Feed aggregator
News Corp Launches Offensive Against Labor's Climate Policy Amid Glowing Budget 2019 Previews
The Guardian - Amanda Meade
Murdoch papers label Shorten’s energy plans a ‘lunchbox tax’ and paint Coalition as saviours of Australian ‘workers’
Ahead of budget 2019, the front pages of the Australian and the Daily Telegraph newspapers on 2 April feature a barrage of negative stories about Labor’s climate change policy. The Daily Telegraph and its stablemates have taken the blowtorch to Labor’s climate policy, labelling it a “lunchbox tax” across numerous news stories, editorials, graphics and opinion pieces.
The barrage of negative stories is in sharp contrast to the glowing previews of Scott Morrison’s first budget as prime minister which the publications say will bring “tax relief for millions of workers”.
The treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, and finance minister, Mathias Cormann, are pictured in smart blue suits on the front page of the Australian with the accompanying report reassuring readers the government will “declare an end to the debt and deficit disaster the Coalition inherited from Labor six years ago”.
The release of the final component of Labor’s climate change policy has sparked a tidal wave of negative coverage, but none so extreme as that in Rupert Murdoch’s Sydney tabloid.
“Pay as you eat” and “Labor climate plan hits food costs” were the front-page headlines as the Tele followed Scott Morrison’s line that the “carbon tax 2.0” would impose massive costs on Australians.
It followed Monday’s bellicose front page: “Carbon Bill’s Green Whack.”
“Household grocery bills are in line to soar, with major food manufacturers included in Bill Shorten’s aggressive plan to make businesses pay to pollute,” the Daily Telegraph’s front page story on Tuesday said.
“Arnott’s, Bega Cheese, Ingham’s, McCain, Nestle, Parmalat, Coca-Cola, Pepsi and the Australian Lamb Company are among 250 businesses that would be forced into Labor’s rebooted carbon trading scheme.
“Energy minister Angus Taylor labelled Labor’s policy a ‘lunchbox tax’ given at least 15 food and beverage companies were among the 147 businesses facing emissions caps.”
Inside, an editorial also criticises the plan: “And, for that matter, how will average families feel if they are hit by four-figure quarterly power bills and then get hit again when shopping for food?”
The rightwing thinktank the Institute of Public Affairs was given two-thirds of a page to rail against the policy, which research fellow Andrew Bushnell alleges would punish “ordinary Australians” while putting a smile on the faces of “inner-city greenies”.
“What do Bill Shorten and Mike from Married At First Sight have in common? They are both gaslighting the entire nation,” Bushnell said.
The Australian’s economics commentator, Judith Sloan, took a different slant, lamenting that Labor’s “carbon crusade” would “hit blue-chip firms” rather than lunchboxes.
The Australian was a little more subtle than the Tele, labelling the Labor policy “a re-Rudd”.
“Labor leader Bill Shorten is standing firm behind his plan to cut carbon emissions despite fierce Morrison government attacks labelling it ‘a re-Rudd of failed policy’,” the Oz reported.
The Courier Mail’s front page went with the lunchbox tax angle, saying “Labor’s hit on food bill”.
“Upwards pressure will be put on the price of biscuits, beers, soft drink and groceries under Labor’s carbon plan, which will capture some household name brands under an expanded cap-and-trade carbon scheme,” the Queensland masthead said.
Links
Murdoch papers label Shorten’s energy plans a ‘lunchbox tax’ and paint Coalition as saviours of Australian ‘workers’
Ahead of budget 2019, the front pages of the Australian and the Daily Telegraph newspapers on 2 April feature a barrage of negative stories about Labor’s climate change policy. The Daily Telegraph and its stablemates have taken the blowtorch to Labor’s climate policy, labelling it a “lunchbox tax” across numerous news stories, editorials, graphics and opinion pieces.
The barrage of negative stories is in sharp contrast to the glowing previews of Scott Morrison’s first budget as prime minister which the publications say will bring “tax relief for millions of workers”.
The treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, and finance minister, Mathias Cormann, are pictured in smart blue suits on the front page of the Australian with the accompanying report reassuring readers the government will “declare an end to the debt and deficit disaster the Coalition inherited from Labor six years ago”.
The release of the final component of Labor’s climate change policy has sparked a tidal wave of negative coverage, but none so extreme as that in Rupert Murdoch’s Sydney tabloid.
“Pay as you eat” and “Labor climate plan hits food costs” were the front-page headlines as the Tele followed Scott Morrison’s line that the “carbon tax 2.0” would impose massive costs on Australians.
It followed Monday’s bellicose front page: “Carbon Bill’s Green Whack.”
“Household grocery bills are in line to soar, with major food manufacturers included in Bill Shorten’s aggressive plan to make businesses pay to pollute,” the Daily Telegraph’s front page story on Tuesday said.
“Arnott’s, Bega Cheese, Ingham’s, McCain, Nestle, Parmalat, Coca-Cola, Pepsi and the Australian Lamb Company are among 250 businesses that would be forced into Labor’s rebooted carbon trading scheme.
“Energy minister Angus Taylor labelled Labor’s policy a ‘lunchbox tax’ given at least 15 food and beverage companies were among the 147 businesses facing emissions caps.”
Inside, an editorial also criticises the plan: “And, for that matter, how will average families feel if they are hit by four-figure quarterly power bills and then get hit again when shopping for food?”
The rightwing thinktank the Institute of Public Affairs was given two-thirds of a page to rail against the policy, which research fellow Andrew Bushnell alleges would punish “ordinary Australians” while putting a smile on the faces of “inner-city greenies”.
“What do Bill Shorten and Mike from Married At First Sight have in common? They are both gaslighting the entire nation,” Bushnell said.
The Australian’s economics commentator, Judith Sloan, took a different slant, lamenting that Labor’s “carbon crusade” would “hit blue-chip firms” rather than lunchboxes.
The Australian was a little more subtle than the Tele, labelling the Labor policy “a re-Rudd”.
“Labor leader Bill Shorten is standing firm behind his plan to cut carbon emissions despite fierce Morrison government attacks labelling it ‘a re-Rudd of failed policy’,” the Oz reported.
The Courier Mail’s front page went with the lunchbox tax angle, saying “Labor’s hit on food bill”.
“Upwards pressure will be put on the price of biscuits, beers, soft drink and groceries under Labor’s carbon plan, which will capture some household name brands under an expanded cap-and-trade carbon scheme,” the Queensland masthead said.
Links
- The Challenge Facing Labor On Climate Change
- ALP Climate Policy Requires Serious Scrutiny
- Labor backflips on car emissions policy
- Labor's emissions trading scheme
- 'Fake action': Labor will not use Kyoto credits in major new emissions package
- 50% of new cars to be electric vehicles by 2030 under Labor climate change policy
- Labor's Emissions Trading Scheme
- Greens blast key part of Labor's climate policy as 'fake action'
- Labor's climate change policy explained: here's what we know
- Labor to tighten emissions regime as it draws climate battle-lines
- Morrison government seeks to divide Labor and unions over emissions
- Coalition says Labor must use Kyoto credits – but also that they make little difference
- Richard Di Natale: I will work with Labor to get action on climate change
- Explained: how the National Energy Guarantee works
Categories: External websites
The Challenge Facing Labor On Climate Change
AFR - Tony Wood*
The nation is desperate for an end to the climate wars but Labor is asking us to take a lot on trust.
Reducing emissions will be an enormous challenge in years to come - whoever wins the election. Photo Paul JonesAustralia needs a credible and predictable climate-change policy to ensure affordable and reliable electricity while contributing to the global task of avoiding catastrophic climate change.
Sound policy and winning politics have been horribly out of alignment since Kevin Rudd failed to implement his carbon pollution reduction scheme. Whoever is prime minister after next month’s election must not squander the opportunity to finally forge a coherent climate-change policy.
The Labor policy announced this week looks sound enough, but it’s not first-best. Sadly, an economy-wide policy that tackles climate change at lowest cost was left behind on the battlefield of the climate wars.
Labor is basically proposing to take the Coalition’s policy vehicle, put its own badge on the bonnet, and then drive it faster. Bill Shorten’s policy looks a bit like what an earlier Coalition would have done had its own internal politics not destroyed coherent policy.
It’s a combination of the National Energy Guarantee (NEG), the Emissions Reduction Fund and the so-called Safeguard Mechanism. It’s a workable model that could encourage investment without getting bogged down in unco-ordinated and incoherent federal and state subsidies and threats.
No matter who wins the election, their task is enormous. Australia’s total emissions in 2018 were 534 million tonnes, down from 605 million tonnes in 2005. The Coalition’s target implies emissions will come down to 448 million tonnes in 2030. Labor’s more ambitious target implies emissions will be down to 333 million tonnes by then. And whoever is in government would need to keep going from there.
It would truly be a tragedy for Australia if the Greens once again let pursuit of the perfect prevent implementation of the good.The overwhelming contributor to the fall in emissions since 2005 is a dramatic reduction in emissions from land clearing. The effect of this "windfall" for Labor’s target is that, if the electricity sector is set a 45 per cent emissions reduction target, the target for the rest of the economy would be closer to 30 per cent.
The Coalition has no overarching policy and no specific emissions-reduction mechanism for the electricity sector. The biggest weight in the Coalition’s saddle is its track record, highlighted by the dumping of both its prime minister and its preferred policy in 2018.
Labor proposes a combination of approaches for the various sectors that contribute to Australia’s emissions.
This avoids a rerun of previous climate battles over an economy-wide carbon tax, but it leads to selective targets and tougher fights with each sector.
Additional safety valve
Under Labor, the key mechanism for the electricity sector would initially be the NEG; for large-scale industrial emissions it would be the Safeguard Mechanism; for agriculture it would be tightened restrictions; and for the transport sector it would be emissions standards that tighten over time. Domestic credits would become the tradeable commodity across industry sectors, with international credits an additional safety valve.
Simple logic reveals the extent of Labor’s challenge. Every tonne of emissions conceded to one sector is a tonne that must be picked up by someone else. If agriculture is excluded and large trade-exposed businesses are substantially shielded, then other sectors such as electricity and transport will have to pick up that load.
None of this is likely to be simple. Although much of the business community now supports action on climate change, if Shorten wins the election then business will stride through the door that Labor has opened for negotiation. The Coalition will argue that Labor’s target is economically irresponsible. The Greens will argue that it is environmentally irresponsible. The Coalition and the Greens, in an unholy agreement, both intend to reject the use of international credits. It would truly be a tragedy for Australia if the Greens once again let pursuit of the perfect prevent implementation of the good.
If Labor wins, Mark Butler as the new Energy and Environment Minister will have the further, non-trivial task of securing agreement from the states and territories to integrate their various climate-change and energy policies into a coherent whole.
Moral high ground
Between now and polling day, Labor will claim the moral high ground on climate change. It will point to official figures that show Australia is not on track to meet even the Coalition’s less-ambitious target. Labor will also highlight modelling that suggests more renewable energy means lower electricity prices. The Coalition, for its part, will highlight other, recently published modelling that suggests much higher prices under Labor’s more ambitious emissions-reduction target.
Labor appears to have decided against providing design details or costings for its climate-change policy. That political judgment may be vindicated, but it provides the opportunity for a scare campaign. The Coalition, and sections of the media, will not miss that opportunity.
Climate change is upon us. Australian businesses and voters are looking for credible action on emissions but want reassurance that electricity will remain reliable and affordable.
Let the climate-change election campaign begin.
*Tony Wood is director of the Grattan Institute's Energy Program.
Links
The nation is desperate for an end to the climate wars but Labor is asking us to take a lot on trust.
Reducing emissions will be an enormous challenge in years to come - whoever wins the election. Photo Paul JonesAustralia needs a credible and predictable climate-change policy to ensure affordable and reliable electricity while contributing to the global task of avoiding catastrophic climate change.
Sound policy and winning politics have been horribly out of alignment since Kevin Rudd failed to implement his carbon pollution reduction scheme. Whoever is prime minister after next month’s election must not squander the opportunity to finally forge a coherent climate-change policy.
The Labor policy announced this week looks sound enough, but it’s not first-best. Sadly, an economy-wide policy that tackles climate change at lowest cost was left behind on the battlefield of the climate wars.
Labor is basically proposing to take the Coalition’s policy vehicle, put its own badge on the bonnet, and then drive it faster. Bill Shorten’s policy looks a bit like what an earlier Coalition would have done had its own internal politics not destroyed coherent policy.
It’s a combination of the National Energy Guarantee (NEG), the Emissions Reduction Fund and the so-called Safeguard Mechanism. It’s a workable model that could encourage investment without getting bogged down in unco-ordinated and incoherent federal and state subsidies and threats.
No matter who wins the election, their task is enormous. Australia’s total emissions in 2018 were 534 million tonnes, down from 605 million tonnes in 2005. The Coalition’s target implies emissions will come down to 448 million tonnes in 2030. Labor’s more ambitious target implies emissions will be down to 333 million tonnes by then. And whoever is in government would need to keep going from there.
It would truly be a tragedy for Australia if the Greens once again let pursuit of the perfect prevent implementation of the good.The overwhelming contributor to the fall in emissions since 2005 is a dramatic reduction in emissions from land clearing. The effect of this "windfall" for Labor’s target is that, if the electricity sector is set a 45 per cent emissions reduction target, the target for the rest of the economy would be closer to 30 per cent.
The Coalition has no overarching policy and no specific emissions-reduction mechanism for the electricity sector. The biggest weight in the Coalition’s saddle is its track record, highlighted by the dumping of both its prime minister and its preferred policy in 2018.
Labor proposes a combination of approaches for the various sectors that contribute to Australia’s emissions.
This avoids a rerun of previous climate battles over an economy-wide carbon tax, but it leads to selective targets and tougher fights with each sector.
Additional safety valve
Under Labor, the key mechanism for the electricity sector would initially be the NEG; for large-scale industrial emissions it would be the Safeguard Mechanism; for agriculture it would be tightened restrictions; and for the transport sector it would be emissions standards that tighten over time. Domestic credits would become the tradeable commodity across industry sectors, with international credits an additional safety valve.
Simple logic reveals the extent of Labor’s challenge. Every tonne of emissions conceded to one sector is a tonne that must be picked up by someone else. If agriculture is excluded and large trade-exposed businesses are substantially shielded, then other sectors such as electricity and transport will have to pick up that load.
None of this is likely to be simple. Although much of the business community now supports action on climate change, if Shorten wins the election then business will stride through the door that Labor has opened for negotiation. The Coalition will argue that Labor’s target is economically irresponsible. The Greens will argue that it is environmentally irresponsible. The Coalition and the Greens, in an unholy agreement, both intend to reject the use of international credits. It would truly be a tragedy for Australia if the Greens once again let pursuit of the perfect prevent implementation of the good.
If Labor wins, Mark Butler as the new Energy and Environment Minister will have the further, non-trivial task of securing agreement from the states and territories to integrate their various climate-change and energy policies into a coherent whole.
Moral high ground
Between now and polling day, Labor will claim the moral high ground on climate change. It will point to official figures that show Australia is not on track to meet even the Coalition’s less-ambitious target. Labor will also highlight modelling that suggests more renewable energy means lower electricity prices. The Coalition, for its part, will highlight other, recently published modelling that suggests much higher prices under Labor’s more ambitious emissions-reduction target.
Labor appears to have decided against providing design details or costings for its climate-change policy. That political judgment may be vindicated, but it provides the opportunity for a scare campaign. The Coalition, and sections of the media, will not miss that opportunity.
Climate change is upon us. Australian businesses and voters are looking for credible action on emissions but want reassurance that electricity will remain reliable and affordable.
Let the climate-change election campaign begin.
*Tony Wood is director of the Grattan Institute's Energy Program.
