbean island nations implement projects to adapt to a warmer world.
U.N. climate chief Espinosa said the different streams of financing for climate action around the world were "all over the place" and needed to be brought together in a unified system. In Bonn, at the June 17-27 talks, government officials should concentrate on devising a "solid" mechanism for carbon markets, which business is waiting for, she added.
This is a key area that was postponed when the "rulebook" for the Paris Agreement was hammered out last December.
The Paris pact allows countries to transfer emissions reductions among themselves using carbon credits, but they have yet to agree on how to do that to ensure the reductions are not counted twice where they are produced and purchased.
Espinosa said protests and school strikes by young people over government inaction on climate change - a movement that has gathered steam since last year - should serve as a reminder to U.N. negotiators why their work mattered.
"They (youth) have credible and solid demands that are mobilising political leadership," she said.

Links

• United Nations Says 80 Countries May Ramp Up Climate Pledges
• Torres Strait Islanders Ask UN To Hold Australia To Account On Climate ‘Human Rights Abuses’
• Torres Strait Islanders Accuse Government Of Human Rights Breach Over Climate Inaction
• Climate Change: Global Impacts 'Accelerating' - WMO
• 'Great Concern': World Meteorology Agency Reports Bad Climate Tidings
• UN Warns World On Track To Breach 3c Rise By 2100; Last Year Was Fourth Warmest On Record
• Tuvalu Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga Says Australia's Climate Change Inaction Undermines Its 'Pacific Pivot'
• World Must Triple Efforts Or Face Catastrophic Climate Change, Says UN
• Australia Not On Track To Hit Paris Emissions Goals, As UN Warns Global Efforts Must Increase
• Earth's Climate Monsters Could Be Unleashed As Temperatures Rise