Feed aggregator

ABC News - Josh Bavas | Allyson Horn

Adani Australia CEO Lucas Dow previously said they were ready to begin work as soon as the approval was given. (ABC News: Jessica Rendall)Adani has passed its final environmental approval and can now begin work on its Carmichael mine in Central Queensland after nearly nine years of planning, fierce protests and endless political debate.Queensland's Environment Department this afternoon approved the mine's groundwater management plan, with construction at the Galilee Basin to ramp up over the coming weeks.
Over the past 18 months Adani had produced about a dozen versions of its groundwater management plan. Previous attempts failed to meet key environmental requirements, including a plan to avoid destroying one of the world's last unspoiled desert oases, the Doongmabulla Springs Complex.
Explainer
What we know about Adani's
Carmichael coal mine
Here's what we know — and still don't know — about Adani's Carmichael coal mine project in central Queensland.
It was ordered to identify the source of the springs and today the Environment Department said Adani had sufficiently established that Clematis Sandstone was the main source aquifer.
However, the miner was ordered to do further investigation and install a new bore to rule out whether the Permian aquifers (Colinlea) was also a source.
It will also be required to do further work over the next two years to identify any other potential source, by using detailed hydrogeochemical analysis of groundwater from different springs, isotopic analysis, air sampling and examinations of core samples from new bores.
The Department said while box cut mining can begin at the site, underground mining will not commence until the further testing is completed.
The Department said it sought advice from CSIRO and Geoscience Australia, which it received last week, and decided to approve the plan in its current form.
"CSIRO and Geoscience Australia also confirmed that some level of uncertainty in geological and groundwater conceptual models always exists," the Department said in a statement.

Miner 'ready to start work'
Adani Australia chief executive Lucas Dow said the company was ready to start work.
"Over the coming days preparatory activities such as finalising contracts, mobilising equipment, recruitment and completing inductions will continue," he said.
Graphic map showing location of Adani's proposed Carmichael Coal Mine in central Queensland with a rail line connecting to the Aurizon Network that then travels to the Abbot Point terminal near Bowen in north Queensland. (ABC News)"These preparatory actions will enable us to then start construction activities, including fencing, bridge and road upgrades, water management and civil earthworks on the mine site.
"The level of construction activity will then steadily increase over the coming weeks."
Mr Dow said the mine would need about 1,500 employees, and was expected to create 6,750 indirect jobs in the region.

Minister unapologetic over approval time
Queensland Environment Minister Leeanne Enoch told Parliament the plan was approved after significant amendments and the commitment to continue further monitoring.
"At times the robustness of the process has attracted criticism from those in the media and the community who would have liked a quicker decision," she said.
"And, it has been derided by the LNP here in Queensland who have appeared to be keen to see all environmental processes abandoned.


Queensland Environment Minister Leeanne Enoch announces Adani approval.  (ABC News)

"But the people of Queensland have a right to expect that the Government takes a responsible approach to environmental protection, upholds the law and supports decisions based on the best available science.
"Our state has some of the most rigorous environmental protections in the country and we do not apologise for that."

First mining basin opened up in five decades
The Carmichael mine is the first to gain approval for the Galilee Basin, another six are proposed for the region.
Federal Resources Minister Matt Canavan said the approval was made only because Queensland's Labor Government politicians feared they would lose their seats.
A map showing Adani's multi-billion dollar mine and rail project. (Sourced: adanimining.com)"It has been more than 50 years since a new coal basin has opened in Queensland, so this development is of huge importance to the economic future of Queensland," he said.
"Adani is the biggest commercial investment from an Indian company in Australia. Hopefully there will now be many more investments to come."

Approval comes after frustrated Premier set deadline
After Labor's poor results at the federal election, Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk last month said she was "fed up" with both the federal and state delays for the Indian miner and gave her Environment Department the new deadlines.
Today's approval comes almost a fortnight after the Department granted approval for the mine's conservation plan for the endangered black-throated finch.
Stage 1 construction is underway, but today's approval means the miner can now start significant work. (Twitter: Matthew Canavan)While today's decision gives Adani the green light, designs for its railway line to get coal to the Abbot Point terminal, north of Bowen, are yet to be finalised.
It has approvals to produce up to 60 million tonnes of thermal coal every year but at this stage is only planning to produce about 27.5 million tonnes.
Late yesterday the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) won a Federal Court appeal, which found the Commonwealth had not properly assessed about 2,000 public submissions on Adani's plans to use river water.
But the ACF conceded that the decision was unlikely to further delay the controversial project given today's "green light".

Links

• What we know about Adani's Carmichael coal mine project
• Adani coal mine a step closer with Environment Minister endorsing groundwater approvals
• Scientists Warn Ancient Desert Springs May Dry Up Under Adani Plan
• Al Gore Slams Adani, Tells Queensland 'Good Luck' In Selling Coal To India
• ABC Says It Didn't Reject Adani Story Because Of Company Pressure
• Environment Leaders Reflect On Their Role In The 'Climate Election'
• Explaining Adani: Why Would A Billionaire Persist With A Mine That Will Probably Lose Money?
• Australia Keeps Voting For Coal, But Investors Are Quietly Abandoning Plans For New Mines
• Australia Plans Coalfield The Size Of Britain In Climate Change U-Turn
• Morrison Sprints To Adani Approval

Cosmos - Nick Carne

Major review finds a warming world will be a more violent world. Nick Carne reports.
Politics and poverty are still more important than climate change as drivers of conflict, but that situation may change. Photo by Chris McGrath/Getty ImagesClimate wars are not yet upon us, according to an international team of experts drawn from diverse backgrounds.
Writing in the journal Nature, they suggest that while the influence of climate is tangible, affecting and exacerbating conflicts, it has not so far been the root cause of war.
Old-school problems such as poor socioeconomic development, inequality, bad statesmanship and a recent history of violence are still much more influential.
The team, which was led by Katharine Mach from Stanford University, US, comprised three assessment facilitators and 11 climate and conflict experts spanning a range of social science disciplines, including political science, economics, geography and environmental sciences.
They also brought to the table different epistemological approaches and diverse previous conclusions about climate and conflict.
Their paper thus assesses the current understanding of the relationship between climate and conflict based on their combined structured judgments.
“Across the experts, best estimates are that 3-20% of conflict risk over the past century has been influenced by climate variability or change, and none of their individual estimated ranges excludes a role of climate in 10% of conflict risk to date,” the researchers write.
The mean estimate across the experts is that climate variability or change has substantially increased risk across 5% of conflicts to date.
However, this is likely to rise to 13% if the global mean temperature rises by two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and 26% for four degrees.
“Future climate-conflict linkages could involve exacerbation of climate-conflict connections that are present in experiences to date, climate change effects that are fundamentally beyond previous experiences or circumstances in which existing response capacities reach their limits,” the authors write.
“Across these categories, relevant climate change risks include substantial economic effects, climatic extremes and associated disasters, effects on agricultural production or differential climate change effects that increase intergroup inequalities.
“Such influences could also reveal ‘missing’ institutions, for which governance mechanisms do not yet exist to address emergent climate change risks (for example, the potential for substantial increases in migration).”
Is there any good news?
The experts suggest with a 67% probability (mean average, of course) that climate-related conflict risk “could be reduced through investments that address known drivers”. For a four-degree-Celsius scenario, this drops to a 57% probability, given the more severe climate change effects.
And the take home message?
“For those scholars and policy-makers focused on conflict, the assessment has pointed to the different ways in which climate may interact with the major drivers of conflict risk,” Mach and colleagues conclude.
“Effectively managing such interactions will require mainstream and holistic, rather than myopic, considerations of the role of the climate across diverse settings and attention to uncertainties that will persist.”

Links

• Climate as a risk factor for armed conflict
• Warming increases the risk of civil war in Africa
• Quantifying the Influence of Climate on Human Conflict
• One effect to rule them all? A comment on climate and conflict
• Climate change and conflict: Making sense of disparate findings
• Climate and Conflict
• Climate variability, economic growth, and civil conflict
• Temperature and violence
• Climate change and violent conflict

Solar Quotes - Michael Bloch


A group representing thousands of farmers across Australia is demanding the Federal Government takes “swift and decisive action” to rein in the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The National Greenhouse Gas Inventory update for December 2018 was released last week and shows Australia’s emissions rose again.
While the report was six days late, there was some prior warning about this outcome after preliminary estimates submitted to the UN were published indicating Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions would be up again for the fourth year in a row.
"As the country grapples with drought, water shortages and the aftermath of the hottest summer on record, it’s abundantly clear. Acting on climate change is not a nice-to-have or optional extra. It’s a strategic and productivity necessity if we want to keep producing food and fibre for the world," said Farmers for Climate Action CEO Verity Morgan-Schmidt.The group points out while the latest inventory update noted emissions associated with the agriculture and electricity sectors dropped, it wasn’t enough to offset transport and LNG emissions increases.
Ms. Morgan-Schmidt says farmers are concerned the government still isn’t taking the level of action necessary to address what is the biggest issue threatening Australia’s agricultural sector.
"We’re beginning to feel like a broken record, but our emissions just keep heading in the wrong direction."While farmers are adapting to changed conditions, their capacity to adapt has limits.

About Farmers For Climate Action
Farmers for Climate Action is a non-partisan group representing approximately 5,000 farmers from across Australia. According to the National Farmer’s Federation, there are approximately 85,681 farm businesses in the country.
Among other climate-related demands, the group is calling for the rapid transformation of Australia’s energy system away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy in a way that maximises benefits to farmers and regional communities.
According to its 2016 climate survey of 1,338 farmers and graziers, 80% supported more renewable energy in regional Australia.
Further information on the organisation and its strategic plan can be viewed here.

On-Farm Solar Power – Good For Planet, Good For Pocket
Australian farmers are increasingly embracing on-site solar energy generation. Installing renewables-based electricity generation on-farm isn’t just beneficial in terms of emissions reductions; but it can save farmers a bundle of cash too.
The cost of commercial solar power has dropped rapidly and in addition to the “solar rebate” still available nationally, other support can be accessed in various states. For example, the Queensland Rural and Industry Development Authority (QRIDA) last week published a video outlining the story of a fish farm near Childers that was able to install solar with the assistance of a Sustainability Loan.


Pond Perch Farming grows out perch for domestic and Asian markets. One of the Volz’s biggest expenses is electricity, but with the addition of the solar power system their mains electricity use is expected to reduce by around 30%.

Links

• Farmers for Climate Action
• Beef tracking towards carbon neutral goal
• Premier’s Adani intervention undermines grazier confidence
• Farmers call for incoming Government to act on climate
• Farmers call for science to trump propaganda
• Adani mine: Qld farmers petition Ministers about ‘devastating’ water impacts
• Australia’s emissions trajectory threatens farm viability

Deutsche Welle

Building on the "Fridays for Future" demonstrations, an exhibition in Dortmund shows 100 cartoons by international artists commenting on the climate emergency.
Mona Greta
Mona Greta: combination of da Vinci's Mona Lisa and Greta Thunberg' portrait. BerndPohlenzOne hundred drawings by international artists are featured in the exhibition "Cartoons for Future." Portraying the school strike for climate, plastic in the sea, mountains of garbage, traffic chaos, water pollution or the exploitation of developing countries by Western corporations, the illustrations offer insight into how the global emergency is viewed from different parts of the world.
Clean drinking water for everyone?
Rather than a bowl full of water, this girl tries to imbibe dried-out soil. Hungarian illustrator Gergely Bacsa calls attention to the water shortage in many countries. Silke WünschStudents in Dortmund have also been taking part in the "Fridays for Future" demonstrations for some time already. The mayor of the city was so impressed by the movement that he wanted to show his support for the schoolchildren's concerns. He quickly came up with the concept of an exhibition with curator and artist Bernd Pohlenz.
"A child who is now 4 years old will probably live to see the turn of the next century. And then you obviously start thinking about the future," said Pohlenz, who is also a father of six children and grandfather of four. As the administrator of the toonpool website, a collection of nearly 300,000 drawings by 2,500 artists from 120 countries, Pohlenz had access to this large pool of cartoons and selected exactly 100 of them for the exhibition.
Too late?
Greta Thunberg, the leading figure in the climate activism movement "Fridays for Future," is up to her neck in water in this drawing by Austrian Marian Kamensky: Her "school strike for the climate" (as it says in Swedish on the poster) kicked off too late.The artists come from all continents, from countries as varied as the Netherlands, Australia, China and Burkina Faso — a reflection of the diversity of the drawings themselves. Thought-provoking, shrill, in color or black-and-white, some are outright funny or ironic while others play on dark humor.
The drawing for the exhibition's poster, the Mona Greta (top picture), was created by Pohlenz himself. He combined the famous painting by the humanist and naturalist Leonardo da Vinci with a portrait of the star teenage climate activist, Greta Thunberg.
The fruits of the country are out of reach
 'Poverty': A mother with two children looks at food on a shelf with the word 'Inflation.'" Said MichaelFrom frequent flying to the exploitation of developing countries
The drawings of the exhibition are organized according to different themes, such as global meat production, cheap flights, politics, human rights and exploitation. Some artists point blame at various countries, depicting for example Germany's love of cars, the ignorant climate policy of the current US administration or Western countries stealing resources from developing countries.
One drawing mocks the so-called environmental zones established in Germany: It shows a 20-meter stretch of road that's car-free — but surrounded by a detour route clogged with stinking cars.
What global warming?
What global warming?': Donald Trump driving underwater in a golf cart called Hoax. Bart van LeeuwenAnother piece reacts to a statement by Christian Lindner, leader of the pro-business Free Democratic Party of Germany (FDP), who said in reaction to the "Fridays for Future" demonstrations that climate protection is "a thing that should be left to professionals." The cartoon depicts the Reichstag building in Berlin under a merciless sun, surrounded by an arid landscape.
Beyond the 100 drawings, Pohlenz is planning on adding a screen to display more cartoons, since many artists found the idea so good that they wanted to contribute additional works.
The "Cartoons for Future" exhibition's program also includes cartoon workshops and an international drawing contest. The show runs until August 18 at the Dortmunder U Center for the Arts and Creativity.
Great view?
Tourism at any cost? The couple is taking a selfie in front of the sunset, but is apparently oblivious to the fact that they're standing on the mountain of trash. Tjeerd RoyaardsThe globe in despair
Many of the illustrations in the exhibition address the plastic garbage that has contaminated the world's oceans. Here, the Earth holds its face in its hands in a moment of desperation. Arcadio EsquivelFrom one disaster to another
This illustration by Burkinabé artist Damien Glez reflects on the fate of thousands upon thousands of refugees and migrants: The supposed better life elsewhere has its owns risks.Links