Links
- ALP Climate Policy Requires Serious Scrutiny
- Labor backflips on car emissions policy
- Labor's emissions trading scheme
- 'Fake action': Labor will not use Kyoto credits in major new emissions package
- 50% of new cars to be electric vehicles by 2030 under Labor climate change policy
- Labor's Emissions Trading Scheme
- Greens blast key part of Labor's climate policy as 'fake action'
- Labor's climate change policy explained: here's what we know
- Labor to tighten emissions regime as it draws climate battle-lines
- Morrison government seeks to divide Labor and unions over emissions
- Coalition says Labor must use Kyoto credits – but also that they make little difference
- Richard Di Natale: I will work with Labor to get action on climate change
- Explained: how the National Energy Guarantee works
Categories: External websites
ALP Climate Policy Requires Serious Scrutiny
Sydney Morning Herald - Editorial
The ALP's announcement of key details of its climate policy on Monday was quickly overshadowed by the federal budget but it could prove to be a more important document in the long-term if there is a change of government at the federal election.
The policy is complex and, unfortunately, the political debate on the details has been poor. Prime Minister Scott Morrison chose to respond to a question about climate policy in Parliament on Wednesday with a dad-joke impersonation of the slapstick character Borat from a 2006 movie.
Bill Shorten's plan includes international carbon permits. Credit: Alex EllinghausenThe government's failure to engage intellectually is giving the ALP too easy a ride. There are serious questions to be answered.The ALP must show it has a practical plan which will achieve its promise to cut emissions by 2030 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels while at the same time keeping costs to a minimum.
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has been light on detail but this week did clear up a few things. First, he has confirmed that if elected he will not seek to use so-called 'carry-over credits' to meet Australia's targets under the Paris climate treaty. Because Australia cut emissions by more than it pledged under the Kyoto treaty for the period 2005 to 2020, it could have tried to carry that over as a credit for the new deal for 2020 to 2030.
This sleight of hand would sap Australia's moral authority to press other countries to act. It has already been rejected by European countries and Mr Shorten correctly described it as "fake action".
Another new point is that Mr Shorten said he would allow the use of so-called international carbon credits, which sound similar but are very different. Under this policy, Australian polluters would be able to meet some of their emissions reduction targets by paying for climate reduction projects in other countries.This is what prompted Mr Morrison's joke in which he speculated Labor's policy could result in buying emissions credits from Borat's homeland of Kazakhstan.
It is strange that the Liberal Party, supposedly the party of business, is treating the idea as a joke. Businesses, such as oil producer Woodside, are big fans because it could be much cheaper than cutting their own emissions. Many companies already buy these credits on a voluntary basis as a public relation exercise to help them become carbon neutral. They are attractive because the cost per ton of reducing carbon emissions by, say, planting a forest in Papua New Guinea is currently only a fraction of the cost of doing it here.Korea has already allowed the use of international permits for its new emissions trading scheme and it is likely they will be used soon in Europe, New Zealand and China to meet Paris commitments.
Yet international credits are not a panacea. For one thing, some of them can be fakes. A decade ago, Chinese companies were discovered to have sold permits based on misleading claims about reductions in carbon emissions from refrigeration gases.
There are also moral issues in foisting the responsibility for emissions reductions on developing countries. Moreover excessive dependence on international permits carries commercial risks. If other countries start to embrace them their price could rise dramatically.The ALP is right to leave open the door to international carbon permits as a partial answer but it must ensure they are rigorously accredited and must not use them as a substitute for domestic carbon reduction. Most of the heavy lifting will have to be done here.
Links
The ALP's announcement of key details of its climate policy on Monday was quickly overshadowed by the federal budget but it could prove to be a more important document in the long-term if there is a change of government at the federal election.
The policy is complex and, unfortunately, the political debate on the details has been poor. Prime Minister Scott Morrison chose to respond to a question about climate policy in Parliament on Wednesday with a dad-joke impersonation of the slapstick character Borat from a 2006 movie.
Bill Shorten's plan includes international carbon permits. Credit: Alex EllinghausenThe government's failure to engage intellectually is giving the ALP too easy a ride. There are serious questions to be answered.The ALP must show it has a practical plan which will achieve its promise to cut emissions by 2030 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels while at the same time keeping costs to a minimum.
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has been light on detail but this week did clear up a few things. First, he has confirmed that if elected he will not seek to use so-called 'carry-over credits' to meet Australia's targets under the Paris climate treaty. Because Australia cut emissions by more than it pledged under the Kyoto treaty for the period 2005 to 2020, it could have tried to carry that over as a credit for the new deal for 2020 to 2030.
This sleight of hand would sap Australia's moral authority to press other countries to act. It has already been rejected by European countries and Mr Shorten correctly described it as "fake action".
Another new point is that Mr Shorten said he would allow the use of so-called international carbon credits, which sound similar but are very different. Under this policy, Australian polluters would be able to meet some of their emissions reduction targets by paying for climate reduction projects in other countries.This is what prompted Mr Morrison's joke in which he speculated Labor's policy could result in buying emissions credits from Borat's homeland of Kazakhstan.
It is strange that the Liberal Party, supposedly the party of business, is treating the idea as a joke. Businesses, such as oil producer Woodside, are big fans because it could be much cheaper than cutting their own emissions. Many companies already buy these credits on a voluntary basis as a public relation exercise to help them become carbon neutral. They are attractive because the cost per ton of reducing carbon emissions by, say, planting a forest in Papua New Guinea is currently only a fraction of the cost of doing it here.Korea has already allowed the use of international permits for its new emissions trading scheme and it is likely they will be used soon in Europe, New Zealand and China to meet Paris commitments.
Yet international credits are not a panacea. For one thing, some of them can be fakes. A decade ago, Chinese companies were discovered to have sold permits based on misleading claims about reductions in carbon emissions from refrigeration gases.
There are also moral issues in foisting the responsibility for emissions reductions on developing countries. Moreover excessive dependence on international permits carries commercial risks. If other countries start to embrace them their price could rise dramatically.The ALP is right to leave open the door to international carbon permits as a partial answer but it must ensure they are rigorously accredited and must not use them as a substitute for domestic carbon reduction. Most of the heavy lifting will have to be done here.
Links
- 'Fake action': Labor will not use Kyoto credits in major new emissions package
- 50% of new cars to be electric vehicles by 2030 under Labor climate change policy
- Labor's Emissions Trading Scheme
- Greens blast key part of Labor's climate policy as 'fake action'
- Labor's climate change policy explained: here's what we know
- Labor to tighten emissions regime as it draws climate battle-lines
- Morrison government seeks to divide Labor and unions over emissions
- Coalition says Labor must use Kyoto credits – but also that they make little difference
- Richard Di Natale: I will work with Labor to get action on climate change
Categories: External websites
Hopes Emerge For A 'Great Era Of Bipartisanship' On Clean Energy Policy
Fairfax - Peter Hannam
In the wake of last month's re-election of Gladys Berejiklian's Liberal-led government, prospects have brightened for a sudden - and even surprising - narrowing of the gap between state and federal energy policy.
The elevation of Rob Stokes to head the key Planning & Industry cluster brings to the fore a Minister known for his support of renewable energy.
Having Matt Kean - the head of the dominant moderate faction - run the cluster's Energy and Environment portfolio, will bring political nous to Stokes' intellectual clout, a senior NSW Liberal source says.
Sunset on the climate wars? State and federal energy policies could soon be more coordinated than they have been for decades. Credit: Sitthixay Ditthavong "A great era of bipartisanship" is possible, this source says - provided Labor takes over in Canberra.
NSW's position at COAG Energy Council will more closely resemble those of other Liberal-led states of South Australia and Tasmania where renewable energy dominates their electricity supplies.
In fact, the NSW government has been distancing itself from the federal Coalition for some time.
Don Harwin, Kean's predecessor as Energy Minister, publicly clashed with his federal counterpart prior to Christmas, calling for an end to the "climate wars" at a COAG meeting.
While some wondered if Harwin's outburst was a stunt - "he wasn't active on these issues at previous COAG events", one Labor-state participant said - his comments didn't go down well with conservative colleagues at home.
“The hard right went into a meltdown”, a senior government source says. “What about our base?”
According to the senior Liberal source, one consequence was that an internal truce was made, between the state and federal governments, and within the NSW Coalition.
One result was the Berejiklian government shelved plans for a bigger renewable energy announcement during its re-election campaign, apparently aimed for release around the Australia Day weekend.
Instead of taking to voters a policy closer to the Labor offering - such as the ALP plan to drive 7 gigawatts of new renewable capacity into NSW through reverse auction – the Berejiklian government promised much less.
The main offering was a no-interest loan scheme for as many as 300,000 households to buy solar panels and batteries over the next decade.
Another battle, though, was taking place out of view: resistance by NSW to a push by the Morrison government for a coal-fired power station in the state as part of its proposal to underwrite new electricity generation.
With the biggest population, big coal reserves, and an existing grid, NSW was the prime target. Securing support would also have given a shot in the arm for pro-coal Coalition MPs, especially those hailing from NSW.
Instead, the Berejiklian government rejected the plan, the senior Liberal source said. Minister Angus Taylor had to settle for a $10 million feasibility study for a plant in Queensland - also without support from that state's Labor government.
Minister Taylor's office rejects that, noting three of the 12 projects on the Underwriting New Generation Investments program are in NSW.
These include a minor revamp of the Vales Point coal-fired power station, a potential gas import facility at Port Kembla, and pumped hydro plant at Armidale.
Senior Liberals in NSW say further distancing between their position on climate change and renewable energy and those of their federal counterparts is likely. But don't expect them to become public until after the federal election.
Links
In the wake of last month's re-election of Gladys Berejiklian's Liberal-led government, prospects have brightened for a sudden - and even surprising - narrowing of the gap between state and federal energy policy.
The elevation of Rob Stokes to head the key Planning & Industry cluster brings to the fore a Minister known for his support of renewable energy.
Having Matt Kean - the head of the dominant moderate faction - run the cluster's Energy and Environment portfolio, will bring political nous to Stokes' intellectual clout, a senior NSW Liberal source says.
Sunset on the climate wars? State and federal energy policies could soon be more coordinated than they have been for decades. Credit: Sitthixay Ditthavong "A great era of bipartisanship" is possible, this source says - provided Labor takes over in Canberra.
NSW's position at COAG Energy Council will more closely resemble those of other Liberal-led states of South Australia and Tasmania where renewable energy dominates their electricity supplies.
In fact, the NSW government has been distancing itself from the federal Coalition for some time.
Don Harwin, Kean's predecessor as Energy Minister, publicly clashed with his federal counterpart prior to Christmas, calling for an end to the "climate wars" at a COAG meeting.
While some wondered if Harwin's outburst was a stunt - "he wasn't active on these issues at previous COAG events", one Labor-state participant said - his comments didn't go down well with conservative colleagues at home.
“The hard right went into a meltdown”, a senior government source says. “What about our base?”
According to the senior Liberal source, one consequence was that an internal truce was made, between the state and federal governments, and within the NSW Coalition.
One result was the Berejiklian government shelved plans for a bigger renewable energy announcement during its re-election campaign, apparently aimed for release around the Australia Day weekend.
Instead of taking to voters a policy closer to the Labor offering - such as the ALP plan to drive 7 gigawatts of new renewable capacity into NSW through reverse auction – the Berejiklian government promised much less.
The main offering was a no-interest loan scheme for as many as 300,000 households to buy solar panels and batteries over the next decade.
Another battle, though, was taking place out of view: resistance by NSW to a push by the Morrison government for a coal-fired power station in the state as part of its proposal to underwrite new electricity generation.
With the biggest population, big coal reserves, and an existing grid, NSW was the prime target. Securing support would also have given a shot in the arm for pro-coal Coalition MPs, especially those hailing from NSW.
Instead, the Berejiklian government rejected the plan, the senior Liberal source said. Minister Angus Taylor had to settle for a $10 million feasibility study for a plant in Queensland - also without support from that state's Labor government.
Minister Taylor's office rejects that, noting three of the 12 projects on the Underwriting New Generation Investments program are in NSW.
These include a minor revamp of the Vales Point coal-fired power station, a potential gas import facility at Port Kembla, and pumped hydro plant at Armidale.
Senior Liberals in NSW say further distancing between their position on climate change and renewable energy and those of their federal counterparts is likely. But don't expect them to become public until after the federal election.
Links
- Australia Stops Payments To Green Climate Fund
- Labor's Climate Change Policy Explained: Here's What We Know
- Coalition's Climate Solutions Fund Must Last A Further Five Years
- Federal Budget 2019: Environment Restoration Fund Secures $100 Million To Cut Waste, Protect Threatened Species
- Four Corners Report Shows Climate Change Concerns Heating Up Ahead Of Federal Election
- Labor's Emissions Trading Scheme
- Greens Set 2030 Cut-Off For Coal Exports And Coal-Fired Power Stations
- Heavyweights Now Speaking With One Voice On Climate Change Risks
- What Are Major Parties’ Climate Change Policies?
- Why Climate Change Risks Are 'Material' For Big Finance
- APRA Demands Banks, Insurers Act On Climate Risk
Categories: External websites
Australia’s 2018 Environmental Scorecard: A Dreadful Year That Demands Action
The Conversation - Albert Van Dijk | Shoshana Rapley*
Bushfires ravaged parts of central Queensland amid heatwaves in November 2018. QFES Media/AAP Environmental news is rarely good. But even by those low standards, 2018 was especially bad. That is the main conclusion from Australia’s Environment in 2018, the latest in an annual series of environmental condition reports, released today.
Every year, we analyse vast amounts of measurements from satellites and on-ground stations using algorithms and prediction models on a supercomputer. These volumes of data are turned into regional summary accounts that can be explored on our Australian Environment Explorer website. We interpret these data, along with other information from national and international reports, to assess how our environment is tracking.
A bad year
Whereas 2017 was already quite bad, 2018 saw many indicators dip even further into the red.
Temperatures went up again, rainfall declined further, and the destruction of vegetation and ecosystems by drought, fire and land clearing continued. Soil moisture, rivers and wetlands all declined, and vegetation growth was poor.
In short, our environment took a beating in 2018, and that was even before the oppressive heatwaves, bushfires and Darling River fish kills of January 2019.
Indicators of Australia’s environment in 2018 compared with the previous year. Similar to national economic indicators, they provide a summary but also hide regional variations, complex interactions and long-term context. Source: http://www.ausenv.online/2018The combined pressures from habitat destruction, climate change, and invasive pests and diseases are taking their toll on our unique plants and animals. Another 54 species were added to the official list of threatened species, which now stands at 1,775. That is 47% more than 18 years ago and puts Australia among the world’s worst performers in biodiversity protection. On the upside, the number of predator-proof islands or fenced-off reserves in Australia reached 188 in 2018, covering close to 2,500 square kilometres. They offer good prospects of saving at least 13 mammal species from extinction.
Globally, the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere accelerated again after slowing down in 2017. Global air and ocean temperatures remained high, sea levels increased further, and even the ozone hole grew again, after shrinking during the previous two years.
Sea surface temperatures around Australia did not increase in 2018, but they nevertheless were well above long-term averages. Surveys of the Great Barrier Reef showed further declining health across the entire reef. An exceptional heatwave in late 2018 in Far North Queensland raised fears for yet another bout of coral bleaching, but this was averted when sudden massive downpours cooled surface waters.
The hot conditions did cause much damage to wildlife and vegetation, however, with spectacled flying foxes dropping dead from trees and fire ravaging what was once a tropical rainforest.
While previous environmental scorecards showed a mixed bag of regional impacts, 2018 was a poor year in all states and territories. Particularly badly hit was New South Wales, where after a second year of very poor rainfall, ecosystems and communities reached crisis point. Least affected was southern Western Australia, which enjoyed relatively cool and wet conditions.
Environmental Condition Score in 2018 by state and territory, based on a combination of seven indicators. The large number is the score for 2017, the smaller number the change from the previous year. Source: http://www.ausenv.online/2018It was a poor year for nature and farmers alike, with growing conditions in grazing, irrigated agriculture and dryland cropping each declining by 17-20% at a national scale. The only upside was improved cropping conditions in WA, which mitigated the 34% decline elsewhere.
A bad start to 2019
Although it is too early for a full picture, the first months of 2019 continued as badly as 2018 ended. The 2018-19 summer broke heat records across the country by large margins, bushfires raged through Tasmania’s forests, and a sudden turn in the hot weather killed scores of fish in the Darling River. The monsoon in northern Australia did not come until late January, the latest in decades, but then dumped a huge amount of rain on northern Queensland, flooding vast swathes of land.
It would be comforting to believe that our environment merely waxes and wanes with rainfall, and is resilient to yearly variations. To some extent, this is true. The current year may still turn wet and improve conditions, although a developing El Niño makes this less likely.
However, while we are good at acknowledging rapid changes, we are terrible at recognising slow, long-term ones. Underlying the yearly variations in weather is an unmistakable pattern of environmental decline that threatens our future.
New South Wales was hit hard by drought in 2018. AAP Image/Perry DuffinWhat can we do about it?
Global warming is already with us, and strong action is required to avoid an even more dire future of rolling heatwaves and year-round bushfires. But while global climate change requires global action, there is a lot we can and have to do ourselves.
Australia is one of the world’s most wasteful societies, and there are many opportunities to clean up our act. Achieving progress is not hard, and despite shrill protests from vested interests and the ideologically blind, taking action will not take away our prosperity. Home solar systems and more efficient transport can in fact save money. Our country has huge opportunities for renewable energy, which can potentially create thousands of jobs. Together, we can indeed reduce emissions “in a canter” – all it takes is some clear national leadership.
The ongoing destruction of natural vegetation is as damaging as it is unnecessary, and stopping it will bring a raft of benefits. Our rivers and wetlands are more than just a source of cheap irrigation for big businesses. With more effort, we can save many species from extinction. Our farmers play a vital role in caring for our country, and we need to support them better in doing so.
Our environment is our life support. It provides us our place to live, our food, health, livelihoods, culture and identity. To protect it is to protect ourselves.
*Shoshana Rapley is an ANU honours student and research assistant in the Fenner School of Environment and Society.
Links
Bushfires ravaged parts of central Queensland amid heatwaves in November 2018. QFES Media/AAP Environmental news is rarely good. But even by those low standards, 2018 was especially bad. That is the main conclusion from Australia’s Environment in 2018, the latest in an annual series of environmental condition reports, released today.
Every year, we analyse vast amounts of measurements from satellites and on-ground stations using algorithms and prediction models on a supercomputer. These volumes of data are turned into regional summary accounts that can be explored on our Australian Environment Explorer website. We interpret these data, along with other information from national and international reports, to assess how our environment is tracking.
A bad year
Whereas 2017 was already quite bad, 2018 saw many indicators dip even further into the red.
Temperatures went up again, rainfall declined further, and the destruction of vegetation and ecosystems by drought, fire and land clearing continued. Soil moisture, rivers and wetlands all declined, and vegetation growth was poor.
In short, our environment took a beating in 2018, and that was even before the oppressive heatwaves, bushfires and Darling River fish kills of January 2019.
Indicators of Australia’s environment in 2018 compared with the previous year. Similar to national economic indicators, they provide a summary but also hide regional variations, complex interactions and long-term context. Source: http://www.ausenv.online/2018The combined pressures from habitat destruction, climate change, and invasive pests and diseases are taking their toll on our unique plants and animals. Another 54 species were added to the official list of threatened species, which now stands at 1,775. That is 47% more than 18 years ago and puts Australia among the world’s worst performers in biodiversity protection. On the upside, the number of predator-proof islands or fenced-off reserves in Australia reached 188 in 2018, covering close to 2,500 square kilometres. They offer good prospects of saving at least 13 mammal species from extinction.
Globally, the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere accelerated again after slowing down in 2017. Global air and ocean temperatures remained high, sea levels increased further, and even the ozone hole grew again, after shrinking during the previous two years.
Sea surface temperatures around Australia did not increase in 2018, but they nevertheless were well above long-term averages. Surveys of the Great Barrier Reef showed further declining health across the entire reef. An exceptional heatwave in late 2018 in Far North Queensland raised fears for yet another bout of coral bleaching, but this was averted when sudden massive downpours cooled surface waters.
The hot conditions did cause much damage to wildlife and vegetation, however, with spectacled flying foxes dropping dead from trees and fire ravaging what was once a tropical rainforest.
While previous environmental scorecards showed a mixed bag of regional impacts, 2018 was a poor year in all states and territories. Particularly badly hit was New South Wales, where after a second year of very poor rainfall, ecosystems and communities reached crisis point. Least affected was southern Western Australia, which enjoyed relatively cool and wet conditions.
Environmental Condition Score in 2018 by state and territory, based on a combination of seven indicators. The large number is the score for 2017, the smaller number the change from the previous year. Source: http://www.ausenv.online/2018It was a poor year for nature and farmers alike, with growing conditions in grazing, irrigated agriculture and dryland cropping each declining by 17-20% at a national scale. The only upside was improved cropping conditions in WA, which mitigated the 34% decline elsewhere.
A bad start to 2019
Although it is too early for a full picture, the first months of 2019 continued as badly as 2018 ended. The 2018-19 summer broke heat records across the country by large margins, bushfires raged through Tasmania’s forests, and a sudden turn in the hot weather killed scores of fish in the Darling River. The monsoon in northern Australia did not come until late January, the latest in decades, but then dumped a huge amount of rain on northern Queensland, flooding vast swathes of land.
It would be comforting to believe that our environment merely waxes and wanes with rainfall, and is resilient to yearly variations. To some extent, this is true. The current year may still turn wet and improve conditions, although a developing El Niño makes this less likely.
However, while we are good at acknowledging rapid changes, we are terrible at recognising slow, long-term ones. Underlying the yearly variations in weather is an unmistakable pattern of environmental decline that threatens our future.
New South Wales was hit hard by drought in 2018. AAP Image/Perry DuffinWhat can we do about it?
Global warming is already with us, and strong action is required to avoid an even more dire future of rolling heatwaves and year-round bushfires. But while global climate change requires global action, there is a lot we can and have to do ourselves.
Australia is one of the world’s most wasteful societies, and there are many opportunities to clean up our act. Achieving progress is not hard, and despite shrill protests from vested interests and the ideologically blind, taking action will not take away our prosperity. Home solar systems and more efficient transport can in fact save money. Our country has huge opportunities for renewable energy, which can potentially create thousands of jobs. Together, we can indeed reduce emissions “in a canter” – all it takes is some clear national leadership.
The ongoing destruction of natural vegetation is as damaging as it is unnecessary, and stopping it will bring a raft of benefits. Our rivers and wetlands are more than just a source of cheap irrigation for big businesses. With more effort, we can save many species from extinction. Our farmers play a vital role in caring for our country, and we need to support them better in doing so.
Our environment is our life support. It provides us our place to live, our food, health, livelihoods, culture and identity. To protect it is to protect ourselves.
*Shoshana Rapley is an ANU honours student and research assistant in the Fenner School of Environment and Society.
Links
- Australia’s Environment in 2018
- Australia’s Environment Explorer
- Australia's 2017 environment scorecard: like a broken record, high temperatures further stress our ecosystems
- The Darling River is simply not supposed to dry out, even in drought
- Australia is not on track to reach 2030 Paris target (but the potential is there)
- To reduce fire risk and meet climate targets, over 300 scientists call for stronger land clearing laws
Categories: External websites
2018 Was Boom Year For Renewables Despite Political Chaos, Report Finds
The Guardian - Katharine Murphy
Clean Energy Australia snapshot shows investment in large-scale projects has doubled to $20bn
A windfarm near Burra in South Australia. The energy industry report card shows that Australia’s large scale renewable target will be met ahead of time. Photograph: Angela Harper/AAPDespite Canberra remaining locked in ongoing partisan war about emissions reductions, and Malcolm Turnbull losing the prime ministership after a conflagration about energy policy, 2018 was a boom year for renewable energy, according to the latest Clean Energy Australia report.
The new assessment, to be released Thursday, finds the amount of renewable energy capacity committed in Australia during 2018 increased 260% on 2017, with 14.8 GW underway in 2018 compared to 5.6 GW in 2017.
The upbeat industry report card comes as the energy minister Angus Taylor will tell parliament on Thursday that Australia’s 2020 large scale renewable energy target of 33,000 GWh will be met ahead of time.
Taylor will report that approximately 5.2 gigawatts of new renewable capacity was added during 2018, and also cite forecasts from the Clean Energy Regulator predicting an increase to at least 6.5 gigawatts in 2019, with the trend likely to persist in 2020 and 2021.
Guardian Australia understands the energy minister will note that large-scale generation certificate prices have crashed from around $85 a year ago to $34 today, reducing subsidies by 60%, which has a positive impact on consumer power bills.
The new Clean Energy Australia snapshot says renewables generated 7,000 jobs since 2017, with investment in large-scale renewable energy doubling to $20bn. Renewable energy generation now comprises 21% of the market, which is a record share.
The report says more than 2m households now have rooftop solar, and the installed capacity of household solar has now topped 8.1 GW, which is four times the capacity of the ageing Liddell power plant in New South Wales.
It says the top three postcodes with the highest uptake of rooftop solar are Bundaberg, Hervey Bay and Toowoomba – in National party heartland.
The chief executive of the Clean Energy Council, Kane Thornton, noted while the industry was going gangbusters, “unfortunately, the politics around energy reached another new low in 2018, with the federal government opting to tear itself apart rather than implement its own national energy guarantee”.
Thornton said while the coming federal election would create another pivotal year for clean energy in Australia, “we have thankfully reached a point where politics isn’t as existential to the industry as it once was”.
The upbeat trends in renewables comes as the Australian Energy Market Commission will report on Thursday that Australia’s energy grid is meeting consumers’ needs, but also note the energy market operator is intervening more frequently to preserve the stability of the network.
The AEMC says the switch in the mix in favour of cleaner and greener technologies is a structural change that is putting pressure on power system security and reliability. The new report notes system security–related costs are a relatively small proportion of a customer’s total bill, “however, these costs are increasing, with potential flow-through effects to consumer bills in coming years”.
While the AEMC is concerned about a looming crunch point, with the upcoming retirement of thermal coal power stations across the eastern seaboard and deteriorating system strength, the energy market operator has already declared the future of power generation in Australia will be renewables with storage, and gas, with those technologies able to replace the power currently supplied by coal generators at least cost.
In its integrated system plan released last year, the Australian Energy Market Operator plan noted that 30% of Australia’s coal generators will approach the end of their technical life over the next two decades. It said it was important to avoid premature departures if the looming transition in the national energy market was to be orderly.
But Aemo said the lowest-cost replacement options for retiring coal plants “will be a portfolio of resources, including solar (28GW), wind (10.5 GW) and storage (17 GW and 90 GWh), complemented by 500 MW of flexible gas plant and transmission investment”.
The energy market operator concluded that mix of generation can produce 90 terawatt hours of energy per annum, “more than offsetting the energy lost from retiring coal-fired generation”, also noting that transmission infrastructure would need to be reinforced to ensure the grid performs optimally after the shift.
Links
Clean Energy Australia snapshot shows investment in large-scale projects has doubled to $20bn
A windfarm near Burra in South Australia. The energy industry report card shows that Australia’s large scale renewable target will be met ahead of time. Photograph: Angela Harper/AAPDespite Canberra remaining locked in ongoing partisan war about emissions reductions, and Malcolm Turnbull losing the prime ministership after a conflagration about energy policy, 2018 was a boom year for renewable energy, according to the latest Clean Energy Australia report.
The new assessment, to be released Thursday, finds the amount of renewable energy capacity committed in Australia during 2018 increased 260% on 2017, with 14.8 GW underway in 2018 compared to 5.6 GW in 2017.
The upbeat industry report card comes as the energy minister Angus Taylor will tell parliament on Thursday that Australia’s 2020 large scale renewable energy target of 33,000 GWh will be met ahead of time.
Taylor will report that approximately 5.2 gigawatts of new renewable capacity was added during 2018, and also cite forecasts from the Clean Energy Regulator predicting an increase to at least 6.5 gigawatts in 2019, with the trend likely to persist in 2020 and 2021.
Guardian Australia understands the energy minister will note that large-scale generation certificate prices have crashed from around $85 a year ago to $34 today, reducing subsidies by 60%, which has a positive impact on consumer power bills.
The new Clean Energy Australia snapshot says renewables generated 7,000 jobs since 2017, with investment in large-scale renewable energy doubling to $20bn. Renewable energy generation now comprises 21% of the market, which is a record share.
The report says more than 2m households now have rooftop solar, and the installed capacity of household solar has now topped 8.1 GW, which is four times the capacity of the ageing Liddell power plant in New South Wales.
It says the top three postcodes with the highest uptake of rooftop solar are Bundaberg, Hervey Bay and Toowoomba – in National party heartland.
The chief executive of the Clean Energy Council, Kane Thornton, noted while the industry was going gangbusters, “unfortunately, the politics around energy reached another new low in 2018, with the federal government opting to tear itself apart rather than implement its own national energy guarantee”.
Thornton said while the coming federal election would create another pivotal year for clean energy in Australia, “we have thankfully reached a point where politics isn’t as existential to the industry as it once was”.
The upbeat trends in renewables comes as the Australian Energy Market Commission will report on Thursday that Australia’s energy grid is meeting consumers’ needs, but also note the energy market operator is intervening more frequently to preserve the stability of the network.
The AEMC says the switch in the mix in favour of cleaner and greener technologies is a structural change that is putting pressure on power system security and reliability. The new report notes system security–related costs are a relatively small proportion of a customer’s total bill, “however, these costs are increasing, with potential flow-through effects to consumer bills in coming years”.
While the AEMC is concerned about a looming crunch point, with the upcoming retirement of thermal coal power stations across the eastern seaboard and deteriorating system strength, the energy market operator has already declared the future of power generation in Australia will be renewables with storage, and gas, with those technologies able to replace the power currently supplied by coal generators at least cost.
In its integrated system plan released last year, the Australian Energy Market Operator plan noted that 30% of Australia’s coal generators will approach the end of their technical life over the next two decades. It said it was important to avoid premature departures if the looming transition in the national energy market was to be orderly.
But Aemo said the lowest-cost replacement options for retiring coal plants “will be a portfolio of resources, including solar (28GW), wind (10.5 GW) and storage (17 GW and 90 GWh), complemented by 500 MW of flexible gas plant and transmission investment”.
The energy market operator concluded that mix of generation can produce 90 terawatt hours of energy per annum, “more than offsetting the energy lost from retiring coal-fired generation”, also noting that transmission infrastructure would need to be reinforced to ensure the grid performs optimally after the shift.
Links
- Clean Energy Australia Report
- Renewable energy will be world's main power source by 2040, says BP
- Morrison government seeks to divide Labor and unions over emissions
- Scott Morrison says national energy guarantee 'is dead'
- Energy analysts forecast 'the end of coal' in Asia as Japanese investors back renewables
- Australia’s renewables sector doubles output in boom year
- Queensland could reap $24bn renewables boom if it phases out coal generators
- Renewables generated more electricity than brown coal over summer, report finds
- The Queensland election's renewables versus coal debate isn't about jobs. It's a culture war
- Greens propose new energy storage target to drive switch to renewables
- Most Australians want renewables to be primary energy source, survey finds
Categories: External websites
Australia Stops Payments To Green Climate Fund
Climate Home News - Karl Mathiesen
Australian budget offers nothing to flagship UN scheme as its board seeks replenishment, while climate shapes as divisive election issue
Despite broad public concern about rising drought and bushfire risk, Australia's government has failed to bring emissions down. (Photo: Commons/virtualsteve) Australia will stop contributions to the UN’s major fund for battling climate change this year, according to government budget papers released on Tuesday.