•  German political parties go green for EU 'climate election'
•  Constance becomes first German city to declare 'climate emergency'
•  Fridays for Future climate activist denounces RWE at shareholders' meeting
•  Greta Thunberg at London climate protest: 'We will never stop fighting'
•  Family memoir explores childhood of climate activist Greta Thunberg
•  Schwarzenegger teams up with activist Greta Thunberg at climate summit
• Cartoons for Future: An exhibition bangs the drum for the environment

The Conversation - Chloe Lucas | Adam Corner | Aidan Davison | Peat Leith

It can be tempting to point fingers, but people with other priorities aren’t necessarily bad. AAP Image/Darren EnglandSo much for Australia’s “climate election”. In the event, voters in last month’s federal poll didn’t put climate policy at the top of their wish list.
Contrary to opinion polls predicting a groundswell of support for Labor’s relatively progressive agenda on climate and economics, the election results revealed that Australians are more divided on climate change than we thought.
Voters for progressive climate policy were dismayed at the re-election of a prime minister who famously brought a lump of coal into Parliament. Perhaps understandably, one of the immediate responses among these progressive voters was to express anger at those who don’t share their concern.
But anger feeds a divisive politics that cannot help us to address our big collective challenges. By retreating into social media echo chambers where mockery and disrespect are the norm, we risk losing entirely the social cohesion and trust needed for democracy to work.
A whole-of-society discussion about our collective future is urgently needed. Now is the time to reinvent how we communicate about climate change, particularly with those who don’t see it as an urgent concern. Here’s how.

Addressing the ‘climate-unconcerned’
Contrary to the assumption that unconcern about climate change is evidence of selfishness or politically motivated denial, our research shows that people who resist climate concern are just as likely to be caring, ethical and socially minded as anyone else.
While there is a small minority of people who actively campaign against climate action, within society at large, those who are simply unconcerned about the climate crisis encompass a broad range of political views and levels of political engagement.
Far from being prejudiced, unreasonable, apathetic or ignorant, our studies in Australia and the UK show that many people who are unconcerned about the climate nevertheless care about issues including justice, the common good, and the health of ecosystems.
Belonging to a social group that doesn’t have its own narratives of climate concern is one of the most common reasons for unconcern. People who are unconcerned about climate change often see it as a “greenie” issue. If they identify themselves as opposed to green politics, they are unlikely to prioritise calls for climate action.
The rural/city divide also plays a key part in polarising narratives of climate action, as regional and outer-urban Australians, who are more likely to be economically dependent on natural resources, feel ignored and devalued by policies designed to appeal to capital city electorates. If we want to break down polarisation on climate change, we need to understand what matters to rural and conservative social groups.

Bridging the divide
Our findings suggest a set of principles for engaging with people who are unconcerned about climate change:

• Respect difference
  Don’t assume that being unconcerned about climate change is a moral failing. People have other active concerns that are no less valid.
• Listen
  Build relationships with people who have different life experiences to your own, by asking what is important to them. Appreciate that some people may find social change more threatening and immediate than climate change. Empathising with this feeling can foster understanding of the core concerns that underpin resistance to change, and potentially help identify ways to address these concerns.
• Value values
  Avoid arguments based on appeals to the authority of science, or the consensus of expert opinion. “Debating the science” is a red herring – people’s responses to claims about climate change are motivated primarily by what they value, and the narratives of their social group, not their acceptance of scientific fact. Focus on values you might have in common, rather than getting caught up in disputes over facts.
• Move beyond Left and Right
  Don’t conflate political ideology with stance on climate. Showing that climate is not a defining issue for social groups is really important to avoid polarisation. We need to work against the idea that action on climate is an exclusively left-wing or “greenie” agenda.

Adopting these principles can help to build a political culture around climate science and policy that responds to the different priorities of Australians, all of whom are simply seeking a safe and secure future. This approach recognises that no action on climate change is possible without public trust and involvement in democratic institutions.

What can we learn from the UK?
Australia’s parliamentary system and media environment have much in common with that of the UK. Although the UK has not been immune to political divisions on climate change, with levels of concern typically higher on the political left than on the right, Britain has maintained a bipartisan approach.
With the help of intiatives supporting a pluralistic approach to climate policy discussions, the UK Climate Change Act passed into law in 2008 with almost unanimous cross-party support.
Research in the UK has provided an evidence-based set of language and narratives to use when discussing climate change. This is focused on core socially conservative values such as maintaining the status quo (protecting it from a changing climate), avoiding waste (of household energy), and investing in secure (renewable) energy. There is also a push to reinvigorate democratic debate through citizens’ assemblies on climate change.
Now is the time for Australians to listen to each other, and develop a pluralistic approach to discussions on our shared future. The alternative is to sink deeper into partisan hostility and recrimination. And after a decade of division on climate policy, is that really the best way forward?

Links

• Australians disagree on how important climate change is: poll
• The UK has a national climate change act – why don't we?
• Social media echo chambers are hurting climate debate
• Not ‘getting on the bandwagon’: When climate change is a matter of unconcern
• People and issues outside our big cities are diverse, but these priorities stand out
• Facts won’t beat the climate deniers – using their tactics will
• Tools for a new climate conversation: A mixed-methods study of language for public engagement across the political spectrum
• Climate Outreach
• Changing Minds: How Do You Communicate With Climate Change Skeptics?
• Language Matters When The Earth Is In The Midst Of A Climate Crisis
• Graphic Design Could Be Holding Back Action On Climate Change – Here’s How 
• Can Comedy Help Communicate Climate Change?
• It’s Time For Climate Change Communicators To Listen To Social Science

CNN - Brian Lowry

 Leonardo DiCaprio: "Ice on Fire"As you may have heard, celebrities have been using their clout to get out the message on climate change -- inviting the question, frequently, as to whether they're a hindrance or a help to that cause.If there's any area where star power seems to be put to the most effective use, it's the documentary, where attaching names like Leonardo DiCaprio and Arnold Schwarzenegger helps projects that might evaporate into the ether get on the media's radar.
Leonardo DiCaprio's green project

DiCaprio weighs in this week with "Ice on Fire," a better-than-most film on the topic that gets beyond the dire warnings to contemplating what can actually be done to help turn, or at least significantly curb, the tide.
For his part, Schwarzenegger plays the same role on "Wonders of the Sea," a project exploring the oceans made in conjunction with Jean-Michel Cousteau, the seafaring explorer and son of the legendary Jacques Cousteau.At this point, subtlety isn't part of the strategy, and the time for parsing sentences and pulling punches appears to be over.Climate change, DiCaprio says near the outset of "Ice on Fire, "has changed life on Earth as we know it. ... The impact of our actions are starting to hit home. Scientists' predictions are now coming true sooner than expected."In "Wonders," Schwarzenegger notes that the film and others like it "should be required viewing for decision makers everywhere." Cousteau adds in regard to the threat to reefs and sea life, "The ocean survives without us. We don't survive without the ocean."

Arnold Schwarzenegger: Trump wrong on climate change

Still, there are rays of hope in each film, predicated on the notion that society and governments can be rallied to act, and soon, employing some of the cutting-edge technology on display. Wisely, "Ice on Fire" directly connects a spate of natural disasters directly to the climate crisis, while dotting the globe -- to Norway and Iceland, Colorado and Alaska -- to hear from scientists and researchers exploring means of addressing the issue.A nagging challenge for climate change has been not only the denialism among key quadrants of the political class but difficulty getting the public to focus on the problem. Celebrities, in that regard, are a way of cutting through the clutter, but not without the baggage of images that include privileged lives and private jets.DiCaprio, it's worth noting, is no debutant when it comes to the fight, having previously visited five continents for the 2016 documentary "Before the Flood."Others are taking action as well, including Robert Downey Jr.'s announcement of the Footprint Coalition, an initiative intended to seek high-tech fixes to save the planet, which inevitably evoked flattering comparisons to his Avengers character.It's unclear, frankly, just how sticky serious policy questions are when sold through the prism of celebrity, or what percentage of the audience drawn to an issue by DiCaprio or Downey is apt to become a serious convert to the cause.The passion of something like "Ice on Fire" is crystal clear, as is its message that the clock is ticking. Whether that can melt through layers of apathy -- what DiCaprio refers to in the press notes as "inaction and complacency" -- enough to move the needle, well, that remains the great unknown.
Links

Sydney Morning Herald - Nicole Hasham

A group of Australia's pre-eminent water scientists say a rare desert oasis may dry up under Adani's "flawed" protections for groundwater near its proposed Carmichael mine, in a scathing assessment days out from a crucial ruling on the plan.
Queensland's Department of Environment and Science is this week due to decide on Adani's groundwater management plan – one of the last remaining barriers to construction of the coal project.
Former federal environment minister Melissa Price granted approval for the highly contentious groundwater plan days out from the federal election campaign. This came despite CSIRO and Geoscience Australia raising concerns over the energy company's modelling and proposed management.
Doongmabulla Springs, which scientists say may be destroyed by the Adani coal mine. Credit: Dean Sewell Adani's plan includes measures to prevent the Carmichael mine from damaging the nationally significant Doongmabulla Springs. The survival of numerous native animals and plant species depends on the wetland, located 7 kilometres south-west of the mine site in the Galilee Basin.
Mining activity such as drilling through aquifers can cause groundwater levels to fall, or "draw down", and reduce water vital to the survival of connected ecosystems.
Seven leading experts from four Australian universities examined the latest groundwater plans and conducted on-site analysis at Doongmabulla Springs.
The team was led by Flinders University hydrogeology professor Adrian Werner, a former adviser to the Queensland government.
Their report concluded that the Carmichael project may cause the springs to stop flowing permanently, pushing the wetland to extinction.
It found Adani is likely to have underestimated future impacts on the springs – partly because the aquifer feeding the wetland had not been identified and Adani's estimates did not consider possible water leakage between underground formations.
The void left behind at the end of the mine's life would draw down water for many years, meaning the worst groundwater impacts would occur after the company left the site, they said.
The Adani coal mine in central Queensland has drawn staunch public opposition. Credit: AAPThe scientists rejected Adani's so-called 'adaptive management' plan to mitigate risks to the wetland. The method – essentially a learning-by-doing approach – was unsuitable partly because of lag times between mining activity and the effect on the springs, they said.
Possible cumulative impacts to the wetland from other proposed coal projects have also not been properly considered, the report added.
Professor Werner said the research showed Adani's water plan was "severely flawed" and risked the extinction of both the springs complex and the flora and fauna that depend on it.
"If we allow Adani to drain billions of litres of water with this groundwater plan then we are effectively playing Russian roulette with the very existence of a million-year-old ecosystem," he said.
The source aquifer for the Doongmabulla Springs is not known, fuelling fears that the coal mine will damage the rare desert oasis. Credit: Dean SewellThe report was presented to officials at the Department of Environment and Science on Wednesday. A department spokesman said it was awaiting advice from CSIRO on Adani's groundwater plan before considering if any changes were required. The department's decision is due on Thursday, June 13.
An Adani spokeswoman said the department had examined 11 versions of its groundwater management plans over more than two years.
"We'll pay attention to the experts and reputable advice of those who have been involved throughout this process, including the CSIRO, Geoscience Australia, the federal Department of Environment and Energy and the Queensland Department of Environment and Science, as they are the authority as it pertains to the review and finalisation process," the spokeswoman said.