With a federal election looming, the government followed up on prime minister Scott Morrison’s threat not to “tip money into that big climate fund”.
Since 2015, Australia has given $187m to the fund, which finances projects in the developing world that cut emissions or promote resilience to climate impacts. The budget document said Australia made its “final” contribution of $19.2m in December.
Around a third of Australia’s overseas development budget is spent in the climate-vulnerable Pacific. But the Australia Institute’s Richie Merzian said multilateral institutions, such as the Green Climate Fund, were able to leverage private investment in projects in “a way that the Australian Government has struggled to do”.
“The GCF has co-financing capabilities and regional coverage that Australia couldn’t possibly provide,” he said. Merzian also noted that Australia’s overall aid budget was dropping when measured against the growing economy.
In a statement, Oxfam Australia said the budget was a “catastrophic failure of leadership in the face of the climate crisis – which is out of step with a majority of Australians – and growing inequality and it undermines the future of our Pacific neighbours”.
The Green Climate Fund formed part of a compact between poor and rich countries that was the basis for the Paris climate agreement. Having spent nearly half of its original $10.3bn allocation, the fund has signalled it intends to start raising new finance from developed countries this year.
By the time the hat is passed around, Australia’s position may have changed. The country is expected to hold elections next month, with the major parties sharply divergent on climate policy.
In a speech last year, shadow foreign minister Penny Wong said “it goes without saying” Labor would “be willing to work with” multilateral organisations including the Green Climate Fund to combat global warming.
This week, Labor gave an indication of the domestic climate package it will take to the poll. The partial release indicated it will try to revive the national energy guarantee, formerly a government scheme that saw Australia’s last prime minster overthrown in favour of Morrison.
The Labor version is more stringent and would cut emissions in the electricity sector 45% on 2005 levels by 2030. (The now-dropped coalition government plan aimed for 26%.) Labor also pledged that half of all new cars sold would be electric by 2030.
Polling puts the opposition Labor party, with leader Bill Shorten, in the lead. The government, on the defensive, has called Labor’s climate policy a “Trojan horse for a carbon tax” and announced tax cuts in a bid to win back voters.
In its budget, the Liberal-National coalition announced $2bn over 15 years to finance what treasurer Josh Frydenberg called “practical emission reduction activities”. These include funding farmers and indigenous land managers to store carbon in the soil.
“Through our measures, as we have done in the past, we will beat our international emission reduction targets,” Frydenberg said on Tuesday.
Australia’s emissions grew last year by 0.9%, according to the latest government data. The country has been criticised for using a system of pollution credits from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to meet its targets while allowing real emissions to continue rising. Labor has said it would close that loophole.
The Australian Conservation Foundation’s chief executive officer Kelly O’Shanassy said the scheme needed reform to close loopholes that could see some of that money spent upgrading old fossil fuel plants.
The amount available for climate projects pales in comparison to fuel tax breaks for businesses, O’Shanassy added. “In this budget the government plans to spend $4.36 subsidising pollution for every dollar it spends on climate action.”
Links
Australian budget offers nothing to flagship UN scheme as its board seeks replenishment, while climate shapes as divisive election issue
Despite broad public concern about rising drought and bushfire risk, Australia's government has failed to bring emissions down. (Photo: Commons/virtualsteve) Australia will stop contributions to the UN’s major fund for battling climate change this year, according to government budget papers released on Tuesday.
With a federal election looming, the government followed up on prime minister Scott Morrison’s threat not to “tip money into that big climate fund”.
Since 2015, Australia has given $187m to the fund, which finances projects in the developing world that cut emissions or promote resilience to climate impacts. The budget document said Australia made its “final” contribution of $19.2m in December.
Around a third of Australia’s overseas development budget is spent in the climate-vulnerable Pacific. But the Australia Institute’s Richie Merzian said multilateral institutions, such as the Green Climate Fund, were able to leverage private investment in projects in “a way that the Australian Government has struggled to do”.
“The GCF has co-financing capabilities and regional coverage that Australia couldn’t possibly provide,” he said. Merzian also noted that Australia’s overall aid budget was dropping when measured against the growing economy.
In a statement, Oxfam Australia said the budget was a “catastrophic failure of leadership in the face of the climate crisis – which is out of step with a majority of Australians – and growing inequality and it undermines the future of our Pacific neighbours”.
The Green Climate Fund formed part of a compact between poor and rich countries that was the basis for the Paris climate agreement. Having spent nearly half of its original $10.3bn allocation, the fund has signalled it intends to start raising new finance from developed countries this year.
By the time the hat is passed around, Australia’s position may have changed. The country is expected to hold elections next month, with the major parties sharply divergent on climate policy.
In a speech last year, shadow foreign minister Penny Wong said “it goes without saying” Labor would “be willing to work with” multilateral organisations including the Green Climate Fund to combat global warming.
This week, Labor gave an indication of the domestic climate package it will take to the poll. The partial release indicated it will try to revive the national energy guarantee, formerly a government scheme that saw Australia’s last prime minster overthrown in favour of Morrison.
The Labor version is more stringent and would cut emissions in the electricity sector 45% on 2005 levels by 2030. (The now-dropped coalition government plan aimed for 26%.) Labor also pledged that half of all new cars sold would be electric by 2030.
Polling puts the opposition Labor party, with leader Bill Shorten, in the lead. The government, on the defensive, has called Labor’s climate policy a “Trojan horse for a carbon tax” and announced tax cuts in a bid to win back voters.
In its budget, the Liberal-National coalition announced $2bn over 15 years to finance what treasurer Josh Frydenberg called “practical emission reduction activities”. These include funding farmers and indigenous land managers to store carbon in the soil.
“Through our measures, as we have done in the past, we will beat our international emission reduction targets,” Frydenberg said on Tuesday.
Australia’s emissions grew last year by 0.9%, according to the latest government data. The country has been criticised for using a system of pollution credits from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to meet its targets while allowing real emissions to continue rising. Labor has said it would close that loophole.
The Australian Conservation Foundation’s chief executive officer Kelly O’Shanassy said the scheme needed reform to close loopholes that could see some of that money spent upgrading old fossil fuel plants.
The amount available for climate projects pales in comparison to fuel tax breaks for businesses, O’Shanassy added. “In this budget the government plans to spend $4.36 subsidising pollution for every dollar it spends on climate action.”
Links
- The Green Climate Fund
- Federal Budget 2019: Environment Restoration Fund Secures $100 Million To Cut Waste, Protect Threatened Species
- Australian selected as head of the Green Climate Fund
- Australia won’t give money to Green Climate Fund, says PM
- Australia pledges $165 million to Green Climate Fund
- Australia starves green fund, denting climate credibility
- Federal budget 2019: $3.9b fund to deal with the fallout from climate change
- NRMA dismisses claim Labor's electric vehicle target will leave tradies stranded
- Budget blind to dual crises of inequality and climate change
- Australia government proposes new fund to meet emission reduction targets
- Why is tiny Nauru getting $26.9m in climate finance to build a port?
Categories: External websites
Labor's Climate Change Policy Explained: Here's What We Know
The Guardian - Katharine Murphy
As the partisan debate roars back to life with Coalition claims of ‘carbon tax 2.0’, these are the facts
Bill Shorten charges an electric car after launching Labor’s climate change policy in Canberra on Monday.
Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP Just days before the federal election is called, Labor has released the final component of its climate change policy. Scott Morrison has promptly declared it is carbon tax 2.0 and the regulations will impose massive costs on Australians. Given this partisan debate, which has paralysed Australian politics for a decade, has been characterised by hyperbole and misinformation, let’s work through this latest policy instalment, sector by sector, and then consider the implications.
Energy
Labor says if it wins the coming election it will try to implement the national energy guarantee abandoned by the Coalition, with a higher emissions reduction target – 45% by 2030. The government’s electricity target was 26%. If the Coalition in opposition declines to support the Neg, Labor will pursue plan B. Plan B involves topping up the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to the tune of $10bn and a new $5bn fund to modernise ageing transmission infrastructure. The objective of the intervention is to drive higher take-up of renewables in the grid. Labor has a target of sourcing 50% of electricity from renewables by 2030. Coupled with this, a Just Transition Authority will be established to help manage the retirement of the coal fleet, with generators required to give three years’ notice of closure.
Heavy industry
As well as reviving the national energy guarantee, Labor is borrowing another existing Coalition policy to bring down industrial pollution. It will use the current safeguard mechanism, which is part of the Direct Action scheme, but will extend coverage so that more companies are captured. The scheme works like this: companies are allocated baselines, and if they pollute above that level, they need to buy carbon credits (more about this is in minute), which imposes a cost on their business. Labor says it will reduce pollution in the covered entities by 45% on 2005 levels by 2030, but is planning to consult with firms on what their baseline should be, and about the specific emissions reduction trajectory for each entity. It is also planning to assist emissions-intensive trade-exposed companies with the transition.
Transport
The approach in transport is two pronged. Labor is proposing to introduce vehicle emissions standards “in line with” 105 grams of CO2 pollution per kilometre, which is the same as the US. The standard is imposed on car retailers (not manufacturers), which means car dealers will have to offset sales of high-emissions vehicles with sales of low-emissions vehicles. Coupled with this, Labor is setting targets for the take up of electric vehicles. It wants a national EV target of 50% of new sales by 2030, and a government fleet target of 50% of new sales by 2025, and it will also allow businesses to claim deductions if they buy EVs valued at more than $20,000. It will also require all federally funded road upgrades to incorporate EV charging infrastructure.
Given Labor will impose significantly tougher pollution rules than the Coalition, it also wants to boost the supply of carbon offsets. With this market becoming more important, Labor is flagging a new certification framework to ensure that carbon credits are sufficiently high quality. It will also strengthen the Carbon Farming Initiative, which allows farmers and landholders to generate carbon credits which they can sell on the carbon market. It will also allow heavy emitters to use international permits to meet their pollution reduction requirements, but Labor is not yet saying what limits might apply. It will not use carryover credits from the Kyoto period, which the Morrison government intends to use to help meet the Paris target.
Agriculture
Farmers are largely off the hook in Labor’s policy. On the positive side of the ledger there are opportunities to generate carbon credits, which generates income. The sting is land clearing. Labor is signalling it wants to extend the Queensland regime to other jurisdictions, working through the Council of Australian Governments process. That’s a principle though. There’s no detail beyond that in the policy.
Will the policy cut pollution by 45% on 2005 levels by 2030?
This is the big question. Unsurprisingly, given the toxic history, the Morrison government has resumed hollering about carbon taxes and environmental regulations that will bring Australia to its knees, but the fact is we don’t have a number of important details that would allow anyone to make fact-based conclusions. Labor says we’ll have a new vehicle emissions standard, but hasn’t said when that will apply, or the specific level of emissions reduction from transport it is factoring in as a consequence. Similarly Labor is arguing it will achieve a 45% cut from heavy emitters while allowing caveats like consultations on baselines and trajectories. Labor is not planning to release a carbon budget, which would make transparent estimates about the level of pollution cuts it is factoring-in in each sector. It is unable to say how carbon trading between the energy and industrial sectors might work because the proposed regulatory frameworks are conceptual rather than fully fleshed out. Given there are stakeholders sitting on the sidelines ready to go to war, and the Coalition is hoping that calling something that isn’t a carbon tax a carbon tax (again) represents a sound political strategy with an election in sight – the vagueness from Labor is deliberate. But there are significant unanswered questions here.
Will this policy happen, even if Labor wins?
Another big question. The Coalition is not showing any sign of having a substantial conversion on climate change. Labor will likely need the Greens to get various changes legislated and the Greens will want a higher level of ambition than is evident in this policy. The Greens will want Labor to execute a faster transition away from coal, and they are already saying no to the use of international permits. So it’s entirely possible that the long unproductive deadlock will continue. We have a long way to go.
Links
As the partisan debate roars back to life with Coalition claims of ‘carbon tax 2.0’, these are the facts
Bill Shorten charges an electric car after launching Labor’s climate change policy in Canberra on Monday.
Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP Just days before the federal election is called, Labor has released the final component of its climate change policy. Scott Morrison has promptly declared it is carbon tax 2.0 and the regulations will impose massive costs on Australians. Given this partisan debate, which has paralysed Australian politics for a decade, has been characterised by hyperbole and misinformation, let’s work through this latest policy instalment, sector by sector, and then consider the implications.
Energy
Labor says if it wins the coming election it will try to implement the national energy guarantee abandoned by the Coalition, with a higher emissions reduction target – 45% by 2030. The government’s electricity target was 26%. If the Coalition in opposition declines to support the Neg, Labor will pursue plan B. Plan B involves topping up the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to the tune of $10bn and a new $5bn fund to modernise ageing transmission infrastructure. The objective of the intervention is to drive higher take-up of renewables in the grid. Labor has a target of sourcing 50% of electricity from renewables by 2030. Coupled with this, a Just Transition Authority will be established to help manage the retirement of the coal fleet, with generators required to give three years’ notice of closure.
Heavy industry
As well as reviving the national energy guarantee, Labor is borrowing another existing Coalition policy to bring down industrial pollution. It will use the current safeguard mechanism, which is part of the Direct Action scheme, but will extend coverage so that more companies are captured. The scheme works like this: companies are allocated baselines, and if they pollute above that level, they need to buy carbon credits (more about this is in minute), which imposes a cost on their business. Labor says it will reduce pollution in the covered entities by 45% on 2005 levels by 2030, but is planning to consult with firms on what their baseline should be, and about the specific emissions reduction trajectory for each entity. It is also planning to assist emissions-intensive trade-exposed companies with the transition.
Transport
The approach in transport is two pronged. Labor is proposing to introduce vehicle emissions standards “in line with” 105 grams of CO2 pollution per kilometre, which is the same as the US. The standard is imposed on car retailers (not manufacturers), which means car dealers will have to offset sales of high-emissions vehicles with sales of low-emissions vehicles. Coupled with this, Labor is setting targets for the take up of electric vehicles. It wants a national EV target of 50% of new sales by 2030, and a government fleet target of 50% of new sales by 2025, and it will also allow businesses to claim deductions if they buy EVs valued at more than $20,000. It will also require all federally funded road upgrades to incorporate EV charging infrastructure.
Given Labor will impose significantly tougher pollution rules than the Coalition, it also wants to boost the supply of carbon offsets. With this market becoming more important, Labor is flagging a new certification framework to ensure that carbon credits are sufficiently high quality. It will also strengthen the Carbon Farming Initiative, which allows farmers and landholders to generate carbon credits which they can sell on the carbon market. It will also allow heavy emitters to use international permits to meet their pollution reduction requirements, but Labor is not yet saying what limits might apply. It will not use carryover credits from the Kyoto period, which the Morrison government intends to use to help meet the Paris target.
Agriculture
Farmers are largely off the hook in Labor’s policy. On the positive side of the ledger there are opportunities to generate carbon credits, which generates income. The sting is land clearing. Labor is signalling it wants to extend the Queensland regime to other jurisdictions, working through the Council of Australian Governments process. That’s a principle though. There’s no detail beyond that in the policy.
Will the policy cut pollution by 45% on 2005 levels by 2030?
This is the big question. Unsurprisingly, given the toxic history, the Morrison government has resumed hollering about carbon taxes and environmental regulations that will bring Australia to its knees, but the fact is we don’t have a number of important details that would allow anyone to make fact-based conclusions. Labor says we’ll have a new vehicle emissions standard, but hasn’t said when that will apply, or the specific level of emissions reduction from transport it is factoring in as a consequence. Similarly Labor is arguing it will achieve a 45% cut from heavy emitters while allowing caveats like consultations on baselines and trajectories. Labor is not planning to release a carbon budget, which would make transparent estimates about the level of pollution cuts it is factoring-in in each sector. It is unable to say how carbon trading between the energy and industrial sectors might work because the proposed regulatory frameworks are conceptual rather than fully fleshed out. Given there are stakeholders sitting on the sidelines ready to go to war, and the Coalition is hoping that calling something that isn’t a carbon tax a carbon tax (again) represents a sound political strategy with an election in sight – the vagueness from Labor is deliberate. But there are significant unanswered questions here.