Links

• Al Gore Slams Adani, Tells Queensland 'Good Luck' In Selling Coal To India
• ABC Says It Didn't Reject Adani Story Because Of Company Pressure
• Environment Leaders Reflect On Their Role In The 'Climate Election'
• Explaining Adani: Why Would A Billionaire Persist With A Mine That Will Probably Lose Money?
• Australia Keeps Voting For Coal, But Investors Are Quietly Abandoning Plans For New Mines
• Australia Plans Coalfield The Size Of Britain In Climate Change U-Turn
• Morrison Sprints To Adani Approval
• Coal Catastrophe: Why Scott Morrison Can't Give In To Queensland Triumphalism
• Adani Water Plan Ticked Off Within Hours Despite Lack Of Detail, Internal CSIRO Emails Reveal

ThinkProgress - Joe Romm

The fatal flaw in Zuckerberg’s effort to deal with fake news.
Cardboard cutouts of Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg stand outside the US Capitol in Washington, DC, April 10, 2018. CREDIT: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images.Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg keeps dashing any hope that the world’s largest social media platform might be a positive force in the fight against catastrophic climate change.
In its latest disastrous move to fight the online epidemic of fake news, Facebook’s fact-checking effort announced last week that it was teaming up with CheckYourFact.com — an arm of the conservative, anti-science media site The Daily Caller.
The Daily Caller, which has published misinformation about climate science for years, was co-founded by the science-denying Fox News host Tucker Carlson and is backed by major conservative donors, including Charles and David Koch, the billionaire fossil fuel barons who are the single biggest funders of climate science misinformation.

“It is appalling that Facebook has teamed up with a Koch-funded organization that promotes climate change denial,” leading climatologist Michael Mann told ThinkProgress. Mann, whose own work has been misrepresented by The Daily Caller, added, “Facebook must disassociate itself from this organization.”
Following the 2016 election — and the growing realization that Russians, white supremacists, and many others have been using the site to promote hate speech, fake news, and misinformation — Facebook began partnering with independent fact checkers.
But this effort has been undermined by a series of missteps by Facebook and Zuckerberg.
In the fall of 2017, Facebook named the climate science-denying Weekly Standard an official fact-checking partner, against the advice of an independent report.
In May 2018, Zuckerberg brought in a right-wing think tank that spreads climate disinformation to figure out whether Facebook displays a liberal bias. Facebook even hired a PR firm with Republican ties to attack the company’s critics and competitors. It went on to smear philanthropist George Soros, who had been critical of Facebook, with anti-Semitic tropes and dog whistles.
Last July, Zuckerberg made news when he explained that Facebook wouldn’t explicitly ban even something as extreme as Holocaust denial. Then, in clarifying his remarks, he said that while he won’t block fake news from appearing on his site, his fact checkers would stop it from spreading widely.
In December, the Weekly Standard ceased publication, raising the prospect that Facebook might correct its mistake in hiring climate science deniers as fact checkers.
But then Facebook announced it was partnering with the fact-checking arm of The Daily Caller, which was launched in 2010 with $3 million from GOP donor and climate science denier Foster Friess. Since then, many of The Daily Caller’s stories have been written by its News Foundation, which has received funding from both the Charles Koch Institute and the Koch Family Foundations.
It is beyond outrageous that in 2019 — when the science of human-caused climate change has been overwhelmingly verified and every other nation but ours is desperately working to avert catastrophic impacts — the world’s largest social media site is still partnering with climate science deniers.
Indeed, given how many outstanding nonpartisan organizations could serve as Facebook fact checkers, environmental sociologist Robert Brulle asked, “Why they are partnering with an organization that is part of the right wing echo chamber?”
In an email to ThinkProgress, Brulle, who has authored numerous studies on climate communications and lobbying, added, “This is one of the sites that needs to be fact checked, not used as a reliable source. Facebook should cancel this contract.”

Links

• Scientist Slams Daily Caller For Distorting His Research To Suggest Climate Change Is Fake
• Facebook ‘bias’ study will be run by right-wing corporate lobbyist, exclude all liberals
• Fossil fuel industry spent nearly $2 billion to kill U.S. climate action, new study finds
• With new plan, Biden establishes ambitious climate action as the 2020 standard
• Top government officials warn of looming climate change threat
• The climate rebellion inside Amazon
• Trump’s self-proclaimed concern for future generations doesn’t extend to youth climate lawsuit
• Scale of landmark youth climate case compared to Brown v. Board as judges weigh trial
• The growing power of the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge among 2020 Democrats

Climate Liability News - Marco Poggio

A new tool to track emissions from every power plant could bolster claims to hold polluters accountable for climate change. Photo credit: Kevin Frayer/Getty ImagesArtificial intelligence coupled with satellite imagery could soon deliver plaintiffs in climate litigation real-time data on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants around the world. It potentially opens a new front in holding the energy industry accountable for the impacts of those emissions on the climate.
WattTime, an Oakland-based nonprofit, developed a system that will produce actual carbon dioxide measurements by combining image feeds from satellites in low Earth orbit. The end result will be a massive trove of data, which will then be shared with the public.
Supporters of the project say the data will provide new ammunition to plaintiffs in climate liability cases by showing how much of global warming can be attributed to particular sources.
“This will have massive far-reaching implications in the evidence to back some of those claims, or back some of those potential plaintiffs in court, if it comes to that,” Chiel Borenstein, the director of operations at WattTime, told Climate Liability News.
“You’ll have a central data set that’s reliable and that’s as empirical and precise as possible, and is readily available.”
WattTime officials said some of the data may be available free of charge to the public, but it may charge for deeper access.
Shaun Goho, deputy director of the Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School said the technology could make it easier for plaintiffs to establish that power plants are violating their permit limits. It would depend on whether judges accept its results as reliable, he said.
“I am sure that defendants would contest it at first, but if courts start to accept the data from this technology, then it could lighten the information-gathering burden on plaintiffs,” Goho said.
A more accurate and independent monitoring system could help develop better regulations of those emissions, as well as help enforce compliance, said
Michael Wara, a lawyer and the director of the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University.
“We need to come up with new tools, new approaches on carbon,” Wara said. “An improving measurement is the beginning of progress. This is the direction we need to be taking and it’s very exciting to see it happening.”
Wara said traditional carbon emissions monitoring, such as sensors installed in smokestacks of power plants, are prone to tampering. Satellite imaging will help overcome that problem. It will also create an objective measuring system that applies uniformly across the world, transcending individual countries’ interests, and making it more difficult to cheat.
“This is a way to have data that everyone believes, no matter what country they’re from,” Wara said.
Currently, climate liability cases rely largely on research called the Carbon Majors report to link carbon pollution to particular emitters. That research, spearheaded by Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute, first revealed in 2013 that the majority of carbon pollution could be traced to 100 companies, the Carbon Majors. It was updated in 2017 with data that showed 71 percent of global warming gases were produced by the Carbon Majors, and pinpointed 25 of them as responsible for more than half of all greenhouse gases emitted from 1988-2015.
With that data already in hand, Katrina Fischer Kuh, a professor of environmental law at Pace Law School, said the new technology isn’t likely to break new ground in litigation, but will allow more accurate monitoring of pollutants to help enforce environmental laws.
“We should be excited about it. I don’t think we necessarily need it for the climate nuisance litigations, but in terms of our ability to regulate and control greenhouse gas emissions and craft effective public policy to do that, it’s extraordinarily helpful,” Kuh said.
Kuh said satellite imagery will prove more helpful in legal cases centered on pollutants other than CO2—methane, for example, which is harder to detect—and could help litigants meet the burden of proof with more precise data on individual emitters. But she said the real legal challenge is the cause-effect connection between emissions and harm done, not on the amount of emissions.
“At least right now, that hasn’t been the aspect of causation that has really been troubling,” she said. “The defendants aren’t disputing that they are responsible for the emissions of a lot of the greenhouse gases.”
The new technology can also provide a boost to measuring compliance with the Paris Climate Agreement, said Sean Hecht, a professor at UCLA School of Law and the co-executive director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. He said WattTime’s technological capabilities will help in countries that produce a large quantity of CO2 emissions but have weak regulations and questionable monitoring.
“The technology seems interesting. Assuming that it’s reliable, the main impact it’s going to have probably isn’t going to be in liability but on the ability to verify emissions and compliance for regulatory purposes, which is a big deal,” Hecht said.
The data collected and shared by WattTime will be particularly useful in monitoring pollutants other than greenhouse gases, he said.
“Anything that helps people to understand what the nature sources of emissions are helps us figure out better how to manage pollution,” Hecht said. “To me, that’s what the promise of that kind of technology is.”
Satellite imaging has been used in recent years to track pollutants and the field is evolving.
Just last week, NASA deployed a new instrument, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3, which will measure carbon dioxide in the atmosphere while orbiting the Earth connected to the International Space Station.
The European Space Agency will decide in November the timeframe for launching a CO2 monitoring satellite, according to a spokesman for Copernicus, the European Earth-observing satellite program.
The World Resources Institute (WRI), a global research nonprofit promoting sustainability initiatives including the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, relies on a vast number of satellites that currently track pollutants.
Earlier this month, WattTime received a $1.7 million grant from Google as part of the Google Artificial Intelligence Impact Challenge to work with WRI and Carbon Tracker, a London-based nonprofit, to harness existing satellite imagery and infrared technology to measure emissions from all power plants nearly in real time.
WRI already has an open-source database of nitrogen dioxide emitted by power plants around the world using satellite imagery and aims to do the same with CO2.
“We are in the process of estimating CO2 on an annual level and publishing it as part of the database,” said Johannes Friedrich, a senior associate at WRI. “This information combined with machine learning algorithms WattTime would like to use aim to fill gaps in CO2 emissions around the globe.”
In recent days, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere exceeded 415 parts per million, the highest in recorded history. Five of the warmest years on record occurred in the past six years, 20 of the warmest have happened in the past 22 and 2019 is on track to be hotter than last year, according to the World Meteorological Organization. More accurate tracking of emissions is clearly a starting point in reducing them.
WattTime will use high-resolution feeds from government-owned satellite networks—Landsat in the U.S. and Copernicus, its European Union counterpart—but also some owned by the private companies, such as DigitalGlobe, which currently sells its imaging products to various industries, including operators of oil and gas pipelines.
Michael Brauer, a professor at the School of Population and Public Health at the University of British Columbia who contributed to the creation of the State of Global Air report, said the technology WattTime is developing is promising, but noted that the software would only track pollution from power plants, which account for a fraction of global emissions.
“Pollutants emissions from power plants, we know that pretty well,” Brauer said, “I don’t think this is really our biggest need from the data side.”
While CO2 emissions from U.S. power plants are tracked by the Environmental Protection Agency, other countries have fewer regulations and transparency. WattTime will prove crucial in bridging that divide, Borenstein said.
“This has massive implications in terms of access, in terms of transparency, and accountability from the perspective of holding organizations and the biggest emitters accountable for their actions,” he said.
In the first week after its initiative was announced, WattTime said it received pledges of varying levels of support from 85 stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations,  nonprofits and satellite-owning companies.
“It’s an exciting time for our organization,” Borenstein said. “It’s an exciting time for the world.”

Links

• WattTime: The Power to Choose Clean Energy
• We’ll soon know the exact air pollution from every power plant in the world. That’s huge.
• Beyond renewables: How timing can reduce corporate emissions
• Measuring Carbon Emissions From Space Will Help Bring Pollution Back Down To Earth
• Google Backs Plan to Map Pollution Coming From Every Power Plant in the World
• Google Supports WattTime Power Plant Emissions Tracking Project
• Polluting Power Plants Can’t Escape the Eyes in the Sky
• These 20 social enterprises and nonprofits just won Google’s AI Impact Challenge
• The Keeling Curve - A daily record of atmospheric carbon dioxide from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego

The Guardian - Damian Carrington

National academies say effects include spread of diseases and worse mental health
The report anticipates the spread of infectious diseases in Europe as temperatures rise and increase the range of mosquitoes that transmit dengue fever. Photograph: Ricardo Mazalan/AP A report by experts from 27 national science academies has set out the widespread damage global heating is already causing to people’s health and the increasingly serious impacts expected in future.
Scorching heatwaves and floods will claim more victims as extreme weather increases but there are serious indirect effects too, from spreading mosquito-borne diseases to worsening mental health.
“There are impacts occurring now [and], over the coming century, climate change has to be ranked as one of the most serious threats to health,” said Prof Sir Andrew Haines, a co-chair of the report for the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (Easac).
However, there were also great benefits from action to cut carbon emissions, the report found, most notably cutting the 350,000 early deaths from air pollution every year in Europe caused by burning fossil fuels. “The economic benefits of action to address the current and prospective health effects of climate change are likely to be substantial,” the report concluded.
The World Health Organization director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, warned in November that climate breakdown was already a health crisis. “We cannot delay action on climate change,” he said. “We cannot sleepwalk through this health emergency any longer.” In December, a WHO report said tackling the climate crisis would save at least a million lives a year, making it a moral imperative to act.
A Serbian farmer Radovan Krstic shows his damaged corn crop. Photograph: Darko Vojinovic/AP The new Easeac report, The Imperative of Climate Action to Protect Human Health in Europe, assessed the scientific evidence of the effects of global heating on health. Extreme weather such as heatwaves, floods and droughts have direct short-term impacts but also affect people in the longer term. “Mental health effects include post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, substance abuse and depression,” the report said.
The scientists were also concerned by the effect of extreme weather on food production, with studies showing a 5-25% cut in staple crop yields across the Mediterranean region in coming decades. But the report said even small cuts in meat eating could lead to significant cuts in carbon emissions, as well as benefits to health.
The report anticipates the spread of infectious diseases in Europe as temperatures rise and increase the range of mosquitoes that transmit dengue fever and ticks that cause Lyme disease. Food poisoning could also rise, as salmonella bacteria thrived in warmer conditions, the report said. It even found research suggesting antibiotic resistance in E coli increases in hotter conditions.
“We are exposing the whole of the world population to changes in climate, and this is clearly very concerning as we are moving to some extent into uncharted territory,” said Haines, professor of environmental change and public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
“We are subjecting young people and future generations to these increasing [health] risks for many hundreds of years to come, if not millennia,” he said. “We have to try to minimise the effects and move towards a low-carbon economy.
“We think reframing climate change as a health issue can help to engage the public because most people are not just concerned about their own health, but about the health of their nearest and dearest and their descendants.
“We think this is a way of mobilising the public and raising concern in a constructive way and increasing the momentum for change.”
Global carbon emissions are still rising but scientists say rapid and deep cuts are needed to limit temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels and avoid the worst impacts.

Links

• The imperative of climate action to protect human health in Europe
• Climate change already a health emergency, say experts
• Save millions of lives by tackling climate change, says WHO
• We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN
• 'So much land under so much water': extreme flooding is drowning parts of the midwest
• No 10 denies claim by chancellor that emissions target will cost UK £1tn
• It is absurd to question whether we can afford to keep our planet liveable
• Public concern over environment reaches record high in UK
• Eight reasons Trump's 'clean climate' claims fail to stack up
• Latest data shows steep rises in CO2 for seventh year
• Labour would force firms to fight climate crisis or lose contracts
• Scotland faces climate 'apocalypse' without action to cut emissions
• Guardian spurs media outlets to consider stronger climate language

Washington Post - Juliet Eilperin | Josh Dawsey | Brady Dennis

Officials sought to excise the State Department’s comments on climate science because they did not mesh with the administration’s stance
According to the National Park Service, Glacier National Park’s ice sheets are a fraction of the size they were 100 years ago. (Beth J. Harpaz/AP)White House officials barred a State Department intelligence agency from submitting written testimony this week to the House Intelligence Committee warning that human-caused climate change is “possibly catastrophic.”
The move came after State officials refused to excise the document’s references to federal scientific findings on climate change.
The effort to edit, and ultimately suppress, the prepared testimony by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research comes as the Trump administration is debating how best to challenge the fact that burning fossil fuels is warming the planet and could pose serious risks unless the world makes deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. Senior military and intelligence officials have continued to warn climate change could undermine America’s national security — a position President Trump rejects.
Officials from the White House’s Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, and National Security Council all raised objections to parts of the testimony that Rod Schoonover, who works in the Office of the Geographer and Global Issues, prepared to present on the bureau’s behalf for a hearing Wednesday.
The document lays out in stark detail the implications of what the administration faces in light of rising carbon emissions that the world has not curbed.
“Absent extensive mitigating factors or events, we see few plausible future scenarios where significant — possibly catastrophic — harm does not arise from the compounded effects of climate change,” the document said.
White House officials took aim at the document’s scientific citations, which refer to work conducted by federal agencies including NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
According to several senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about internal deliberations, Trump officials sought to cut several pages of the document on the grounds that its description of climate science did not mesh with the administration’s official stance. Critics of the testimony included William Happer, a National Security Council senior director who has touted the benefits of carbon dioxide and sought to establish a federal task force to challenge the scientific consensus that human activity is driving the planet’s rising temperatures.


The Trump administration released on Nov. 23 a long-awaited report outlining that climate change impacts "are intensifying across the country." (Luis Velarde/The Washington Post)

Schoonover’s draft testimony was peppered with comments from the National Security Council, criticizing his characterization of the threats posed by climate change.
"This is not objective testimony at all,” read one comment, according to an individual familiar with the document. “It includes lots of climate alarm propaganda that is not science at all. I am embarrassed to have this go out on behalf of the executive branch of the Federal Government.”
In another passage, Happer objected to the phrase “tipping point” when describing how a certain level of warming could trigger devastating climate-related impacts, the individual said.
"‘Tipping points’ is a propaganda slogan for the scientifically illiterate,” Happer wrote. “They were a favorite of Al Gore’s science adviser, James Hansen.”
Administration officials said the Office of Legislative Affairs ultimately decided that Schoonover could appear before the House panel but could not submit his office’s statement for the record because it did not, in the words of one official, “jibe” with what the administration is seeking to do on climate change. The official added that legislative affairs and staffers at the Office of Management and Budget routinely review agency officials’ prepared congressional testimony before they submit it.
A House Intelligence Committee aide confirmed that the panel received the written testimony of the two other intelligence officials who testified at Wednesday’s public hearing, but not Schoonover’s.
Francesco Femia, chief executive of the Council on Strategic Risks and co-founder of the Center for Climate and Security, questioned why the White House would not have allowed an intelligence official to offer a written statement that would be entered into the permanent record.
“This is an intentional failure of the White House to perform a core duty: inform the American public of the threats we face. It’s dangerous and unacceptable,” Femia said in an email Friday. “Any attempt to suppress information on the security risks of climate change threatens to leave the American public vulnerable and unsafe.”
Schoonover, who serves as a professor of chemistry and biochemistry at California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, could not be reached for comment Friday, and the State Department referred questions to the White House. A White House spokesman, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations, said in an email, “The administration does not comment on its internal policy review.”
The Bureau of Intelligence and Research’s 12-page prepared testimony, obtained by The Washington Post on Friday, includes a detailed description of how rising greenhouse gas emissions are raising global temperatures and acidifying the world’s oceans. It warns that these changes are contributing to the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.
“Climate-linked events are disruptive to humans and societies when they harm people directly or substantially weaken the social, political, economic, environmental, or infrastructure systems that support people,” the statement reads. Noting that while some populations may benefit from climate change, it said “the balance of documented evidence to date suggests that net negative effects will overwhelm the positive benefits from climate change for most of the world.”
The document sounds the alarms on several fronts, outlining two dozen ways that “climate-linked stresses” could affect human society. It identifies nine tipping points that could transform the Earth’s system, including “rapid melting in West Antarctic or Greenland ice masses” along with “rapid die-offs of many critically important species, such as coral or insects” and a “massive release of carbon” from methane that is now frozen in the earth. It warns that because scientists have not been able to calculate the likelihood of these thresholds being reached, “crossing them is possible over any future timeframe.”
The prepared testimony also notes that 18 of the past 20 years have ranked as the warmest on record, according to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, “and the last five years have been the warmest five.”
The White House proposed eliminating all of these scientific references.
Trump has been steadfast in shrugging off warnings from scientists about the potential impacts of climate change, reiterating in an interview with Piers Morgan on “Good Morning Britain” this week that he does not regret pulling the United States out of a 2015 global climate accord aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
“I believe that there’s a change in weather, and I think it changes both ways,” he said. “Don’t forget, it used to be called global warming. That wasn’t working. Then it was called climate change. Now it’s actually called extreme weather because, with extreme weather, you can’t miss.”
During the interview he blamed China, India and Russia for polluting the environment and insisted the United States has “among the cleanest climates,” noting that the United States had suffered extreme weather in the past. “Forty years ago, we had the worst tornado binge we’ve ever had. In the 1890s, we had our worst hurricanes.”
The United States remains the world’s second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide, behind China.
What the president meant by “worst hurricanes” is unclear. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the six most costly hurricanes on record have all occurred since 2005, and three — Maria, Harvey and Irma — have hit the United States during Trump’s tenure. The Galveston Hurricane of 1900, in which at least 6,000 people perished, remains the deadliest natural disaster in U.S. history.
As for tornadoes, they have tended to follow boom-and-bust cycles over the decades. The nation saw a relatively low number of tornadoes last year, although this year already nearly 1,000 have been reported. In general, scientists have warned that climate change will make a variety of extreme weather events more likely, namely droughts, hurricanes and wildfires.
Camilo Mora, a geographer and environmental professor at the University of Hawaii, said in an email that the president is rejecting the conclusions made by scientists in his own government.
“The evidence on this issue is overwhelming,” Mora said. “The president questions our change in jargon from warming to climate change to extremes as uncertainty on our side, but in reality we have come to learn that the impacts of greenhouse gases are much broader than we originally thought. By increasing atmospheric temperature, greenhouse gases can also cause drought and heat waves, ripening conditions for wildfires. In humid places, heat causes constant soil water evaporation leading to extreme precipitation, which falls on saturated soils and thus you commonly also get floods.”
Despite the internal controversy over the testimony prepared for Wednesday’s hearing, all three witnesses detailed ways in which climate-related impacts could exacerbate existing national security risks. Peter Kiemel, counselor at the National Intelligence Council, and Jeffrey Ringhausen, a senior analyst at the Office of Naval Intelligence, talked about issues ranging from how terrorist cells could capitalize on water shortages to disputes with other nations over shifting fishing grounds.
Schoonover, for his part, said in his opening statement that the planet was warming and that it could pose a major risk to the United States and other nations.
“The Earth’s climate is unequivocally undergoing a long-term warming trend, as established by decades of scientific measurements and multiple, independent lines of evidence,” he said, adding later:
“Climate change effects could undermine important international systems on which the U.S. is critically dependent, such as trade routes, food and energy supplies, the global economy and domestic stability abroad.”

Links

• Testimony from Rod Schoonover: 'The National Security Implications of Climate Change'
• As White House questions climate change, the military is planning for it
• White House prepares to scrutinize intelligence agencies’ finding that climate change threatens national security
• Donald Trump’s Climate Denial Gets More Ridiculous By The Day
• Pentagon Warns Of Dire Risk To Bases, Troops From Climate Change
• Carbon Emissions Up As Trump Agenda Rolls Back Climate Change Work
• Nine Energy Stories Will Drive 2019 -- Many Of Which Will Be Powered By Trump
• US And Russia Ally With Saudi Arabia To Water Down Climate Pledge
• Climate Denial Was The Crucible For Trumpism
• The Energy 202: Trump Officials Mount Full-Court Press Against Their Own Climate Report
• As A Warming World Wreaks Havoc, Trump Wages War On Climate Science

FoodNavigator - Katy Askew*

istock/Droits d'auteur Aunt_SprayFeeding a future global population of 10 billion people without causing a climate catastrophe this century will require transformational change across the entire value chain.
Fresh evidence suggests climate change is already impacting crop yields.
What are the key challenges and opportunities?
Climate change presents various threats to human and planetary health. Not least among these are the risks to food and nutrition security.
This issue was flagged by a recent far-reaching report from the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC).
According to the report, which surveyed a “large body”​ of independent studies on the health implications of climate change, global warming is already having an adverse impact on human health and risks are only projected to increase.
Current trends in greenhouse gas emissions point to a global average temperature rise of more than 3°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, well above the maximum 2°C target enshrined in the Paris Climate Change Agreement.
The temperature rise will be higher over land than oceans, exposing people to “unprecedented”​ rates of climate change and contributing to the burden of disease and premature death, EASAC noted.
Working group co-chair, Professor Sir Andy Haines of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said he hoped the report would act as a “wake-up call”​ to draw attention to the need for action to decarbonise the economy.
“The protection of health must have a higher profile in policies aimed at mitigating or adapting to the effects of climate change,”​ he stressed. “If urgent action is not taken to reduce emissions in order to keep temperatures below the 2°C (or less) limit ... we face potentially irreversible changes that will have wide ranging impacts on many aspects of health.”​

Food supply under threat
Key commodities are already feeling the impact of climate change ©iStockClimate change is an undeniable risk to food security because it will impact the agricultural production systems on which we reply.
Higher temperatures have long been projected to have a negative impact on crop yields. But a new study led by the University of Minnesota in collaboration with the University of Oxford and the University of Copenhagen presents fresh evidence that this is already happening.
Researchers looked at yields of barley, cassava, maize, oil palm, rapeseed, rice, sorghum, soybean, sugarcane and wheat, which account for 83% of the calories produced on arable land. They found that changes in climactic conditions are already impacting harvests.
Based on reported weather and crop data, they found climate change causes a significant yield variation, ranging from a decrease of 13.4% for palm oil to an increase of 3.5% for soybeans. An average reduction in yield of around 1% was detected.
Impacts varied by both crop type and geography. The implications of climate change on global food production are mostly negative in Europe, Southern Africa, and Australia, generally positive in Latin America, and mixed in Asia and Northern and Central America, the researchers noted.
Half of all food-insecure countries are experiencing decreases in crop production -- and so are some affluent industrialised countries in Western Europe.
"There are winners and losers, and some countries that are already food insecure fare worse,"​ said lead author Deepak Ray of the University of Minnesota's Institute on the Environment. "The research documents how change is already happening, not just in some future time.”​
The EASAC researchers stressed that the economic clout of the European region would likely mean lower domestic production sparked by climate change would probably be offset by higher food imports.
“But this will have increasing consequences for the rest of the world; for example, by importing fodder for livestock from arable land that has been created through deforestation.​
“It is therefore vital to develop climate-smart food systems to ensure more resilient agricultural production and to promote food and nutrition security, for the benefit of human health.”​