Will this policy happen, even if Labor wins?
Another big question. The Coalition is not showing any sign of having a substantial conversion on climate change. Labor will likely need the Greens to get various changes legislated and the Greens will want a higher level of ambition than is evident in this policy. The Greens will want Labor to execute a faster transition away from coal, and they are already saying no to the use of international permits. So it’s entirely possible that the long unproductive deadlock will continue. We have a long way to go.
Links
- 50% of new cars to be electric vehicles by 2030 under Labor climate change policy
- Coalition promises one-off energy payments as Labor pledges to 'reset' budget
- Labor's Emissions Trading Scheme
- Greens blast key part of Labor's climate policy as 'fake action'
- Labor's climate change policy explained: here's what we know
- Labor to tighten emissions regime as it draws climate battle-lines
- Morrison government seeks to divide Labor and unions over emissions
- Coalition says Labor must use Kyoto credits – but also that they make little difference
- Australian government backs coal in defiance of IPCC climate warning
- Richard Di Natale: I will work with Labor to get action on climate change
- Greens electric car push: end sale of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030
Categories: External websites
Coalition's Climate Solutions Fund Must Last A Further Five Years
The Guardian - Paul Karp
The $2bn promised for Australia’s greenhouse gas abatement projects will be spread over 15 years, not 10, Tuesday’s budget revealed
Emissions from a coal fired power station. The Coalition effectively cut funding to reduce emissions in Tuesday’s budget. Photograph: Ashley Cooper/Getty Images The Coalition plans to spend its $2bn “climate solutions fund” over 15 years, not 10, as promised when it unveiled the rebadged emissions reduction policy in February.
The decision, revealed in Tuesday’s budget, effectively cuts the amount spent per year from $200m to $133m over the life of the fund, which pays polluters to implement greenhouse gas abatement projects.
Labor’s climate spokesman, Mark Butler, has accused Scott Morrison of already cutting the “main policy to deliver his weak 2030 pollution reduction targets”, while the Greens attacked the Coalition for spending just $189m over the first four years.
The $2bn relaunch of the Abbott-era emissions reduction fund was part of the Morrison government’s effort to bolster its environmental credentials in the face of rising community concern about the impact of climate change and challenges from independent candidates targeting the Liberal party on its climate record.
In February the prime minister’s office briefed journalists, including Guardian Australia, that $2bn would be invested over 10 years in the climate fund to build on the ERF’s record of reducing emissions by 193m tonnes.
On 25 February Scott Morrison told Sky News the Emissions Reduction Fund was a $2bn investment “over the next 10 years”, a comment he repeated in a speech the following day.
But in the budget papers released on Tuesday, the climate solutions fund is allocated $2bn over 15 years from 2019-20, including $189m over four years.
Butler said: “This was the policy that was meant to do the heavy lifting to deliver the government’s 2030 emission reduction targets, even though government data projects Australia will fail to meet even this government’s weak emission reduction targets.
“This is a budget from a government that has given up governing, and never tried to deliver real climate action.”
The Greens climate spokesman, Adam Bandt, said the government planned to spend just $189m over four years on “its signature climate ‘policy’”, noting “there’s more new money for the Cairns ring road than for climate change” in the 2019 budget.
Labor’s climate policy is to reduce emissions in the electricity sector by 45% by 2030.
On Monday Labor added a target for the rollout of electric vehicles, the promise to introduce vehicle emissions standards and to beef up the safeguard mechanism to impose new pollution reduction requirements for the aviation sector, cement, steel and aluminium, mining and gas, direct combustion and the non-electricity energy sectors.
The budget showed that the balance of the Coalition’s $3.5bn climate solutions package includes:
Malcolm Turnbull, who once branded the approach “a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale”, let the ERF dwindle to almost nothing as he pursued policy alternatives, including the national energy guarantee resisted by conservatives and dumped by Morrison shortly after he took the Liberal leadership last year.
Links
The $2bn promised for Australia’s greenhouse gas abatement projects will be spread over 15 years, not 10, Tuesday’s budget revealed
Emissions from a coal fired power station. The Coalition effectively cut funding to reduce emissions in Tuesday’s budget. Photograph: Ashley Cooper/Getty Images The Coalition plans to spend its $2bn “climate solutions fund” over 15 years, not 10, as promised when it unveiled the rebadged emissions reduction policy in February.
The decision, revealed in Tuesday’s budget, effectively cuts the amount spent per year from $200m to $133m over the life of the fund, which pays polluters to implement greenhouse gas abatement projects.
Labor’s climate spokesman, Mark Butler, has accused Scott Morrison of already cutting the “main policy to deliver his weak 2030 pollution reduction targets”, while the Greens attacked the Coalition for spending just $189m over the first four years.
The $2bn relaunch of the Abbott-era emissions reduction fund was part of the Morrison government’s effort to bolster its environmental credentials in the face of rising community concern about the impact of climate change and challenges from independent candidates targeting the Liberal party on its climate record.
In February the prime minister’s office briefed journalists, including Guardian Australia, that $2bn would be invested over 10 years in the climate fund to build on the ERF’s record of reducing emissions by 193m tonnes.
On 25 February Scott Morrison told Sky News the Emissions Reduction Fund was a $2bn investment “over the next 10 years”, a comment he repeated in a speech the following day.
But in the budget papers released on Tuesday, the climate solutions fund is allocated $2bn over 15 years from 2019-20, including $189m over four years.
Butler said: “This was the policy that was meant to do the heavy lifting to deliver the government’s 2030 emission reduction targets, even though government data projects Australia will fail to meet even this government’s weak emission reduction targets.
“This is a budget from a government that has given up governing, and never tried to deliver real climate action.”
The Greens climate spokesman, Adam Bandt, said the government planned to spend just $189m over four years on “its signature climate ‘policy’”, noting “there’s more new money for the Cairns ring road than for climate change” in the 2019 budget.
Labor’s climate policy is to reduce emissions in the electricity sector by 45% by 2030.
On Monday Labor added a target for the rollout of electric vehicles, the promise to introduce vehicle emissions standards and to beef up the safeguard mechanism to impose new pollution reduction requirements for the aviation sector, cement, steel and aluminium, mining and gas, direct combustion and the non-electricity energy sectors.
The budget showed that the balance of the Coalition’s $3.5bn climate solutions package includes:
- Up to $1.38bn in equity over six years for the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro project and $5.5m for oversight of that project
- $61.2m for the energy efficient communities program
- $56m for a feasibility study for the second inter-connector between Tasmania and the mainland
- $18m on energy efficiency; and
- $400,000 to develop a national electric vehicle strategy
Malcolm Turnbull, who once branded the approach “a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale”, let the ERF dwindle to almost nothing as he pursued policy alternatives, including the national energy guarantee resisted by conservatives and dumped by Morrison shortly after he took the Liberal leadership last year.
Links
- Federal Budget 2019: Environment Restoration Fund Secures $100 Million To Cut Waste, Protect Threatened Species
- Federal budget 2019: $3.9b fund to deal with the fallout from climate change
- NRMA dismisses claim Labor's electric vehicle target will leave tradies stranded
- Budget blind to dual crises of inequality and climate change
- Australia government proposes new fund to meet emission reduction targets
- Labor's climate change policy explained: here's what we know
- 'Woefully dirty': government accused over Australia's failure to cut vehicle emissions
Categories: External websites
Federal Budget 2019: Environment Restoration Fund Secures $100 Million To Cut Waste, Protect Threatened Species
Fairfax - Nicole Hasham
Communities will be encouraged to act locally to halt plant and animal extinction, protect coastlines and recycle waste through a $100 million fund announced by the Morrison government on Tuesday.
The Coalition is seeking to boost its environmental record ahead of the May election where climate change is expected to be a headline issue.
The budget confirmed a $3.5 billion climate solutions package announced earlier this year which the government says will help Australia meet its Paris target.
However, there were no major new measures addressing climate change in the budget.
A coalition government would establish a $25 million national centre for coasts, environment, climate research and education at Point Nepean. Credit: Ken IrwinThe $100 million Environment Restoration Fund will grant money to community groups for large projects such as managing erosion around waterways and protecting threatened species habitat. It would also support practical action on waste recovery and recycling.
Australia has one of the world's worst extinction records and critics say a lack of funding for threatened species programs is contributing to the crisis. Erosion is caused by extreme weather and other climate change effects, as well as land clearing.
In NSW, a re-elected Coalition government would spend $21.4 million improving infrastructure at defence heritage sites on Sydney Harbour, opening them for community, educational and recreational use.
In Victoria, the government would establish a $25 million national centre for coasts, environment, climate research and education. Located at Point Nepean, it would research marine and coastal ecosystems, climate and environmental management.
A $25 million Harry Butler Environmental Education Centre would be established through Western Australia's Murdoch University, to develop "sustainable environment outcomes from economic development".
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said all Australians have a responsibility to "protect our environment and address climate change ... Australians have been gifted a precious inheritance".
He emphasised the climate solutions package, which includes $2 billion for emissions reduction activities plus funding for a national electric vehicle strategy and energy efficiency strategies.
"Through our measures, as we have done in the past, we will beat our international emission reduction targets," Mr Frydenberg said. Several authoritative international bodies have previously disputed this claim.
The government announced most environment and energy measures ahead of the budget, such as $1.38 billion for the Snowy Hydro expansion.
Links
Communities will be encouraged to act locally to halt plant and animal extinction, protect coastlines and recycle waste through a $100 million fund announced by the Morrison government on Tuesday.
The Coalition is seeking to boost its environmental record ahead of the May election where climate change is expected to be a headline issue.
The budget confirmed a $3.5 billion climate solutions package announced earlier this year which the government says will help Australia meet its Paris target.
However, there were no major new measures addressing climate change in the budget.
A coalition government would establish a $25 million national centre for coasts, environment, climate research and education at Point Nepean. Credit: Ken IrwinThe $100 million Environment Restoration Fund will grant money to community groups for large projects such as managing erosion around waterways and protecting threatened species habitat. It would also support practical action on waste recovery and recycling.
Australia has one of the world's worst extinction records and critics say a lack of funding for threatened species programs is contributing to the crisis. Erosion is caused by extreme weather and other climate change effects, as well as land clearing.
In NSW, a re-elected Coalition government would spend $21.4 million improving infrastructure at defence heritage sites on Sydney Harbour, opening them for community, educational and recreational use.
In Victoria, the government would establish a $25 million national centre for coasts, environment, climate research and education. Located at Point Nepean, it would research marine and coastal ecosystems, climate and environmental management.
A $25 million Harry Butler Environmental Education Centre would be established through Western Australia's Murdoch University, to develop "sustainable environment outcomes from economic development".
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said all Australians have a responsibility to "protect our environment and address climate change ... Australians have been gifted a precious inheritance".
He emphasised the climate solutions package, which includes $2 billion for emissions reduction activities plus funding for a national electric vehicle strategy and energy efficiency strategies.
"Through our measures, as we have done in the past, we will beat our international emission reduction targets," Mr Frydenberg said. Several authoritative international bodies have previously disputed this claim.
The government announced most environment and energy measures ahead of the budget, such as $1.38 billion for the Snowy Hydro expansion.
Links
- Federal budget 2019: $3.9b fund to deal with the fallout from climate change
- NRMA dismisses claim Labor's electric vehicle target will leave tradies stranded
- Budget blind to dual crises of inequality and climate change
- Australia government proposes new fund to meet emission reduction targets
Categories: External websites
March Was Australia's Hottest On Record, With Temperatures 2c Above Average
The Guardian - Michael McGowan
Hot weather came after sweltering summer and unusually dry season in Western Australia and the Northern Territory
Temperatures across Australia were 2.13C above the average throughout March, according to Bureau of Meteorology data. Photograph: Steven Saphore/AAP An abnormally hot summer in Australia ended with the warmest March on record, new data from the Bureau of Meteorology shows.
The latest monthly climate breakdown shows that despite two severe tropical cyclones in the northern states, temperatures across Australia were 2.13C above the average throughout last month in part due to an unusually dry summer in Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
“One of the standout features of March was there was above-average temperatures just about everywhere; more than 99% of the country,” Blair Trewin, a senior climatologist at the bureau told Guardian Australia.
“Really a few things came together: the overall, long-term background trend [of rising temperatures] means you’re starting from a higher base, which increases the probability of records.
“Another major factor has been that the summer monsoon season in the tropics has been quite weak. Normally in the tropics in the summer you see fairly regular incursions of rainfall and moisture into the continent. That has been happening in Queensland but not really in Western Australia or the Northern Territory.”
The record temperatures in March follow records in January, while February was in the top five on record. Last year was Australia’s third-warmest year on record. It beat out the previous third-place holder, 2017.
The 2018 state of the climate report from the bureau and CSIRO found Australia was experiencing more extreme heat, longer fire seasons, rising oceans and more marine heatwaves consistent with a changing climate.
So, is this the new normal?
“It’s not as if we’re going to see records every month, even in the warmer overall climate we have now,” Trewin said.
“This is still a very abnormal summer, when you break the record for the warmest first quarter by 0.9 of a degree, that’s not a small number. It’s been an unusually hot few months, the background warming trend we see in Australia is in the order of 0.1 to 0.2 of a degree per decade.
“Even in the climate of 2019 this is unusual, but is not as unusual as it would have been in say 1980 or 1950.”
According to the bureau’s report, two severe tropical cyclones – Trevor and Veronica - contributed to very much above-average rainfall in parts of north Queensland, the east of the Northern Territory, north-east South Australia and parts of the Pilbara coast.
A wet end to the month brought totals to above average for eastern New South Wales, far-eastern Victoria and south-east Queensland.
However the report noted that “unfortunately, the rain needed to reduce significant rainfall deficiencies in drought-affected areas is substantial and will require above-average rainfall over a prolonged period to completely remove deficits at longer timescales”.
Trewin said that without those downpours, the overall average would have been higher.
“It had a bit of a cooling effect particularly in Queensland, though they still came in with their fifth warmest March on record,” he said.
The outlook is not particularly promising either. Trewin said most areas had a “neutral” outlook for rainfall, with the expectation of above-average temperatures to continue.
Links
Hot weather came after sweltering summer and unusually dry season in Western Australia and the Northern Territory
Temperatures across Australia were 2.13C above the average throughout March, according to Bureau of Meteorology data. Photograph: Steven Saphore/AAP An abnormally hot summer in Australia ended with the warmest March on record, new data from the Bureau of Meteorology shows.
The latest monthly climate breakdown shows that despite two severe tropical cyclones in the northern states, temperatures across Australia were 2.13C above the average throughout last month in part due to an unusually dry summer in Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
“One of the standout features of March was there was above-average temperatures just about everywhere; more than 99% of the country,” Blair Trewin, a senior climatologist at the bureau told Guardian Australia.
“Really a few things came together: the overall, long-term background trend [of rising temperatures] means you’re starting from a higher base, which increases the probability of records.
“Another major factor has been that the summer monsoon season in the tropics has been quite weak. Normally in the tropics in the summer you see fairly regular incursions of rainfall and moisture into the continent. That has been happening in Queensland but not really in Western Australia or the Northern Territory.”
The record temperatures in March follow records in January, while February was in the top five on record. Last year was Australia’s third-warmest year on record. It beat out the previous third-place holder, 2017.
The 2018 state of the climate report from the bureau and CSIRO found Australia was experiencing more extreme heat, longer fire seasons, rising oceans and more marine heatwaves consistent with a changing climate.
So, is this the new normal?