What can be done?
Better understanding of agriculture and the food system's unique place in climate change - as both drivers of climate change and victims of it - is helping to increase support for climate action.
Nevertheless, progress across the food system is “lagging”​, according to new analysis from CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) led by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).
Ana María Loboguerrero, the head of global policy research at CCAFS, argues that climate change mitigation efforts need to stretch well beyond agricultural production systems to encompass the entire food chain.
"If you think about the two-degree increase, efforts need to go beyond the agricultural sector,"​ said Loboguerrero. "This means reducing emissions by stopping deforestation, decreasing food loss and waste, reducing supply chain emissions, and rethinking human diets, if we really want to get on track to that target."​
Agricultural production accounts for about 10-12% of all emissions.
Significantly, food waste alone accounts for almost as many GHG emissions as agriculture. With one-third of all food produced thrown away, food waste contributes 8% of global emissions. If just 25% of this waste was saved, it would feed an additional 870 million people, Loboguerrero stressed.
Various barriers, ranging from economic to social factors, mean that the uptake of emission-reducing practices in agriculture is slow.
Even under the most optimistic uptake scenarios, studies have shown that by 2030 these practices will only contribute 21-40% of a one-gigaton reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, which would be about 1% of current annual CO2 emissions, the researchers stressed.
For this reason alone, Loboguerrero suggested, tackling the relatively low hanging fruit of food waste offers an important quick win.
"Food loss and waste is a big opportunity,"​ Loboguerrero said. "Addressing this issue can reduce emissions intensity, potentially improve global nutrition and boost the bottom line for smallholders, who are hardest hit by losses on the farm."​
Deforestation is being driven by demand for commodity crops ©iStock/phototreatDeforestation in tropical regions – largely driven by the growing demand for agricultural commodities, such as palm oil, soy and cocoa – must be addressed, NGOs such as Global Canopy stress.
“Our global demand for commodities such as palm oil, soy, beef and paper packaging is driving forest loss, exacerbating climate change and putting biodiversity at risk,” ​​Sarah Rogerson, a researcher in Global Canopy’s supply chain programme, warned.
In its recent ‘Forest 500’ report, Global Canopy compiled a list of the best – and worst – performers taking action on deforestation in their supply chains.
The top five manufacturers included Nestlé, Unilever and Mars alongside personal care and consumer products companies Kao Corp and L’Oreal. From retail, Marks and Spencer, IKEA, News Corp McDonald’s and Pearson ranked best.
Major global corporations in the food sector have pledged to end deforestation in their supply chains by 2020 under the New York Declaration. But, while the issue of deforestation is commanding increasing attention, Global Canopy was critical that “strong commitments​” are failing to be translated to action on the ground.
Robertson said food manufacturers need to raise their game: “The most powerful companies in forest-risk supply chains do not appear to be implementing the commitments they have set to meet global deforestation targets. With the 2020 deadline looming, it is critical that companies raise their ambition and address the stark gap between the promises they have made and activities on the ground."​
One of the most significant actions that can be taken to decarbonise the food system, EASAC argues, is the promotion of “healthier, more sustainable diets​”. This includes increased fruit, vegetable and legume consumption and reduced red meat intake.
This shift would “lower the burden of non-communicable diseases and reduce greenhouse gas emissions”​, the European scientists argue.
“Promoting dietary change could have major health and environmental benefits, resulting in significant reductions of up to about 40% in greenhouse gas emissions from food systems as well as reducing water and land use demands. Such diets can also lead to major reductions on non-communicable disease burden through reduced risk of heart disease, stroke and other conditions,”​ EASAC suggested.
CCAFS researchers agree that growing global demand for animal production is a key challenge to climate mitigation efforts.
By 2000, the sector contributed an estimated 18% of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, when accounting for related deforestation and land-use change as well as direct emissions. Given current trends in population growth and meat consumption, the sector could account for about a quarter of all emissions by 2050, CCAFS warned.
"Reducing meat and dairy emissions needs to be a priority,"​ said Lini Wollenberg, flagship leader of CCAFS' low-emissions development research. "And the good news is that we have lots of options in the pipeline, ranging from low-emissions cattle to meat alternatives. We need more research and development to make some of these options a reality."​
Loboguerrero stressed that mitigation efforts will require political will in an environment that is more open to adaption.
Adaptation - learning to cope with the problem - is a far easier sell than mitigation - reducing emissions - which is often seen as constraining farming options and increasing costs. Developing countries frequently complain that mitigation measures will limit economic growth.
"There is a lot of tension and you can see it when you go into the negotiations. Some countries don't even want to begin discussions on the mitigation side of things,"​ Loboguerrero said. 
"Adaptation is something that everyone, however, agrees is necessary. Everyone is keen on discussing adaptation. Some adaptation measures have the co-benefit for mitigation. It's like an entrance to discussing some things at some points that are a little bit taboo in the negotiations."​

*Katy Askew joined FoodNavigator as editor in 2017. Katy’s areas of interest include market trends, sustainability issues and corporate development.

Links

• Climate change has likely already affected global food production
• Food and Earth Systems: Priorities for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation for Agriculture and Food Systems
• The Scariest Thing About Climate Change: What Happens To Our Food Supply
• Climate Change Is Already Affecting Global Food Production—Unequally
• Extreme Weather Events Are Fueling ‘Food Shocks’ And Jeopardizing Global Security
• Australia’s Drought, Climate Change And The Future Of Food
• African Islands Call For Help As Climate Change Worsens Health
• Redrawing The Map: How The World’s Climate Zones Are Shifting
• Rising CO2 Levels Could Push ‘Hundreds Of Millions’ Into Malnutrition By 2050
• This Graphic Explains Why 2 Degrees Of Global Warming Will Be Way Worse Than 1.5
• Climate Change May Soon Hit Billions Of People. Many Cities Are Already Taking Action.

ABC News - Emma Siossian

The golden bowerbird builds a huge bower, which it decorates with lichen, flowers and seedpods. (Supplied: Anne Collins) Key points:

• The huge bowers of golden bowerbirds are being used to monitor the impact of climate change
• Researchers say the golden bowerbirds and other highland rainforest species are already being pushed to higher altitudes
• They say more monitoring and adaptation research is needed to prevent some species becoming extinct

They chirp, whistle, buzz, bob and dance, and male bowerbirds are among the best architects and decorators in the bird world.
They build intricately constructed, brightly decorated bowers, which become the stage for a ritualised performance of dancing and singing, all designed to attract a female.
Dr Clifford Frith, Australian ornithologist and bowerbird expert, said the fascinating behaviour was part of a powerful evolutionary process of sexual selection.
"The males of the species build bowers that are architecturally so complex and beautiful," he said.
"The early explorers to New Guinea and Australia refused to believe when they were told by the native people that they [the bowers] were made by birds — they assumed they were made by parents to entertain their children," he said.
The great bowerbird, with striking magenta plumage, displays his bower and grey decorations. (Supplied: John Henderson)The smallest of the 10 species of bowerbirds in Australia, the golden bowerbird, builds the largest bowers.
The towering maypole-type structures can rise to three metres and are constructed around two trees.
The giant bowers are then maintained in the same place for decades. "Our studies show that some golden bowerbird bowers will persist for up to 40 years in the same spot. Generation after generation take over the bowers," Dr Frith said."It does mean of course that each male at his bower is constantly under pressure from younger males seeking to establish themselves; they are literally waiting for dead man's shoes."
Golden bowerbirds live in the highland rainforests of north-east Queensland. (Supplied: Clyde O'Donnell) Indicators of climate change
Golden bowerbirds build huge bowers that form tall columns of sticks around trees. (Supplied: Jennifer Dickinson) The golden bowerbird's bowers are helping researchers monitor the species as part of climate change studies.
Professor Stephen Williams, from the College of Science and Engineering at Townsville's James Cook University, said the golden bowerbird lived in the highland rainforests of north-east Queensland.
For many years, he has been monitoring the bowerbirds, as well as other Australian highland rainforest species that are restricted to small, high-altitude areas. "They've adapted to wet, tropical mountain tops. As the temperature increases it pushes them up the mountain and they really have nowhere to go," he said."The golden bowerbird is a classic example of that. It typically only occurs on mountain tops above 900 metres of elevation. The mountains are not very high here, so it has really got nowhere to go.
"With the monitoring of the bowerbirds, because they use the bowers and during the breeding season they are very obvious and easy to survey, you can find them and see if they are using those same bowers from one year to the next."

'Alarming and depressing': Climate change happening now
In 2005, a climate change conference in the United Kingdom was told that even a 1-degree-Celsius temperature rise would put birds like the Australian golden bowerbird under pressure.
Professor Williams said climate change predictions made more than a decade ago were now becoming a reality.
Tooth-billed bowerbirds in north-east Queensland are being monitored by researchers. (Supplied: Belinda Young)"We now have quite solid data, based on 15 years of data, that some of these species are contracting quite severely and very much in line with what we were predicting about 10 years ago based on the models, and it's actually happening now," he said. "It's incredibly alarming and depressing 10 years later to see it actually happening — you hope you're wrong. "I go out in the field to places I've been to in the last 15 years where I used to see 50 animals in an hour and I go there now and see six or seven."
Golden bowerbirds maintain their bowers over decades, from one generation to the next. (Supplied: Jeff Melvaine)Professor Williams said there were clear signs both the golden bowerbird, and the tooth-billed bowerbird that also lives in the mountain forests of north-east Queensland, were being affected by warmer temperatures. "What we have noticed with the tooth-billed bowerbirds, is that they have been consistently disappearing from the lower, hotter parts of the mountain and essentially the population is being shifted up the mountain," he said.Researchers say the tooth-billed bowerbird is gradually moving to higher, cooler altitudes. (Supplied: Anne Collins) "We see the same sort of thing happening with the golden bowerbirds. We have less data on them, but we see the same pattern happening.
"We've also noticed very severe declines in the lemuroid ringtail possums over the last few years as well.
The golden bowerbird lives in highland rainforests and is a prized find for birdwatchers. (Supplied: Jennifer Dickinson)"It's particularly noticeable when we have the intense summer heatwaves like we did last summer. "It's the extreme events, the hottest weeks, the droughts, that do the damage."Watching and being watched
Professor Williams said more monitoring was needed to ensure resources were directed effectively. "We need to do adaptation research and look at what we can do to stop these species going extinct and stop the environment completely collapsing," he said. Dr Frith agreed more data was required.
"People need to continue the long-term studies of the bowerbird populations, and that's happening," he said.
"Members of Birdlife Australia are now intensively surveying the presence of the bowers of golden bowerbirds and other bowerbirds in the wet tropics."
Local birdwatchers also monitor bowers, which can offer some golden moments.
Birdwatcher Jennifer Dickinson was patiently waiting at a known golden bowerbird site recently when she realised she wasn't the only one doing the watching.
"We were about to pick up our camera bags and go when we did one last look behind us, and surprise, surprise — there he was, sitting quietly in a tree, just watching us, watching his bower," she said.

Links

• Satin bowerbirds do a risky dance with plastic waste
• Fixing Australia’s Extinction Crisis Means Thinking Bigger Than Individual Species
• Climate Change Sparks Fears For Flying Foxes After 23,000 Deaths
• 'Our Little Brown Rat': First Climate Change-Caused Mammal Extinction
• The Biggest Issues For Wildlife And Endangered Species In 2019
• Worst Mass Extinction Event In Earth’s History Was Caused By Global Warming Analogous To Current Climate Crisis
• Climate Change Also Wiped Out Life On Earth 252 Million Years Ago
• Extinction Toll May Be Far Worse Than Thought
• The 'Great Dying': Rapid Warming Caused Largest Extinction Event Ever, Report Says

The Guardian - Dermot O'Gorman*

It’s about the very survival of people, nations and cultures. If action isn’t taken there are islanders who may have nowhere to go

‘It is only recently that we have realised our political de-prioritisation of the Pacific islands and their needs has advanced China’s entrance to our region.’ Photograph: Alastair Grant/APScott Morrison flew to the Solomon Islands last weekend to “show our Pacific step-up in action” but this policy will fail if his government doesn’t take meaningful action on climate change. A successful step-up must include stopping our own pollution, defending the sovereignty of our friends in the Pacific and offering a safety net to those who may need it.
Over the past five years Australia’s standing in the Pacific has declined dramatically because of an unwillingness to take strong action on climate change. It’s not as if the Pacific hasn’t been clear. From female fishers to the Fijian prime minister, to remote communities in the Solomon Islands, climate change is a top-order issue. It’s about the very survival of people, nations and cultures. If action isn’t taken, in 40 years there are people in Pacific island states who may have nowhere to go.
It’s difficult to overstate how upset Pacific Islanders are when they look at Australia’s track record on climate. We are one of the world’s worst per-capita polluters and biggest exporters of thermal coal. While the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs has a strong track record of support to Pacific islands, that record is totally contradicted by political rhetoric on climate and our lack of emission reductions.
In the week before our election, Pacific leaders issued a statement reiterating their concern:
All countries, with no caveats, must agree to take decisive and transformative action to reduce global emissions, and ensure at-scale mitigation and adaption support for those countries that need it.
If we do not, we will lose. We will lose our homes, our ways of life, our wellbeing and our livelihoods. We know this because we are experiencing loss already.Yet, here at home, the Australian government is still failing to grasp that our backsliding on climate change action and promotion of thermal coal exports have significantly damaged our standing in the region. This lack of political solidarity (which at times strayed into outright contempt by the Abbott government) with our closest neighbours has altered the region’s geopolitical landscape.
This isn’t happening in a vacuum; China has spent the last decade dramatically expanding its influence in the Pacific. The ballooning of Chinese investment into infrastructure projects, such as the announcement that Huawei would build Papua New Guinea’s domestic internet network, has caused security concerns. This has heightened the stakes for Australia in our quest to get this right. It is only recently that we have realised our political de-prioritisation of the Pacific islands and their needs has advanced China’s entrance to our region.
For nearly two decades, as the World Wide Fund for Nature’s CEO in the Pacific, then China, and now Australia, I’ve met with the heads of nations, government ministers, senior officials and business and community leaders across the Asia-Pacific region who all speak about Australians with respect and warmth. But our relationships in the Pacific have been deeply undermined by a failure of political leadership on climate.
Australia can repair this relationship by listening to and acting on the needs of Pacific island nations. The Pacific step-up – overall a good policy with bipartisan support – must also become a climate step-up.
So, how? First, acting quickly at home to reduce our emissions and transition out of exporting thermal coal will show Australia has “heard” Pacific leaders. Reducing Australia’s pollution by 45% on 2005 levels by 2030 and reaching net-zero pollution by 2050 would be a good start, but it is the bare minimum we must do. There’s no point making emissions reductions at home then selling fuel that will be burnt elsewhere. We must also urgently commit to a just transition to phase out thermal coal exports by 2030.
Second, Australia must champion that Pacific Islanders will always be the owners of what they themselves now call “Pacific Ocean states”. This means acknowledging they retain enduring sovereign rights over their islands and seascapes, despite the current interpretation of the international law of the sea, which questions the ownership of exclusive economic zones once islands are submerged.
Third, we need to rebuild Australia’s beleaguered aid program which should have the Pacific step-up at its heart. It’s essential Australia expands programs that are helping Pacific nations build resilience and adapt to climate change impacts in line with their rallying cry: “We are not drowning. We are fighting.”
But in a worst-case scenario no option should be off the table, up to and including the granting of Australian permanent residency for the entire populations of those nations at greatest risk. As Kevin Rudd pointed out in his February 2019 essay, this would now include Tuvalu, Nauru and Kiribati – the combined populations of which are less than half of Australia’s annual regular migration intake.
I disagree, however, with the former prime minister’s suggestion that such arrangements should come at the cost of Pacific nations’ EEZs. Rather, this safety net should be an act of solidarity, humanity and mateship to our neighbours. By supporting islanders to retain the rights to their homelands, there will always be Pacific Ocean states.
The prime minister has a clear choice in Honiara. Listen to Pacific leaders and implement a Pacific step-up through new pro-Pacific, pro-development, pro-climate policies that embrace our neighbours’ needs, or risk a further decline in our regional standing and the consequences that come from that.

*Dermot O’Gorman is the CEO of WWF-Australia

Links

• 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 Forced These Fijian Communities To Move – And With 80 More At Risk, Here’s What They Learned
• Pacific Shames PM On Climate Policy
• PM Morrison Says Australia Climate Target To Remain Unchanged, Despite Fiji's Criticism
• Climate Change Is 'No Laughing Matter', Fiji's PM Frank Bainimarama Tells Australia During Scott Morrison's Pacific Trip
• Pacific Nations Under Climate Threat Urge Australia To Abandon Coal Within 12 Years
• Australia Only Nation To Join US At Pro-Coal Event At COP24 Climate Talks
• Tuvalu Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga Says Australia's Climate Change Inaction Undermines Its 'Pacific Pivot'
• Vanuatu Says It May Sue Fossil Fuel Companies And Other Countries Over Climate Change

RenewEconomy - Giles Parkinson

Photo Credit: Hamilton Lund. Supplied.The iconic Sydney Opera House is going green, and cutting its $2.5 million annual electricity bill, by signing long-term contracts to source its electricity from a major wind farm and a large solar project, and may add batteries later.
Under a deal negotiated with renewable energy retailer Flow Power, and announced on World Environment Day, the Sydney Opera House will contract to buy 16 gigawatt hours of wind and solar output a year from the Sapphire wind farm and the Bomen solar farm, both located in NSW.
This equates to the amount of electricity that the Sydney Opera House consumes each year, and according to Ian Cashen, executive director of building, will be matched for around 85 per cent of the time.
The rest will be hedged by Flow Power, a relative newcomer to the corporate energy market that is already making a name for itself co-ordinating renewable energy contracts with large energy users.
The 170MW Sapphire wind farm is located near Glen Innes in northern NSW (Barnaby Joyce’s electorate) and is mostly contracted to the ACT government, as part of its own 100 per cent renewable target for 2020.
The wind farm is owned by Grassroots Renewable Energy, a partnership between CWP Renewables and Partners Group. Flow earlier this year contracted to take the output for 50MW of capacity, presumably to put together a deal like this.
The 100MW Bomen solar farm – located near Wagga Wagga in the electorate of Joyce’s successor as National Party leader, Michael McCormack – was developed by Renew Estate and recently bought by Spark Infrastructure , and has also contracted a large part of its capacity to Westpac, as part of that bank’s own commitment to 100 per cent renewables.
Sapphire wind farm. And friend.“We’re really pleased with the outcome,” Cashen told RenewEconomy in an interview. Cashen said the Opera House took advantage of the expiry of its existing energy supply contract, and with its goal of carbon neutrality, and its long standing sustainability objectives in mind, set out to find a new green energy supplier.
Cashen says the long term contracts through Flow Power – for seven years, with options to extend – not only delivers a lower electricity price than it would otherwise have got, but also locks in a low price for the period of the contract. That, he says, would not have been possible with a standard energy contract based around coal power.
“It’s a modest saving, but the important thing for us is that it is not just about straight savings calculations, it’s getting some certainty as well.” That certainty can be delivered because while wind and solar farms have high up front costs – and so like to get long term contracts – the operating costs are low and predictable, because there is no variable fuel cost.
Cashen says adding, or contracting, a big battery is also an option down the track, to allow the Sydney Opera House to get closer to perfectly matching the consumption at the building through the production and storage from the wind and solar farm.
“What our modelling shows is what we can get, with wind and solar, a pretty good match. We tend to need a low but consistent load during the day, and that ramps up towards the afternoon and evening. This matches very well with combination with wind and solar supply profile. We might do a battery later on – we will keep our mind open.”
And, of course, the option of rooftop solar on the building, with its iconic “sails”, was not an option. “Yes, that is the running joke. You can’t put a turbine on site, or solar panels on the sails. So this works very well for us.”
Cashen noted that the Sydney Opera House always had a strong sustainability theme, pursuing tri-generation options easy in the peak, using sea water through a heat exchange system to defray air conditioning consumption, building artificial reefs on its harbour foreshore, and getting a 5 green star green building rating, the first World Heritage building to obtain one.
“Sustainability goes to a lot of our core values,” he says. “We are recognised as being a heritage site, but there is a really strong alignment between heritage and sustainability.

Links

• Sydney Opera House wind farm launches new community investment round
• NSW hits 2GW of rooftop solar, as installation records continue
• Guess what! Electric cars can drive from Melbourne to Sydney
• Galilee Basin “carbon bomb” about to explode as coal and gas developers rush in
• Electricity emissions fall sharply as renewable energy continues heavy lifting
• Byron Bay to host its first solar farm, a 5MW “community” facility

Phys.org - Natalie Bruzda

UNLV researcher Emma Frances Bloomfield has developed three categories that capture a range of beliefs that people hold about climate change and the environment. She says that knowing the "why" behind climate change denial can help people communicate more effectively with those who question the science behind it. Credit: Aaron Mayes/UNLV Creative ServicesWarming oceans. Shrinking ice sheets. Intense rainfall events. Rising sea levels.
These indicators provide compelling scientific evidence that climate change is happening. But for some, skepticism has crept in, and science doesn't hold the same authority as it once did.
Emma Frances Bloomfield, an assistant professor of communication studies at UNLV, wants to know why.
"There have been many attempts by scholars to categorize climate skeptics," Bloomfield said. "A lot of people turn to a strength of denial scale, from 'I sort of deny it,' to 'I really, adamantly deny it.' Whether they're very skeptical or not very skeptical, I'm more interested in why. What is driving that skepticism at whatever level it might be?"
Some agree—and are alarmed—with the studies, assessments, and reports establishing a link between human activity and climate-warming trends. Others, however, are completely dismissive.
Knowing the "why" behind the denial can help those who are concerned about climate change communicate more effectively with those who question the science behind it. More conversations can lead to more activism and a grassroots change that develops into a larger political consciousness, Bloomfield said.
"It's not necessarily about an individual water bottle," Bloomfield said. "It's about developing environmental consciousness and raising awareness among individuals, friends, and families."
Bloomfield, therefore, has established her own scale of sorts—three categories that capture a range of beliefs that people hold about climate change and the environment. Her research, which was published recently in the book, "Communication Strategies for Engaging Climate Skeptics," focused on religious individuals, and the relationship they see with their environment.
We caught up with Bloomfield to learn about these three categories, and how her research can help people better tailor their communication strategies when engaging on issues of the environment and climate change.

• What are the three categories of climate change denial that you created?
The first category we look at are the harmonizers. Harmonizers are a group that we would consider to be environmentalists. They believe that climate change is happening, they think it's important, and they marry their environmental beliefs with their faith and their faith tenets.
The other two categories are the separators and the bargainers, and they fall into the skeptical category. They don't believe in climate change for very different reasons, and they communicate that relationship very differently.
The separators see religion and the environment as oppositional, as enemies. To the separator, if you are an environmentalist, you can't be a good Christian. So they create this divide, this separation, between the two ideas.
Bargainers are also very strong, adamant deniers of climate change, but they see religion and the environment as more of a negotiated relationship. They take some bits of science and marry it with their faith, but then they ignore the parts of science that don't support their viewpoint. They would likely say that rising carbon dioxide levels are really great because that helps plant life grow. It's true—carbon dioxide does improve plant life—but only to a certain level, which we've far exceeded.
What's really undergirding the three categories is how they're interpreting their faith differently.

• What are some strategies to engage with climate change skeptics? How do the tactics differ between the groups?
My first strategy for the separators is to ask questions. Have them lead the conversation because they'll often take you with them to the root of their skepticism. A question such as, "Where in the Bible do you turn to for guidance about the environment," might lead to the answer, "I believe that God has complete control over the Earth." The point is not necessarily to be overtly persuasive. But with your questions, you can bring them towards thinking about different opportunities or perspectives.
For the bargainers, my primary strategy is to isolate concrete examples of why environmentalism is good, based on what their frame of reference is. Work with what they already believe in, and try to find specific examples of where environmentalism fits in that frame. One bargainer, for example, was very concerned about cap and trade, and how environmental policies would affect his business. I offered examples of small businesses that had gone greener and shared studies showing how those businesses were more profitable in the long-term.
You can also trade resources with your communication partner. I had a conversation with one bargainer, and every time we spoke, we got into the habit of trading resources. They might send me a critique of a scientific article, and in turn, I would send them a news article. It's very important for people to get out of echo chambers and read multiple news sources.

• Don't start the conversation from a point of contention, Bloomfield says.
You don't want to view your dialogue partner as inferior. I think it's a problem when environmentalists or climate scientists are dismissive, or potentially patronizing to climate skeptics. I think that kind of dialogue can lead to climate skeptics feeling isolated and silenced. You may not agree with the skeptic, but you should still respect the person who holds the beliefs. We must listen, not just for a talking point to jump in on, but to understand the perspective they're coming from, and what values or identities they feel are threatened by environmentalism.
You're not likely to have conversations with pure strangers about climate change, so you probably already know a lot about the person that you're engaging with. Draw on those previous experiences—what do you already know about this person, what are their values? Go into the conversation with a knowledge-gaining mindset, rather than a persuasive goal.