“It’s not as if we’re going to see records every month, even in the warmer overall climate we have now,” Trewin said.
“This is still a very abnormal summer, when you break the record for the warmest first quarter by 0.9 of a degree, that’s not a small number. It’s been an unusually hot few months, the background warming trend we see in Australia is in the order of 0.1 to 0.2 of a degree per decade.
“Even in the climate of 2019 this is unusual, but is not as unusual as it would have been in say 1980 or 1950.”
According to the bureau’s report, two severe tropical cyclones – Trevor and Veronica - contributed to very much above-average rainfall in parts of north Queensland, the east of the Northern Territory, north-east South Australia and parts of the Pilbara coast.
A wet end to the month brought totals to above average for eastern New South Wales, far-eastern Victoria and south-east Queensland.
However the report noted that “unfortunately, the rain needed to reduce significant rainfall deficiencies in drought-affected areas is substantial and will require above-average rainfall over a prolonged period to completely remove deficits at longer timescales”.
Trewin said that without those downpours, the overall average would have been higher.
“It had a bit of a cooling effect particularly in Queensland, though they still came in with their fifth warmest March on record,” he said.
The outlook is not particularly promising either. Trewin said most areas had a “neutral” outlook for rainfall, with the expectation of above-average temperatures to continue.
Links
- Australia's extreme heat is sign of things to come, scientists warn
- 'Falling out of trees': dozens of dead possums blamed on extreme heat stress
- Australia breaks weather records with hottest ever summer
- Australia heatwave: temperatures to soar in every state and territory
- Heatwave sweeps across Australia with temperatures 10C above average
- Australia heatwave to break Christmas weather records with temperatures up to 47C forecast
- Weather warnings as parts of Australia bake in record autumn temperatures
- Australia's east and south faces bad bushfire season after warm, dry winter
- Australian weather: extreme heat sends bushfires raging across south-east
- Eastern Australia swelters under heatwave as hottest January on record looms
Categories: External websites
Four Corners Report Shows Climate Change Concerns Heating Up Ahead Of Federal Election
Energy Matters
Pre-election climate and energy battles are reaching a critical stage ahead of May’s federal poll.
This week’s ABC Four Corners documentary showed experts weighing in over the best way to tackle climate change and spiralling energy prices.
The point was made that Australia is well-positioned to take advantage of renewable energy.
However, Franck Woitiez, managing director of renewable energy company Neoen, highlighted the uncertainty caused by the lack of a national policy on renewable energy promotion.
Energy battles over rising carbon emissions
Global temperatures may reach three times more than pre-industrial levels the documentary reported.
Damaging greenhouse gases will transform the Australian continent if we can’t peg our damaging greenhouse gas emissions.As a result, climate change will transform the Australian continent. That’s the verdict of leading scientist and policy analyst Dr Bill Hare. He says summers will be a time to fear, particularly around the southern coastline.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Scott Morrison insists Australia will meet its Paris obligations “at a canter”. This means reducing emissions by 26 per cent of 2005 levels by 2030.
Yet Shadow Climate Change Minister Mark Butler says carbon emissions have risen steadily since the Coalition came to office. Government figures from December 2018 show Australia’s emissions in 2030 will be only 7 per cent below 2005 levels. The political energy battles look ready to continue past the next election and into the 2020s.
Electric car and energy battleground set for May election
Most of Australia’s emissions come from four areas – transport, industry, agriculture and electricity. Transport makes up close to 20 per cent with nearly half of this coming from cars.
Despite this, Stephen Lester of Nissan Australia says the company has delayed rolling out the latest and much-anticipated new LEAF EV because of poor demand.
Lack of government direction and support means Australia is lagging behind the rest of the world in the EV transition.
Behyad Jafari of the Electric Vehicle Council told the program Australia has only 7,000 EVs on the roads. There are also fewer than 800 EV charging stations across the country.
In February the Coalition released a general EV policy which pushed policy detail back to 2020. This week, Labor Leader Bill Shorten also proposed tax breaks to ensure 50 per cent of Australia’s cars will be electric by 2030.
Managing new wave of renewable energy
Professor Frank Jotzo of the Australian National University told Four Corners the cost of renewables like wind and solar panels has consistently fallen.
As a result, home solar battery systems can also be used to charge electric cars and support the growing EV industry.
However, wind and solar farms are not always close to existing transmission lines. Because of this, Australia needs new transmission infrastructure, according to Jotzo, although few agree on where this should go and who pays for it.
Paul Italiano, CEO of Transgrid, says the shift to renewables has happened very quickly. The demand to hook new clean energy sources to the grid is therefore exceeding grid capacity.
Both major parties should commit to upgrading the grid, he says. This will help manage growing renewable supply.
Links
Pre-election climate and energy battles are reaching a critical stage ahead of May’s federal poll.
This week’s ABC Four Corners documentary showed experts weighing in over the best way to tackle climate change and spiralling energy prices.
The point was made that Australia is well-positioned to take advantage of renewable energy.
However, Franck Woitiez, managing director of renewable energy company Neoen, highlighted the uncertainty caused by the lack of a national policy on renewable energy promotion.
Energy battles over rising carbon emissions
Global temperatures may reach three times more than pre-industrial levels the documentary reported.
Damaging greenhouse gases will transform the Australian continent if we can’t peg our damaging greenhouse gas emissions.As a result, climate change will transform the Australian continent. That’s the verdict of leading scientist and policy analyst Dr Bill Hare. He says summers will be a time to fear, particularly around the southern coastline.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Scott Morrison insists Australia will meet its Paris obligations “at a canter”. This means reducing emissions by 26 per cent of 2005 levels by 2030.
Yet Shadow Climate Change Minister Mark Butler says carbon emissions have risen steadily since the Coalition came to office. Government figures from December 2018 show Australia’s emissions in 2030 will be only 7 per cent below 2005 levels. The political energy battles look ready to continue past the next election and into the 2020s.
Electric car and energy battleground set for May election
Most of Australia’s emissions come from four areas – transport, industry, agriculture and electricity. Transport makes up close to 20 per cent with nearly half of this coming from cars.
Despite this, Stephen Lester of Nissan Australia says the company has delayed rolling out the latest and much-anticipated new LEAF EV because of poor demand.
Lack of government direction and support means Australia is lagging behind the rest of the world in the EV transition.
Behyad Jafari of the Electric Vehicle Council told the program Australia has only 7,000 EVs on the roads. There are also fewer than 800 EV charging stations across the country.
In February the Coalition released a general EV policy which pushed policy detail back to 2020. This week, Labor Leader Bill Shorten also proposed tax breaks to ensure 50 per cent of Australia’s cars will be electric by 2030.
Managing new wave of renewable energy
Professor Frank Jotzo of the Australian National University told Four Corners the cost of renewables like wind and solar panels has consistently fallen.
As a result, home solar battery systems can also be used to charge electric cars and support the growing EV industry.
However, wind and solar farms are not always close to existing transmission lines. Because of this, Australia needs new transmission infrastructure, according to Jotzo, although few agree on where this should go and who pays for it.
Paul Italiano, CEO of Transgrid, says the shift to renewables has happened very quickly. The demand to hook new clean energy sources to the grid is therefore exceeding grid capacity.
Both major parties should commit to upgrading the grid, he says. This will help manage growing renewable supply.
Links
Categories: External websites
Al Gore To Head Climate Change Week In Queensland In June
Fairfax - Tony Moore
An Inconvenient Truth presenter and former US vice-president Al Gore will run a three-day climate change training session in Brisbane during Queensland's first Climate Change Week.
Governments from around the Asia-Pacific region will travel to Brisbane for the week starting June 2 for discussion on climate change. World Environment Day is marked on June 5.
Former US vice-president Al Gore will be in Brisbane to present climate-change training sessions in June.
Credit: Bloomberg
Summary
After he left politics, Mr Gore developed an international reputation when his grassroots campaign to educate people about climate change became a 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.
He was a joint-winner of a Nobel prize the following year.
An Inconvenient Sequel came in 2017, while Mr Gore runs and lectures at The Climate Reality Project.
In Brisbane, Mr Gore and The Climate Reality will host climate-change training for between 800-1000 business and community leaders.
Professor Don Henry, chair of The Climate Reality in Australia and the Pacific, said this was the first time Mr Gore would train others on climate issues in Queensland.
“It is a good opportunity for people from all walks of life to be better informed and act on the solutions needed to tackle climate change,” Professor Henry said.
“With the Great Barrier Reef threatened by climate change and action needed across the Asia Pacific region, the training will be of global significance.”
The Queensland government is developing a green paper on climate-change strategies, which it planned to release in either June or July, the state's new chief scientist Professor Paul Bertsch told Brisbane Times in February.
Environment Minister Leeanne Enoch announces Queensland's Climate Change Week
will include planning sessions from An Inconvenient Truth speaker Al Gore.
Credit: AAP Image/ Darren EnglandThe Queensland government has set an ambitious target of meeting 50 per cent of its energy needs from renewable energy by 2030 and have zero net emissions by 2050.
“Climate change is the greatest challenge facing our planet today and it is critical that we unite to take urgent action,” Queensland Environment Minister Leeanne Enoch said.
Ms Enoch in February said Queensland "was on track" to provide 20 per cent of its electricity needs by renewable energy by 2020, in response to criticism by Queensland Climate Advisory Council senior scientist, Professor Ian Lowe.
The Queensland government is one of 220 members of The Climate Group's Under2 Coalition, a group of "smaller than national governments" committed to keep the change in the world's temperature to below 2 degrees.
Ms Enoch said the Great Barrier Reef was still threatened by the warming climate.
“During Climate Week Queensland, we will bring together sub-national governments from across Australia and the Asia-Pacific region.
“In addition, we will host a First Nations Summit to ensure that these communities, many of which are also experiencing the impacts of climate change, are part of these important discussions.”
Climate Week Queensland will include business forums and a public program of arts, music, and panel discussions involving students.
Ms Enoch said that as part of the Minister’s Climate Challenge, students would be invited to identify a local climate problem and brainstorm an idea to solve it.
“The students who put forward the most innovative ideas will have the opportunity to be mentored by and have their solutions judged by world-class business leaders during Climate Week Queensland.”
Links
An Inconvenient Truth presenter and former US vice-president Al Gore will run a three-day climate change training session in Brisbane during Queensland's first Climate Change Week.
Governments from around the Asia-Pacific region will travel to Brisbane for the week starting June 2 for discussion on climate change. World Environment Day is marked on June 5.
Former US vice-president Al Gore will be in Brisbane to present climate-change training sessions in June.
Credit: Bloomberg
Summary
- Queensland's inaugural Climate Change Week will be held from June 2 to June 8.
- Environmentalist Al Gore will run a three-day strategy development session in Brisbane during the week.
- State and local government from Australia and the Asia Pacific region will be invited to Climate Change Week.
- Observers believe Queensland is experiencing the first impacts of a warming climate with unusual bushfire and cyclone behaviour as well as a string of coral bleaching episodes in the past five years.
After he left politics, Mr Gore developed an international reputation when his grassroots campaign to educate people about climate change became a 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.
He was a joint-winner of a Nobel prize the following year.
An Inconvenient Sequel came in 2017, while Mr Gore runs and lectures at The Climate Reality Project.
In Brisbane, Mr Gore and The Climate Reality will host climate-change training for between 800-1000 business and community leaders.
Professor Don Henry, chair of The Climate Reality in Australia and the Pacific, said this was the first time Mr Gore would train others on climate issues in Queensland.
“It is a good opportunity for people from all walks of life to be better informed and act on the solutions needed to tackle climate change,” Professor Henry said.
“With the Great Barrier Reef threatened by climate change and action needed across the Asia Pacific region, the training will be of global significance.”
The Queensland government is developing a green paper on climate-change strategies, which it planned to release in either June or July, the state's new chief scientist Professor Paul Bertsch told Brisbane Times in February.
Environment Minister Leeanne Enoch announces Queensland's Climate Change Week
will include planning sessions from An Inconvenient Truth speaker Al Gore.
Credit: AAP Image/ Darren EnglandThe Queensland government has set an ambitious target of meeting 50 per cent of its energy needs from renewable energy by 2030 and have zero net emissions by 2050.
“Climate change is the greatest challenge facing our planet today and it is critical that we unite to take urgent action,” Queensland Environment Minister Leeanne Enoch said.
Ms Enoch in February said Queensland "was on track" to provide 20 per cent of its electricity needs by renewable energy by 2020, in response to criticism by Queensland Climate Advisory Council senior scientist, Professor Ian Lowe.
The Queensland government is one of 220 members of The Climate Group's Under2 Coalition, a group of "smaller than national governments" committed to keep the change in the world's temperature to below 2 degrees.
Ms Enoch said the Great Barrier Reef was still threatened by the warming climate.
“During Climate Week Queensland, we will bring together sub-national governments from across Australia and the Asia-Pacific region.
“In addition, we will host a First Nations Summit to ensure that these communities, many of which are also experiencing the impacts of climate change, are part of these important discussions.”
Climate Week Queensland will include business forums and a public program of arts, music, and panel discussions involving students.
Ms Enoch said that as part of the Minister’s Climate Challenge, students would be invited to identify a local climate problem and brainstorm an idea to solve it.
“The students who put forward the most innovative ideas will have the opportunity to be mentored by and have their solutions judged by world-class business leaders during Climate Week Queensland.”
Links
- World Environment Day 5 June
- Al Gore: The Green Revolution Is 'Unstoppable' - National Geographic
- Al Gore: Averting the climate crisis
- Al Gore: New thinking on the climate crisis
- An Inconvenient Truth - Wikipedia
- A record share of Australians say humans cause climate change: poll
- 'Great concern': world meteorology agency reports bad climate tidings
- The Climate Reality Project
- The Climate Group
Categories: External websites
A Record Share Of Australians Say Humans Cause Climate Change: Poll
Fairfax - Matt Wade
More Australians than ever believe human activity is entirely or mainly responsible for climate change, new polling shows.
But only 13 per cent say the Morrison government is doing a good job tackling climate change.
A majority of Australians now think we are seeing more frequent and severe droughts due to climate change.Credit: Jessica Shapiro
A survey by social research firm Ipsos shows 46 per cent of Australians now agree climate change is “entirely or mainly” caused by human activity. That is the highest share since Ipsos began asking the question in an annual survey of Australians’ attitudes to climate change in 2010.
Another 33 per cent say climate change is “partly caused by human activity and partly caused by natural processes” while 11 per cent said it is “entirely or mainly” caused by natural processes only.
Only 4 per cent say “there is no such thing as climate change” – a share that has remained steady for the past decade.
The survey found a record 65 per cent say climate change is already affecting Australia and is not just a challenge for the future.
An all-time high 52 per cent agreed climate change is causing more frequent and extreme droughts, up from 46 per cent a year earlier.
The proportion that said Australia is already experiencing more frequent and extreme bushfires due to climate change reached 48 per cent, up from 46 per cent a year earlier.
A record proportion also said Australia was grappling with more extreme storms events (48 per cent) and floods (47 per cent) as a result of climate change.
Nearly half of those surveyed (47 per cent) said climate change is causing the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef.
The share of Australians rating the federal government’s management of climate change as “fairly or very good” has fallen from 18 per cent to just 13 per cent during the past year. The share rating the federal government’s management of climate change as “fairly or very poor” has risen from 41 per cent to 50 per cent in that period.
The survey of a representative sample of 1000 people was conducted in December 2018.
Ipsos researcher Jennifer Brooks said there has been a sharp increase in agreement that both the international community and Australia need to do more to address climate change.
“With most Australians thinking we are already seeing the impacts of climate change there is likely to be only an increasing call for action from government and businesses to mitigate the causes and adapt to the impacts of climate change amongst the public,” she said.
Nearly two in three Australians (64 per cent) think that increasing the amount of power generated from renewable energy sources should be an essential or high priority.