• It's good to talk about climate change online and on social media—it might be even better than interpersonal communication.
If you want to engage with people through social media, it's important to set the rules for engagement. If you are prompting the conversation, set the parameters or boundaries for how you will engage them. There are many people who try to bait others, but don't take the bait. Withdraw yourself from the conversation instead.
Karin Kirk is a science journalist who does this really well on her blog. She opens questions to people and genuinely responds to them. If someone posts a modified chart that says global warming isn't happening, she'll walk them through the science behind why that chart is incorrect. Unfortunately, it can be a lot of work. But if you have these conversations on social media, instead of one-on-one, you're not only talking to one person—you're talking to everyone else who might be reading the conversation. In this way, you can have a much wider reach.
If you have conversations online, you also have time to craft your response with much more time to think about it and edit it; you don't need to respond immediately.
Strident climate deniers are likely not going to change their mind, so sharing information and news articles online will just bounce off of them. But sharing information about climate change with online and social media communities is an opportunity to communicate with those who are in the middle.

• Why did you focus your research on the intersection of religion and the environment?
I've always been interested in the relationship between religion and science, because many scholars and many people think of them as diametrically opposed: You are either a scientist or you are religious. In a majority of my research I explore that tension: how people combine them, how people separate them, how they negotiate them.

Links

• Language Matters When The Earth Is In The Midst Of A Climate Crisis
• Climate skeptic or climate denier? It's not that simple
• Researchers examine political divide behind climate change beliefs
• Republicans more persuasive than scientists on climate change
• How to talk about climate change on social media
• Graphic Design Could Be Holding Back Action On Climate Change – Here’s How 
• Can Comedy Help Communicate Climate Change?
• It’s Time For Climate Change Communicators To Listen To Social Science
• How The Weather Gets Weaponized In Climate Change Messaging
• Vaccinate Public Against Science Misinformation, Researchers Urge
• Climate Change: Using Satire To Communicate Science

Grist - Kate Yoder

Joshua Lott / AFP / Getty Images   Do marches convince bystanders to join a movement, or do they push them away?
Sure, if you go out into the street waving a sign that says “There is no Planet B,” it feels like you’re doing something good.
But some research has suggested that you’re not bringing anybody around to your cause; in fact, loud public protests could easily backfire.
“Unfortunately, the very nature of activism leads to negative stereotyping,” wrote the authors of one study from 2013. Shouting “no blood for oil” or throwing fake blood on fur coats gets you “associated with hostile militancy and unconventionality or eccentricity.” So, uh, not great for building a mass movement.
But now there’s good news for protesters — at least those championing the environment. A new study published in the journal Frontiers in Education found that climate marches can not only boost activists’ likability, but also encourage bystanders to think we all can work together to take on the climate crisis.
Researchers surveyed nearly 600 “bystanders” before and after the March for Science and People’s Climate March, which took place one week apart in 2017. The study’s participants didn’t attend the marches, but many had heard about them through the media.
After the marches, people of different political persuasions saw the protesters as “less arrogant, less whiny, and less eccentric,” said Janet Swim, an author of the study and a professor of psychology at Penn State.
To understand the role liberal and conservative media played in swaying opinions, participants were also asked where they got their news. As you’d suspect, those who heard about the marches from liberal-leaning media sources saw the marchers in a more favorable light.
Perhaps surprisingly, people who got their news from conservative media developed stronger beliefs in collective efficacy — the idea that we can tackle climate change together.
That could be because people who watched conservative news simply didn’t know about the march before it happened, Swim said. And what better way to convince someone that we can work on climate change collectively than showing a giant group of people … coming together to protest the climate crisis.
Marches leverage our built-in tendency to follow the crowd. “The more people who are involved, the more important your message tends to seem,” Swim said.
And that sense of importance could help spur action. Marches have two main goals: inspiring other people to join your movement and getting governments to act.
So why did previous studies suggest that protests were unhelpful in convincing the general public? Swim said it might be because those studies “looked at more aggressive protests.” In contrast, bystanders might have been more sympathetic to the marchers in 2017, because many of the participants weren’t necessarily activists.
The strategy behind the Peoples Climate March, after all, was to broaden the movement beyond the usual suspects. Less Sierra Club or 350.org, more pastors and union workers.
“If you were a bystander in 2017, if you were looking at the march, you’d see people of faith, labor unions, people of color, and frontline communities,” said Paul Getsos, national director of the Peoples Climate Movement and the lead organizer for the march in 2017. “It wasn’t your typical kind of activist march.”
Alex Milan Tracy / Anadolu Agency / Getty ImagesThis kind of mass mobilization “counters the narrative that no one cares about climate change,” he said. “If we were just mobilizing the usual activist base, I know for a fact it wouldn’t have had the same impact.”
But does that impact last? Many worry that protests risk being one-off events and failing to inspire long-lasting political momentum.
Consider this line Michael White wrote for the Guardian before the Women’s March in 2017: “Without a clear path from march to power, the protest is destined to be an ineffective feelgood spectacle adorned with pink pussy hats.”
“To anyone who actually attended the event, the proposition that it was some casually undertaken dilettante party about hats was nuts,” writes Rebecca Traister in the book Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women’s Anger.
She argues that thousands of women attended political trainings after the march, learning how to run for office or fight for better health care.
Similarly, the week leading up to the People’s Climate March in 2017 was filled with teach-ins, trainings, fundraisers, and lobbying sessions.
That march in particular, which focused on climate change in terms of jobs and economic investment, helped lay the groundwork for the Green New Deal, according to Getsos. “It strengthened the resolve of environmental orgs, labor unions, and communities of color to learn how to work together,” he said.
To be sure, the recent Youth Climate Strike, in which hundreds of thousands of students walked out of class to protest government inaction on climate change, has been met with condescension. U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May, for example, said the disruption “increases teachers’ workloads and wastes lesson time.”
Isabella Johnson, the lead organizer for Illinois with this year’s Youth Climate Strike, told the Chicago Tribune that some of her classmates had questioned her activism, either because they didn’t think climate change was important or because they were skeptical protests could make a difference.
“Sometimes, that just shows they feel threatened, and it proves to me that they are actually paying attention to what we’re doing,” Johnson said.
“The fact that they are getting upset shows that they are listening to what I’m saying and it brings the issue into their minds.”

Links

• 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
• Why The Climate Protests That Disrupted London Were Different

The Conversation - Madhur Anand

Tens of thousands of students march in Sydney, Australia in March 2019 to demand action on climate change. (Shutterstock)
In a 2015 essay, poet and novelist Margaret Atwood wrote, “It’s not climate change, it’s everything change.”
Atwood asked us back then to reconsider the term “climate change” because there is not a system — human or non-human — that will remain untouched by the impacts of climate change. Everything will be affected, and so, likely, everything (as we know it) will have to change.
The writing impressed me, and I agreed with her thesis, but somehow it wasn’t this essay that shook me up as much as another recent reading on climate change did.
The recent scientific Special Report on the impacts of 1.5C of global warming of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded: “Limiting global warming to 1.5C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.”
That’s what gave me pause: Rapid. Far-reaching. Unprecedented. All aspects of society.
Everything screamed “emergency,” even though the word wasn’t used.
I know how cautious scientists can be in their communications — I am one myself. That is precisely why those words were sufficient to evoke an emotional response.
It was this shift in language (and not the countless graphs, reports, books and scientific articles I’d read — and indeed created myself — as a global-change ecologist) that finally elicited a tipping point in my own behaviour towards mitigating climate change.

Between “cliffhanger” and “climbdown”
Recently, the Guardian updated its style guide to revise its use of the term “climate change.” The move both echoes the tones of Atwood’s essay and the seriousness of the latest IPCC report. Climate change or climate emergency? (Shutterstock)
The newly defined climate change terms appear in the guide, right between “cliffhanger” and “climbdown.”
Climate change … is no longer considered to accurately reflect the seriousness of the situation; use climate emergency, crisis or breakdown instead.The IPCC reports with high confidence that global warming reached approximately 1C above pre-industrial levels in 2017, and several catastrophes, indeed we could say “emergencies,” including floods, forest fires, drought and storms have been linked to this change.
Researchers have determined that media can influence policy and public understanding of the environment. Both of these things can also affect human behaviour. So the language they use is indeed important.
The Guardian wants to tell it like it is, but where did the term “climate change” come from in the first place?

New terms now old?
The study of anthropogenic climate change is quite old. Svante Arrhenius proposed the connection between fossil fuel combustion and increases in global temperature in 1896. In the late 1950s, Charles David Keeling’s measurements of atmospheric CO2 from the Mauna Koa Observatory determined the effect of human activities on the chemical composition of the global atmosphere. But widespread adoption of the term climate change is relatively new.
I was a student in the very first cohort of the Environmental Sciences Graduate Program at Western University more than 20 years ago. We learned about global warming and the greenhouse effect, both of which had become well-established facts decades earlier. But I don’t recall the term climate change ever being used in my courses and neither do some of my classmates.
NASA claims the term climate change was introduced in 1975, in an article titled “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of Pronounced Global Warming?” published in Science.
The article communicates the difference between the two commonly used terms: “Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.”
Yet when my colleagues and I published our textbook Climate Change Biology in 2011, it was, to our surprise, one of the first with the term in its title in our field. With several climate change terms already in existence, it does merit some consideration as to what might be the impact of the new terms the Guardian wants to use.

Climate change poetics
Poets, who have been famously dubbed “the unacknowledged legislators of the world” by Percy Bysshe Shelley, know the power of language is not only about accuracy but also metaphorical potential.
Many poets, some of whom are discussed in the book Can Poetry Save the Earth? have been working to use language to foster change. In my 2015 found poem based on one of my climate change scientific articles, “Especially in a Time,” I refer to a need for a new word for “change” when I write: “a prolonged change is also under scrutiny.”
Projections suggest that a recent trend towards heavy rainfall and flooding will continue in parts of the United States, Canada, Europe and elsewhere. (Shutterstock)
But poetry alone, by definition, overshoots the aim to serve as specific propaganda, even for good causes, and thus we must also look to the language of other discourses to create the change we want. Certainly, politicians know the power of language when they prepare speeches.

What might emergency mean?
The past few years there has been a dramatic change in the language scientists use to communicate their science. This isn’t unusual; science could not progress without the invention of terms to communicate new discoveries precisely.
And to be fair, scientists have long referred to different kinds of change related to climate and weather in scientific papers. There’s “abrupt climate change,” “extreme events,” “acceleration” (the rate of change of change) and even “regime shifts,” which all have specific scientific definitions.
But generally speaking, scientists often refrain from using emotion-inducing language. As such, you will rarely find the term “emergency” in a scientific article about some new impact of climate change.
Consider another example of language change from the Guardian Style Guide: The term “child abuse images” is recommended over “child pornography,” “child porn” and “kiddy porn,” to avoid “a misleading and potentially trivializing impression of what is a very serious crime.” Reporters and editors are also urged to add a footnote with details about support services to stories about child sexual abuse.
And the United Nations rarely uses the term genocide, but when it does, it demands attention. This includes “naming and shaming the persecutors,” something others have said should be done for the climate crisis.
Not everyone is on board with changing “climate change” to “climate emergency.” Just this past week, my own city council voted against it in favour of the term “crisis.” Words do carry weight. One of the councillors feared that “to knowingly say emergency today, knowing that that will kick 20, 30, 40 per cent of the people in our city out of that conversation because they will not engage any more.” This councillor worried that if the general public heard this, some of them might disengage, thinking it was for the radicals, not them.
Arundhati Roy, one of my favourite writers, is wary, and indeed prescient, of how the term “emergency” may get used by those in power. She finds, especially in India and the Global South, that “increasingly the vocabulary around it is being militarized. And no doubt very soon its victims will become the ‘enemies’ in the new war without end.”
Still, as a global citizen, as a scientist and as a poet, I commend the Guardian for its change in style. The IPCC report language led me to make personal lifestyle changes (diet, car, air plane use and divestment), but the word “emergency” adopted by governments and media would certainly make me more hopeful for the kind of rapid and far-reaching and unprecedented change we need. I wonder if in the future the style guide will include a footnote with details about support services for readers to be added to future climate emergency stories.

Links

• The meaning of environmental words matters in the age of 'fake news'
• The impact of climate change on language loss
• Changing Minds: How Do You Communicate With Climate Change Skeptics?
• Climate skeptic or climate denier? It's not that simple
• Researchers examine political divide behind climate change beliefs
• Republicans more persuasive than scientists on climate change
• How to talk about climate change on social media
• Graphic Design Could Be Holding Back Action On Climate Change – Here’s How 
• Can Comedy Help Communicate Climate Change?
• It’s Time For Climate Change Communicators To Listen To Social Science
• How The Weather Gets Weaponized In Climate Change Messaging
• Vaccinate Public Against Science Misinformation, Researchers Urge
• Climate Change: Using Satire To Communicate Science

WBUR NPR Boston - Frederick Hewett

In this Sept. 19, 2012 file photo, corn plants weakened by the drought lie on the ground after being knocked over by rain in Bennington, Neb. The impacts of rising global temperatures are widespread and costly: more severe storms, rising seas, species extinctions, and changes in weather patterns that will alter food production and the spread of disease. (Nati Harnik/AP)What are the images that you associate with climate change? Are they scenes of wildfires or the devastation wrought by a monster hurricane? The thunderous crash of a glacier calving into the sea? Maybe what comes to mind are floodwaters coursing through city streets, or perhaps this classic: a forlorn polar bear atop a shrinking ice floe.
All of the above are real dangers. But global warming poses another peril harder to visualize, more insidious and, ultimately, more threatening to the stability of human societies. The impact of climate change on the ecosystems that support our ability to grow food should concern us most.
Floods, wildfires, superstorms and sea-level rise driven by climate change will continue to degrade the physical infrastructure of human civilization. And out of necessity, societies will respond by diverting enormous amounts of capital that would otherwise be invested or allocated to the consumption of goods and services. Climate change exacts a tax on our quality of life, a reckoning of the costs hidden in our fossil-fueled lifestyles.
In this Friday, Sept. 14, 2018 file photo, Russ Lewis covers his eyes from a gust of wind and a blast of sand as Hurricane Florence approaches Myrtle Beach, S.C. (David Goldman/AP)But it’s food that is paramount. If you ask a historian why civilizations collapse, one cause will definitely be peoples' inability to feed themselves.
In the Late Bronze Age (between c. 1200 and 1150 BCE), famine was a primary component in the simultaneous fall of several Mediterranean civilizations, among them the Mycenaeans in Greece, the Hittites in Anatolia and the Kassite Dynasty of Babylonia. Analysis of pollen in sediment core samples reveals a protracted period of drought throughout the region, which would have led to disastrous crop failures and, in turn, to forced migration and war.
Roughly 2,000 years after that, the Anasazi civilization in the American Southwest experienced a similar collapse. These maize-growing people were also victims of climate change. Pollen and tree ring studies suggest that the social disintegration that occurred in the late 13th century was the result of an extended period of arid and cool conditions that made it impossible to feed a swollen population.
And in this century, the cataclysmic conflict in Syria followed a five-year drought (2006–2011) that thwarted efforts to raise livestock and irrigate crops. Starving people left their homes, and civil war broke out in a theater beset with complicated ethnic and political strife.
In this 2014 file photo, a man rides a bicycle through a part of Homs, Syria, devastated by the country's civil war. Studies have suggested climate change was a factor in record-setting drought in Syria -- one of several causes of the country’s civil war that triggered a massive refugee crisis. (Dusan Vranic/AP)When people don’t have enough to eat, things unravel. History has repeatedly shown that when changes in climate cause food to become scarce, it severely tests the ability of a society to function. Today, the prospect of climate change caused by humans threatens agriculture on a global scale by debasing the planet’s ecosystems.
The value of ecosystems to humanity is well understood but not widely appreciated. Wetlands act as filter systems for water, provide habitat for fish and wildlife, mitigate flooding, and prevent erosion from storms. Forests provide timber and sequester vast amounts of carbon. The harvest of fish, from inland fisheries and oceans alike, is crucial to the world’s food supply. Land-based agriculture depends on natural water cycles, pollination by insects and support from rich microbial life in the soil. Human interconnectedness to other life on Earth is the fundamental truth of our ecological existence.
The warming climate of the 21st century puts new stresses on ecosystems that were already feeling the effects of overfishing, pesticides, intensive agriculture, industrial pollution and a growing human population. With climate change, species must now adapt to higher temperatures, acidification, new pests and pathogens, extreme weather and changes in the length of seasonal cycles. Inevitably, species will fail, biodiversity will continue to plummet and the delicate interactions and feedback loops that keep ecosystems functioning will break down.
This March 14, 2011 picture shows one of farmer Jim Freudenberger's wheat fields in Coyle, Okla. That year, farmers across the South dealt with a severe drought that stunted the growth of several crops, including wheat. (Justin Juozapavicius/AP)Agriculture is both a casualty and a cause of climate change. Worldwide, about 13% of greenhouse gas emissions come from food production, and that doesn’t include deforestation to create new arable land or the emissions incurred in the transport of food. Rising incomes in the developing world are raising demand for meat, which will cause emissions to increase further. Intensifying the use of pesticides and petroleum-based fertilizer improves yields in the short term to meet the needs of an expanding population, but this is just not sustainable.
Paradoxically, agriculture is a significant contributor to the destruction of the ecosystems that undergird it. If the world is to avoid mass famine in the latter half of this century, holistic agricultural reform must happen in parallel with the decarbonization of the rest of the economy. Governments around the world will have to prioritize the adoption of sustainable agriculture and fishing, as well as the reduction of carbon emissions because the need for adequate food is a vulnerability that no civilization can evade.
The most terrifying image of climate change is not ocean waves crashing over a seawall. It is of a sun-baked field of wheat, parched and abandoned, its blighted soil drained of life.

Links

• Climate Change Is Already Affecting Global Food Production—Unequally
• Extreme Weather Events Are Fueling ‘Food Shocks’ And Jeopardizing Global Security
• Australia’s Drought, Climate Change And The Future Of Food
• African Islands Call For Help As Climate Change Worsens Health
• Redrawing The Map: How The World’s Climate Zones Are Shifting
• Rising CO2 Levels Could Push ‘Hundreds Of Millions’ Into Malnutrition By 2050
• This Graphic Explains Why 2 Degrees Of Global Warming Will Be Way Worse Than 1.5
• Climate Change May Soon Hit Billions Of People. Many Cities Are Already Taking Action.

ABC News - Alan Weedon

US soldiers are routinely called upon to fortify infrastructure during extreme weather events. (Flickr: US Air Force / Oscar M Sanchez-Alvarez) Key points:

• Over a half of US bases worldwide will suffer from climate change-related weather extremes
• Sites across the Indian and Pacific oceans might not be saved if the threats are too high
• Pentagon officials are adapting to climate change despite President Trump's denials

Without the American Midwest, the world would not have Aretha, the Jacksons, Motown, or the road trip. The Midwest stretches across sprawling plains and rolling hills and is home to states such as Kansas, Michigan, Indiana and the Dakotas.
While the region has given birth to many of the world's reference points for American popular culture, it is also a reference point in the development and history of nuclear weapons.
Across its sprawling prairie lands, various points in the Midwest house the infrastructure and real estate that has enabled America to define the nuclear age.
One such place is Omaha, Nebraska — a town of just over 400,000 people — home to the Offutt Air Force Base, the place which manufactured the first aircraft in history to drop an atomic bomb, the Enola Gay.
In the decades since, the base has been central to America's nuclear umbrella, and it currently houses the United States Strategic Command, part of the elaborate continental network that gives the Pentagon nuclear first-strike capability.
But earlier this year, a bomb-cyclone — a storm where cold and warm air meet, triggering a rapid drop in pressure at its centre — brought blizzards and thunderstorms across the Midwest in spring.
This caused the region's waterways to swell across various states, including the Missouri River, the longest in the country.
Air fighting operations were stopped at Offutt after flooding. (NASA Earth Observatory)Offutt sits adjacent to the river and was flooded, with water disabling parts of its airstrip and inundating several buildings — prompting 3,000 staff to be relocated.
Rivers surrounding Omaha all flooded in 2019.Last year, a Pentagon report found over half of the military's bases worldwide would suffer from climate change-related weather extremes, such as drought, flooding and high winds.
Another Pentagon report released to Congress in January found two-thirds of installations on the US continent are vulnerable to flooding, over a half are vulnerable to drought, and half are vulnerable to wildfires.
Stephen Cheney, CEO of the American Security Project, does not believe the US political establishment is prepared for the extreme weather events of a warming climate.
"Since the George W Bush administration, they haven't really allocated the funds to improve their infrastructure to withstand the effects of climate change," Mr Cheney says.
"We've known about this for decades."Offutt Air Base is wedged between the city of Omaha and the Missouri River. (US Air Force: Rachelle Blake)Climate change might trigger more 'sacrifice zones'
American author Jeff Goodell detailed some of the threats posed by sea level rise in his book The Water Will Come: Rising Seas, Sinking Cities and the Remaking of the Civilised World.
He wrote that "virtually all" of the Pentagon's real estate portfolio of 555,000 facilities stretched across 11.1 million hectares of land "will be impacted by climate change in some way".
"In some places, these impacts are little more than expensive nuisances. But in others, the future of entire bases is in question. And many of these bases are virtually irreplaceable because of their geography and strategic location," Mr Goodell wrote. This portfolio includes bases that guarantee the security of US allies — including Australia.
One such site is the US naval base on Diego Garcia — a territory leased from Britain that sits in the Indian ocean near the Maldives.
It houses the equipment used to control the Global Positioning System (GPS), plus the critical logistics infrastructure that supplies defence material to fronts in the Middle East.
The British Indian Ocean territory of Diego Garcia is incredibly low-lying. (US Navy: PD Goodrich)"The atoll is so low-lying that, like the nearby Maldives, it is sure to vanish unless the navy wants to spend billions of dollars turning it into a fortress in the middle of the Indian Ocean," wrote Mr Goodell.
To Australia's North-East are bases in Guam and the Marshall Islands — territories that both face the threat of sea level rise in the near future.
Pacific pivot undermined
Australia is being warned its return to its Pacific neighbours after years of neglect risks being undermined by the Government's intransigence on the region's main threat: climate change.In February, the Marshall Islands Chief Secretary Ben Graham told the ABC they might have to raise the islands to fight the country's "extinction" by sea level rise.
During the Obama administration, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledged that increasing sea and air temperatures, rising sea levels and the increased acidity of seawater would exacerbate Guam's extreme weather events.
Guam is a US territory home to over 167,000 people that has been central to the US's projection of military power in the Asia Pacific since the end of the Second World War. About a third of the island's landmass is under the control of the US military.
But if Guam or the Marshall Islands face the threat of being wiped out by sea level rise, it's unclear if the US would save them, according to Daniel Immerwahr from Northwestern University.
"There's a history of the US treating some of its overseas parts as sacrifice zones," Dr Immerwahr says. Guam is a primary base for American operations across the Asia Pacific. (US Navy: Stacy Laseter) He notes that Guam was one of these zones during the Second World War, and says US history suggests that Washington "wouldn't always fully bat" for the countries and overseas US territories that host military bases.
"The base system's history is not static — there has been a lot of expansion and contraction — and that suggests the United States is not required to protect individual sites at all costs," Dr Immerwahr says.
This assessment is shared by Pacific studies scholar Dr Sylvia Frain, who notes that Washington has prioritised the defence of the continental United States first.
"It really seems like the [overseas US] local populations, even the local governments are always an afterthought."
A spokesperson for the US Special Operations Command Pacific (SOCPAC) said that the command itself did not have "any details or knowledge of climate change or threats to military infrastructure" and referred the ABC to the US Department of Defence.
However a spokesperson from the Department of the Defence told the ABC that they were unable to discuss their climate change contingency plans "for operations security reasons".

Adaptation in the age of Trump requires doublespeak
Mr Trump has sought to downplay the threats of climate change to US security. (AP: Manuel Balce Ceneta)Within the Pentagon, planning for climate change has technically been in the works for decades.
Its January climate change risk report laid bare the threat to defence.
"The effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential impacts to Department of Defence missions, operational plans, and installations," the report read.
But the Pentagon's assessment runs contrary to the agenda of the Trump administration, which has sought to downplay climate change's threat to global security.
Flooding in the world's largest naval base, located on the US's east coast, is becoming more frequent. (US Navy: Michael Pendergrass)Despite this conflict between the White House and the Pentagon, defence planners have usually found a workaround to the roadblocks presented — and that's because of doublespeak.
"You will not find the words climate change in any [Defence] document or budget submission, instead they talk about adapting to catastrophic weather or sea level rise but they can't say why it was caused," Mr Cheney says.
"It's an absolute joke. It just boggles your mind."For Mr Goodell, the Pentagon's logic is considered, and he notes the Pentagon's history of practicality.
"Military leaders embraced desegregation long before the rest of the nation, in part because they wanted the best people they could find, no matter what colour," Mr Goodell wrote.
Climate change and the ADF
Australia's Defence Department has spelled out clearly to a Senate enquiry that climate change is increasing demand and will create "concurrency pressures" for the Defence Force as a rise in disaster relief operations continues.He explains that the Pentagon has learned how to get climate change adaptation past politicians, by talking about "climate in much the way eighth graders talk about sex — with code words and winks and suggestive language".
"They know better than to talk about [climate change] directly and forcefully, lest they anger the elected officials who fund their projects and who believe that climate change is not a problem."
So while it appears as though the Trump administration is steadfastly sticking to a world where a warming climate presents hardly any threats, those who have been charged with projecting American power and security for over a century are working to a different view.
"Many military commanders don't need to read a scientific report to figure this out — they are seeing the impacts of climate change with their own eyes," Mr Goodell wrote.

Links

• White House report contradicts Trump, says climate change will batter economy
• Climate change-related disaster relief is increasing demand on Defence, Senate hears
• Where is Guam and how many US troops are there?
• If Pacific nations go under water what happens to maritime boundaries?
• Lost at sea: the race against time to save the Carteret Islands from climate change
• Pentagon Warns Of Dire Risk To Bases, Troops From Climate Change
• How Climate Change Is Our Military’s Most Threatening Enemy
• Climate Change Threatens Half Of US Bases Worldwide, Pentagon Report Finds
• The White House Doubts Climate Change. Here's Why The Pentagon Does Not
• President Trump, Military Split On Climate Change