A much bigger share of the population believe the shift towards renewable energy will have a positive impact on the economy (39 per cent) than the share who think the economic impact will be negative (24 per cent).
Close to half of respondents (46 per cent) rated the international community’s performance in tackling climate change as fairly or very poor while only 12 per said it was fairly or very good.
The separate Ipsos Issues Monitor, which asks respondents to rate issues select the three most important issues facing the nation, shows there has been a rapid rise in the community’s anxiety about the state of the environment. The share of respondents nominating the environment as a key challenge has doubled over the past three years.
Links
More Australians than ever believe human activity is entirely or mainly responsible for climate change, new polling shows.
But only 13 per cent say the Morrison government is doing a good job tackling climate change.
A majority of Australians now think we are seeing more frequent and severe droughts due to climate change.Credit: Jessica Shapiro
A survey by social research firm Ipsos shows 46 per cent of Australians now agree climate change is “entirely or mainly” caused by human activity. That is the highest share since Ipsos began asking the question in an annual survey of Australians’ attitudes to climate change in 2010.
Another 33 per cent say climate change is “partly caused by human activity and partly caused by natural processes” while 11 per cent said it is “entirely or mainly” caused by natural processes only.
Only 4 per cent say “there is no such thing as climate change” – a share that has remained steady for the past decade.
The survey found a record 65 per cent say climate change is already affecting Australia and is not just a challenge for the future.
An all-time high 52 per cent agreed climate change is causing more frequent and extreme droughts, up from 46 per cent a year earlier.
The proportion that said Australia is already experiencing more frequent and extreme bushfires due to climate change reached 48 per cent, up from 46 per cent a year earlier.
A record proportion also said Australia was grappling with more extreme storms events (48 per cent) and floods (47 per cent) as a result of climate change.
Nearly half of those surveyed (47 per cent) said climate change is causing the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef.
The share of Australians rating the federal government’s management of climate change as “fairly or very good” has fallen from 18 per cent to just 13 per cent during the past year. The share rating the federal government’s management of climate change as “fairly or very poor” has risen from 41 per cent to 50 per cent in that period.
The survey of a representative sample of 1000 people was conducted in December 2018.
Ipsos researcher Jennifer Brooks said there has been a sharp increase in agreement that both the international community and Australia need to do more to address climate change.
“With most Australians thinking we are already seeing the impacts of climate change there is likely to be only an increasing call for action from government and businesses to mitigate the causes and adapt to the impacts of climate change amongst the public,” she said.
Nearly two in three Australians (64 per cent) think that increasing the amount of power generated from renewable energy sources should be an essential or high priority.
A much bigger share of the population believe the shift towards renewable energy will have a positive impact on the economy (39 per cent) than the share who think the economic impact will be negative (24 per cent).
Close to half of respondents (46 per cent) rated the international community’s performance in tackling climate change as fairly or very poor while only 12 per said it was fairly or very good.
The separate Ipsos Issues Monitor, which asks respondents to rate issues select the three most important issues facing the nation, shows there has been a rapid rise in the community’s anxiety about the state of the environment. The share of respondents nominating the environment as a key challenge has doubled over the past three years.
Links
- David Attenborough And Prince William Take World Leaders To Task On Environment
- David Attenborough Tells Davos: ‘The Garden Of Eden Is No More’
- 467 Ways To Die On A Warming Globe
- Can Humanity Get Out Of Its Latest ‘Progress Trap’?
- Planet At Risk Of Heading Towards “Hothouse Earth” State
- Domino-Effect Of Climate Events Could Push Earth Into A ‘Hothouse’ State
- Earth At Risk Of 'Hothouse Climate' Where Efforts To Reduce Emissions Will Have No Impact, Study Finds
- The Great Climate Silence: We Are On The Edge Of The Abyss But We Ignore It
- Humans Causing Climate To Change 170 Times Faster Than Natural Forces
Categories: External websites
Labor's Emissions Trading Scheme
AFR - Phillip Coorey
Industry's 250 heaviest polluters will face possible penalties for breaching new emissions caps, and 50 per cent of all new cars sold by the end of next decade should be electric, under long-awaited details of Labor's ambitious climate change policy.
All carbon-intensive sectors of the economy will contribute to achieving Labor's goal of cutting emissions by 45 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030, well above the Coalition's target of 26 per cent to 28 per cent.
Under Labor's policy, energy will be exempt from the new emissions cap, known as a baseline and credit scheme.Bloomberg Key Statistics
The Coalition's claims Labor's target will wreck the economy and that it is trying to hide the policy behind the budget.
Labor has refuted this, claiming the Coalition is neglecting climate change and the policy will overshadow the budget.
Energy, farmers exempt from caps
Under Labor's policy, energy will be exempt from the new emissions cap, known as a baseline and credit scheme, in which a penalty is paid if pollution exceeds a certain cap, or baseline.
Labor announced a separate climate policy for the energy sector last year that inoculated it against claims it would drive up power prices.
That policy involved subsidising 100,000 household batteries, underwriting clean energy generation, and, if the Coalition changes its mind, embracing the National Energy Guarantee.
Also, agriculture will not be slugged by the baseline and credit scheme. Instead, it will contribute through increased carbon farming; farmers being paid to offset carbon emissions by other sectors through such measures such as growing trees and managing their soil.
There will also be nationwide bans on large-scale land clearing.
Ramping up Coalition safeguards scheme
The baseline and credit scheme involves ratcheting up the Abbott and Turnbull governments' safeguards mechanism for heavy polluters which set a emissions threshold so high at 100,000 tonnes per year that it covered about 140 businesses and no-one was penalised for exceeding it.
Under Labor's scheme, that cap will be phased down to 25,000 tonnes of carbon emissions a year.
The lower threshold will cover about 250 businesses. Labor will consult over the phasing in of the new cap and there will be escape clauses allowing businesses to offset excess emissions.
If, for example, a business comes in under the threshhold, it can carry the credit over to the next year, or it could make money on its achievement by selling the credit to another business, or it could use agricultural offsets.
International permits, no Kyoto carry over
The controversial option will be to allow the heavy polluter to offset its emissions through the purchase of relatively cheap international credits, as Opposition leader Bill Shorten indicated last week and which is something the Coalition policy does not allow.
But unlike the Coalition, Labor will not contribute to its emissions reduction target by factoring in the carry over from Australia supposedly exceeding its Kyoto target of cutting emissions by 5 per cent on 2005 levels by 2020.
The government claims the Kyoto target will be exceeded and it will use the credits towards its 26-28 per cent targets. Labor says this is "a dodgy accounting trick''.
"This is a particular accounting technique which only the Australian Liberal Party and the Ukraine use,'' Mr Shorten said.
Emissions intense, trade exposed industries such as steel, cement and aluminium will be given preferential treatment via exemptions so as not to damage their international competitiveness.
"Labor's approach isn't about punishing polluters, it's about partnering with industry to find real, practical solutions to cut pollution, in a way that protects and grows industry and jobs,'' the policy document says.
Electric vehicle strategy
The transport sector will contribute by a move towards electric cars and tighter emissions standards on petrol and diesel vehicles.
Labor will set a target for 50 per cent of all new cars sales by 2030 to be electric vehicles. It will set the same 50 per cent target for 2025 for the purchase of the government vehicle fleet in an effort to both set an example and create a secondhand market.
And Labor will introduce emissions standards on petrol cars with the aim of phasing in a limit of 105 grams per kilometre travelled.
This, Labor says, will bring Australia into line with US standards but not up to the stricter European Union standards.
It will also offer businesses incentives to replace their fleets with electric vehicles by including the purchase of such cars in its proposed Australian Investment Guarantee.
This policy allows businesses to immediately deduct 20 per cent off any new eligible asset worth more than $20,000.
A report commissioned by the government last year found electric cars will be as affordable as petrol vehicles within seven years and were likely to represent 90 per cent of all cars on Australian roads by 2050.
The report by consultancy Energeia says sales could take off by the early 2020s, with only moderate taxpayer support required to entice uptake before sales boom within a decade.
It forecasts rapid advances in technology would eliminate “range anxiety”, with experts predicting charging time and range will match internal combustion engines by 2024.
Not trying to hide behind budget
While any emissions reduction policy is a risk, Labor believes the political climate is such that it will be rewarded for taking action. One source said the aim was to to knock the budget off the front page.
Mr Shorten said Labor stuck with the Coalition's baseline and credit scheme because industry did not want another policy change.
"They don't want to start from scratch with another mechanism,'' the policy document says.
"Industry feedback has been unanimous, businesses want Labor to expand the safeguard mechanism and we've listened.''
Labor will also confirm today that if elected, it will scrap the Coalition's direct action scheme which will spend another $2 billion between 2020 and 2030 effectively buying emissions reductions.
Links
Industry's 250 heaviest polluters will face possible penalties for breaching new emissions caps, and 50 per cent of all new cars sold by the end of next decade should be electric, under long-awaited details of Labor's ambitious climate change policy.
All carbon-intensive sectors of the economy will contribute to achieving Labor's goal of cutting emissions by 45 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030, well above the Coalition's target of 26 per cent to 28 per cent.
Under Labor's policy, energy will be exempt from the new emissions cap, known as a baseline and credit scheme.Bloomberg Key Statistics
- 50% The share of new cars sales in 2030 that Labor wants to be electric.
- 105g Limit on carbon per kilometre for cars under Labor's new emissions standards.
- 250 The number of big polluters to be caught by Labor's emissions cap, 100 more than now.
- 25,000 The tonnes of carbon polluters can emit before being subject to a cap.
The Coalition's claims Labor's target will wreck the economy and that it is trying to hide the policy behind the budget.
Labor has refuted this, claiming the Coalition is neglecting climate change and the policy will overshadow the budget.
Energy, farmers exempt from caps
Under Labor's policy, energy will be exempt from the new emissions cap, known as a baseline and credit scheme, in which a penalty is paid if pollution exceeds a certain cap, or baseline.
Labor announced a separate climate policy for the energy sector last year that inoculated it against claims it would drive up power prices.
That policy involved subsidising 100,000 household batteries, underwriting clean energy generation, and, if the Coalition changes its mind, embracing the National Energy Guarantee.
Also, agriculture will not be slugged by the baseline and credit scheme. Instead, it will contribute through increased carbon farming; farmers being paid to offset carbon emissions by other sectors through such measures such as growing trees and managing their soil.
There will also be nationwide bans on large-scale land clearing.
Ramping up Coalition safeguards scheme
The baseline and credit scheme involves ratcheting up the Abbott and Turnbull governments' safeguards mechanism for heavy polluters which set a emissions threshold so high at 100,000 tonnes per year that it covered about 140 businesses and no-one was penalised for exceeding it.
Under Labor's scheme, that cap will be phased down to 25,000 tonnes of carbon emissions a year.
The lower threshold will cover about 250 businesses. Labor will consult over the phasing in of the new cap and there will be escape clauses allowing businesses to offset excess emissions.
If, for example, a business comes in under the threshhold, it can carry the credit over to the next year, or it could make money on its achievement by selling the credit to another business, or it could use agricultural offsets.
International permits, no Kyoto carry over
The controversial option will be to allow the heavy polluter to offset its emissions through the purchase of relatively cheap international credits, as Opposition leader Bill Shorten indicated last week and which is something the Coalition policy does not allow.
But unlike the Coalition, Labor will not contribute to its emissions reduction target by factoring in the carry over from Australia supposedly exceeding its Kyoto target of cutting emissions by 5 per cent on 2005 levels by 2020.
The government claims the Kyoto target will be exceeded and it will use the credits towards its 26-28 per cent targets. Labor says this is "a dodgy accounting trick''.
"This is a particular accounting technique which only the Australian Liberal Party and the Ukraine use,'' Mr Shorten said.
Emissions intense, trade exposed industries such as steel, cement and aluminium will be given preferential treatment via exemptions so as not to damage their international competitiveness.
"Labor's approach isn't about punishing polluters, it's about partnering with industry to find real, practical solutions to cut pollution, in a way that protects and grows industry and jobs,'' the policy document says.
Electric vehicle strategy
The transport sector will contribute by a move towards electric cars and tighter emissions standards on petrol and diesel vehicles.
Labor will set a target for 50 per cent of all new cars sales by 2030 to be electric vehicles. It will set the same 50 per cent target for 2025 for the purchase of the government vehicle fleet in an effort to both set an example and create a secondhand market.
And Labor will introduce emissions standards on petrol cars with the aim of phasing in a limit of 105 grams per kilometre travelled.
This, Labor says, will bring Australia into line with US standards but not up to the stricter European Union standards.
It will also offer businesses incentives to replace their fleets with electric vehicles by including the purchase of such cars in its proposed Australian Investment Guarantee.
This policy allows businesses to immediately deduct 20 per cent off any new eligible asset worth more than $20,000.
A report commissioned by the government last year found electric cars will be as affordable as petrol vehicles within seven years and were likely to represent 90 per cent of all cars on Australian roads by 2050.
The report by consultancy Energeia says sales could take off by the early 2020s, with only moderate taxpayer support required to entice uptake before sales boom within a decade.
It forecasts rapid advances in technology would eliminate “range anxiety”, with experts predicting charging time and range will match internal combustion engines by 2024.
Not trying to hide behind budget
While any emissions reduction policy is a risk, Labor believes the political climate is such that it will be rewarded for taking action. One source said the aim was to to knock the budget off the front page.
Mr Shorten said Labor stuck with the Coalition's baseline and credit scheme because industry did not want another policy change.
"They don't want to start from scratch with another mechanism,'' the policy document says.
"Industry feedback has been unanimous, businesses want Labor to expand the safeguard mechanism and we've listened.''
Labor will also confirm today that if elected, it will scrap the Coalition's direct action scheme which will spend another $2 billion between 2020 and 2030 effectively buying emissions reductions.
Links
- Labor puts energy subsidies and investment ahead of NEG
- Labor exempts farmers but curbs land clearing
- Expanded pollution caps to hit 100 more big polluters
- Labor sets 50pc target for electric cars
- Labor promises new tax write-offs for business
- 50% of new cars to be electric vehicles by 2030 under Labor climate change policy
- Labor climate change policy proposes tax breaks for businesses to buy electric cars
Categories: External websites
'Woefully Dirty': Government Accused Over Australia's Failure To Cut Vehicle Emissions
The Guardian - Lisa Cox
Australia has not set efficiency standards, despite years of talking, in contrast to China, India, Japan, US and EU
The shipment of electric cars arrives in Australia in 2010. The government has been criticised for failing to introduce standards for vehicle efficiency and emissions. Photograph: William West/AFP/Getty Images Cuts to carbon emissions from vehicle efficiency standards have been left out of government projections for meeting Australia’s Paris climate commitments, indicating the policy has been shelved.
The office of the transport minister, Michael McCormack, said the government had not made a decision on “how or when” standards to cut carbon pollution from vehicles might be implemented.
After almost five years of submissionsa spokesman said the government “is not going to rush into a regulatory solution” with regards to vehicle emissions.
New data shows Australia’s emissions from transport are soaring and projected to be 82% higher in 2030 than they were in 1990.
Australia lags behind the rest of the world in setting vehicle efficiency standards, with most countries in the OECD adopting policies to reduce emissions and improve the efficiency of cars.
The ministerial forum on vehicle emissions was set up under the Turnbull government in 2015, and stakeholders are frustrated at the lack of progress.
Fact sheets produced by the government that set out how it intends to reach Australia’s emissions reduction targets under the Paris agreement suggest any policy on vehicle emissions standards has been abandoned.
In 2015, the government produced a graph indicating it expected to achieve cuts of about 100m tonnes between 2020 and 2030 through vehicle emissions standards.
The government’s latest climate package contains no mention of this, and projects only about 10m tonnes of abatement through an electric vehicle strategy, with no reference to vehicle emissions standards.
The Victorian government asked what progress had been made on vehicle standards at the December meeting of environment ministers, but its questions were dismissed, sources told Guardian Australia.
Environment groups and the automotive lobby have asked for clarity before the election.
The chief executive of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Kelly O’Shanassy, said it had hoped for more progress towards cleaning up the “woefully dirty” national car fleet.
“But 18 months of radio silence and the removal of proposed standards from pollution abatement estimates out to 2030 strongly suggests the government now has no intention of establishing them.”
In 2017, interest groups consulted as part of the ministerial forum were sent a model proposing a standard of 105g of carbon dioxide per kilometre for Australian light vehicles, phased in from 2020 to 2025.
The proposal would have brought Australia broadly into line with vehicle standards in the US and was forecast to deliver a net economic benefit of $13.9bn. But it faced opposition from the National party and the automotive lobby, and was painted as a carbon tax on cars.
The independent senator Tim Storer, who chaired a Senate inquiry into electric vehicles last year, said the lack of progress was “embarrassing”, given there was “clear evidence of cost benefit” in bringing in the standards.
Labor’s climate policy, due to be announced soon, is expected to point to a target of 105g of carbon dioxide per kilometre. The Greens have proposed vehicle emissions standards “that lead up to a complete ban on new internal combustion vehicles by 2030”.
The chief executive of the Australian Automobile Association, Michael Bradley, said the industry wanted both sides of politics to make their positions clear, but the AAA remained opposed to the 2017 model.
“We’re supportive of an emissions standard but we’re supportive of one that’s reflective of Australians’ vehicle preferences and our market,” Bradley said.
A spokesman for McCormack said the ministerial forum was exploring ways to encourage the uptake of electric and low emissions vehicles.
“The government has not made a decision on how or when noxious emission or fuel efficiency standards may be implemented,” he said.
“It is interested in developing a sensible framework that places savings for motorists and health benefits for the community front and centre while ensuring that the vehicles that Australians enjoy and love remain in the market.”
He added: “The government is not going to rush into a regulatory solution, especially where it has the potential to increase the up-front costs of motor vehicles for Australians”.
Much of the focus on Australia’s carbon emissions has been on the electricity sector. But climate scientists and environment groups have been calling for more attention to carbon pollution from other industries.
Transport accounts for 18% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, making it the second largest source.
Modelling produced by climate scientist Bill Hare for the Australian Conservation Foundation shows emissions from transport are climbing fast and are projected to be 82% higher in 2030 than they were in 1990. Cars represent the largest source of transport emissions and have grown by 25% since 1990.
Nearly 80% of new light duty vehicles sold globally, including in China, Japan, India, UK, the US and the EU, are subject to emission or fuel economy standards, while Australia has failed to implement any policy.
“Australia is almost alone in not having any motor vehicle emissions standards for carbon dioxide and/or vehicle efficiency standards for litres per 100km,” Hare said.
“That means that vehicles in Australia are much more inefficient and more costly to run than in the US or Europe or Japan.”
Sarah Fumei, the project manager for ClimateWorks, said the federal government’s own estimates showed emissions from the transport sector would grow by a further 9% from 2018 to 2030.
She said introducing standards would be “a win-win policy” for the environment and motorists’ hip pockets.
“The Australian government should implement the strongest standard put forward in the 2016 Regulatory Impact Statement, which by 2030 would save motorists $500 a year on fuel and reduce emissions by 12m tonnes,” she said.
“Weaker standards will not achieve the same benefits.”
Links
Australia has not set efficiency standards, despite years of talking, in contrast to China, India, Japan, US and EU
The shipment of electric cars arrives in Australia in 2010. The government has been criticised for failing to introduce standards for vehicle efficiency and emissions. Photograph: William West/AFP/Getty Images Cuts to carbon emissions from vehicle efficiency standards have been left out of government projections for meeting Australia’s Paris climate commitments, indicating the policy has been shelved.
The office of the transport minister, Michael McCormack, said the government had not made a decision on “how or when” standards to cut carbon pollution from vehicles might be implemented.
After almost five years of submissionsa spokesman said the government “is not going to rush into a regulatory solution” with regards to vehicle emissions.
New data shows Australia’s emissions from transport are soaring and projected to be 82% higher in 2030 than they were in 1990.
Australia lags behind the rest of the world in setting vehicle efficiency standards, with most countries in the OECD adopting policies to reduce emissions and improve the efficiency of cars.
The ministerial forum on vehicle emissions was set up under the Turnbull government in 2015, and stakeholders are frustrated at the lack of progress.
Fact sheets produced by the government that set out how it intends to reach Australia’s emissions reduction targets under the Paris agreement suggest any policy on vehicle emissions standards has been abandoned.
In 2015, the government produced a graph indicating it expected to achieve cuts of about 100m tonnes between 2020 and 2030 through vehicle emissions standards.
The government’s latest climate package contains no mention of this, and projects only about 10m tonnes of abatement through an electric vehicle strategy, with no reference to vehicle emissions standards.
The Victorian government asked what progress had been made on vehicle standards at the December meeting of environment ministers, but its questions were dismissed, sources told Guardian Australia.
Environment groups and the automotive lobby have asked for clarity before the election.
The chief executive of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Kelly O’Shanassy, said it had hoped for more progress towards cleaning up the “woefully dirty” national car fleet.
“But 18 months of radio silence and the removal of proposed standards from pollution abatement estimates out to 2030 strongly suggests the government now has no intention of establishing them.”
In 2017, interest groups consulted as part of the ministerial forum were sent a model proposing a standard of 105g of carbon dioxide per kilometre for Australian light vehicles, phased in from 2020 to 2025.
The proposal would have brought Australia broadly into line with vehicle standards in the US and was forecast to deliver a net economic benefit of $13.9bn. But it faced opposition from the National party and the automotive lobby, and was painted as a carbon tax on cars.
The independent senator Tim Storer, who chaired a Senate inquiry into electric vehicles last year, said the lack of progress was “embarrassing”, given there was “clear evidence of cost benefit” in bringing in the standards.
Labor’s climate policy, due to be announced soon, is expected to point to a target of 105g of carbon dioxide per kilometre. The Greens have proposed vehicle emissions standards “that lead up to a complete ban on new internal combustion vehicles by 2030”.
The chief executive of the Australian Automobile Association, Michael Bradley, said the industry wanted both sides of politics to make their positions clear, but the AAA remained opposed to the 2017 model.
“We’re supportive of an emissions standard but we’re supportive of one that’s reflective of Australians’ vehicle preferences and our market,” Bradley said.
A spokesman for McCormack said the ministerial forum was exploring ways to encourage the uptake of electric and low emissions vehicles.
“The government has not made a decision on how or when noxious emission or fuel efficiency standards may be implemented,” he said.
“It is interested in developing a sensible framework that places savings for motorists and health benefits for the community front and centre while ensuring that the vehicles that Australians enjoy and love remain in the market.”
He added: “The government is not going to rush into a regulatory solution, especially where it has the potential to increase the up-front costs of motor vehicles for Australians”.
Much of the focus on Australia’s carbon emissions has been on the electricity sector. But climate scientists and environment groups have been calling for more attention to carbon pollution from other industries.
Transport accounts for 18% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, making it the second largest source.
Modelling produced by climate scientist Bill Hare for the Australian Conservation Foundation shows emissions from transport are climbing fast and are projected to be 82% higher in 2030 than they were in 1990. Cars represent the largest source of transport emissions and have grown by 25% since 1990.
Nearly 80% of new light duty vehicles sold globally, including in China, Japan, India, UK, the US and the EU, are subject to emission or fuel economy standards, while Australia has failed to implement any policy.
“Australia is almost alone in not having any motor vehicle emissions standards for carbon dioxide and/or vehicle efficiency standards for litres per 100km,” Hare said.
“That means that vehicles in Australia are much more inefficient and more costly to run than in the US or Europe or Japan.”
Sarah Fumei, the project manager for ClimateWorks, said the federal government’s own estimates showed emissions from the transport sector would grow by a further 9% from 2018 to 2030.
She said introducing standards would be “a win-win policy” for the environment and motorists’ hip pockets.
“The Australian government should implement the strongest standard put forward in the 2016 Regulatory Impact Statement, which by 2030 would save motorists $500 a year on fuel and reduce emissions by 12m tonnes,” she said.
“Weaker standards will not achieve the same benefits.”
Links
- Road to nowhere: why Australia lags behind in electric vehicle revolution
- How green are electric cars?
- 'They've done nothing': fuel emissions taskforce accused of 'apathy'
- Australia's annual carbon emissions reach record high
- Australia's annual emissions continue to rise, driven by LNG production
- Half of Australia's emissions increase linked to WA's Gorgon LNG plant
- Australian government backs coal in defiance of IPCC climate warning
- Australia's emissions rise again in 2017, putting Paris targets in doubt
- Australia's greenhouse gas emissions highest on record
- The eco guide to Electric Vehicle hype
- Queensland to build one of the world's longest electric vehicle highways
Categories: External websites
Polar Warning: Even Antarctica’s Coldest Region Is Starting To Melt
Yale Environment 360 - Nicola Jones
East Antarctica is the coldest spot on earth, long thought to be untouched by warming. But now the glaciers and ice shelves in this frigid region are showing signs of melting, a development that portends dramatic rises in sea levels this century and beyond.
Melting ice on the coast of Adélie Land in East Antarctica. REUTERS/Pauline AskinNo place on Earth is colder than East Antarctica. Home to the South Pole and making up two-thirds of the southernmost continent, the vast ice sheets of East Antarctica — formed over tens of millions of years — are nearly three miles thick in places. The temperature commonly hovers around -67 degrees Fahrenheit (-55 degrees Celsius); in 2010, some spots on East Antarctica’s polar plateau plunged to a record-breaking -144 degrees F.
Now, however, parts of the East Antarctic are melting.
Research into what’s happening in East Antarctica is still in its early stages. It’s hard to decipher what exactly is taking place on a gigantic continent of ice with just a few decades of satellite data and limited actual measurements of things like snowfall and ocean temperatures. But according to one controversial paper released earlier this year, East Antarctica is now, in fact, shrinking, and is already responsible for 20 percent of the continent’s ice loss.
For decades, researchers considered this portion of the continent to be stable. While warming sea and air temperatures have caused ice shelves and glaciers in the lower-altitude, warmer western regions of the Antarctic to melt and collapse, the larger, colder East had seemed an untouchable behemoth. If anything, climate change was expected to bring more snow to its interior, making its ice sheets grow in size.
The Antarctic contains about 90 percent of the planet’s ice, enough to raise global sea levels 200 feet.But that picture is starting to change. Scientists are seeing worrying signs of ice loss in the East Antarctic. Glaciers are starting to move more quickly, dumping their ice into the Southern Ocean; in satellite images, depictions of the fast-moving ice light up in red, like a panic sign. The biggest and most obvious, the Totten Glacier, alone contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by 12.6 feet. “That’s the big red bullseye,” says Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at Colorado’s National Snow and Ice Data Center. The most recent data shows that Totten isn’t alone.
A melting East Antarctic is deeply worrying. The Antarctic as a whole contains about 90 percent of the planet’s ice — enough in theory to raise global sea levels an average of roughly 200 feet should it all melt. The eastern half is the big player in this game: it holds 10 times more ice than the West — enough, on its own, to raise sea levels by 170 feet. The full force of a melting Antarctic might not be felt for many thousands of years, but the continent could add a foot to sea level by 2100, says University of Massachusetts, Amherst geoscientist Robert DeConto, and possibly more than 3 feet by the mid-22nd century. Combined with melting mountain glaciers, the thawing Greenland Ice Sheet, and the expansion of water as it gets warmer, global sea levels could rise as much as 6 feet by the end of this century, swamping low-lying islands as well as large sections of coastline in places like Florida.
Annual ice loss in glaciers along the Wilkes Land coast in East Antarctica. The top four glaciers shown have lowered their surface height by about 9 feet since 2008. NASA Earth Observatory/Joshua StevensConcerns about eastern Antarctica are not that its interior plateau will soon start to melt — it’s still extremely cold and should remain so for a long while. But its edges, in contact with warming ocean waters, are another matter. As the region’s ice shelves — floating atop the Southern Ocean — erode, the vast glaciers behind them could rapidly accelerate their slide into the sea. This phenomenon occurred in 2002 when the Larsen B ice shelf famously collapsed off the Antarctic Peninsula. In the ensuing years, the glaciers behind the Larsen B, which had been held in place by the massive ice shelf, accelerated their slide to the sea by 5 to 8 times. Theoretically, if that happens continent-wide, points out Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at the University of California, Irvine, it would raise sea levels by 13 feet per century.
“You want to be scared by something?” says Rignot. “That’s the worst-case scenario. Antarctica can do that.”
The Antarctic is split into two unequal portions by the Transantarctic Mountains, a 2,200-mile-long range whose highest peaks are about half as tall as Mount Everest. The smaller area to the west, holding enough ice to raise sea levels by about 17 feet, has seen dramatic changes in recent decades. Today, satellites show huge glaciers moving rapidly toward the coast, with these wide rivers of ice sometimes moving several miles a year. “Since they’re maybe half-a-mile thick, that’s cubic miles of ice being pushed into the ocean: hundreds of billions of tons,” says Scambos. A recent review by nearly 100 polar scientists — known as the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise, or IMBIE — shows that from 2012 to 2017, the West Antarctic lost some 159 billion tons of ice annually, more than twice the rate of the early 2000s.
How climate change could jam the world's ocean circulation. Read more.
The main reason for the western half’s rapid ice loss is its topography. The bowl-shaped bedrock under its ice is mostly below sea level. As warming ocean waters lick away at the underside of the floating ice shelves, a runaway effect lifts more and more ice up and off the bedrock to where it can be melted from underneath. As the ice shelves melt and break away, the massive glaciers behind them start to flow into the sea.
At the same time, shifting wind patterns linked to climate change are driving the top layer of cold, fresh water around the Antarctic away from shore, and the bottom layer of warmer water is moving upward to take its place. While that water is still frigid, it is nevertheless warm enough to cause some serious melting in a place like Antarctica, says Scambos. “It’s 3 to 4 degrees Celsius above freezing,” he says. “That represents a tremendous amount of heat. Once that gets started, it acts as a pump to draw more warm water in.”
“Early satellite data showed something going on in East Antarctica, but I don’t think anyone took it seriously,” says one scientist.The eastern half of the continent, by comparison, sits higher above sea level than its western cousin. The ice here is thicker and the air colder. For decades, researchers hardly bothered to look at it. “The satellite data very early on showed something going on in the East Antarctic, but I don’t think anyone took it seriously,” says Rignot. “Now that has changed.”
A few large basins in the East, including the Wilkes and Aurora sub-glacial basins, actually share the same sub-sea-bowl topography as the West. And although there are just a handful of glaciers here, their ice can be more than 6,500 feet thick. That’s a lot of vulnerable ice. “The majority of East Antarctica is in balance, and some might be gaining mass,” says Chris Stokes, a glaciologist at Durham University in England. “But it is often overlooked that just one or two of its basins hold nearly as much ice as the West Antarctic.”
The Totten Glacier — that big red bullseye in the satellite maps — is flowing faster today than in 2000. Catherine Walker at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California has seen rapid outflows not just at Totten, but also at four much smaller glaciers in a region known as Vincennes Bay. “They’re small glaciers,” she says, “but they’re changing fast.” In Rignot’s paper, Denman Glacier is reported to have sped up 16 percent since the 1970s. And Stokes is starting to pay close attention to the massive Cook Glacier, which lies above the Wilkes basin and lost half of its ice shelf in the 1970s.
“There aren’t many studies on Cook, but it’s one of the biggies,” says Stokes, with the potential to raise sea level by 5 feet. “That’s one we should be looking at in more detail.”
Warm ocean water has begun eating away at East Antarctica's Totten Glacier, with cracking in the ice and pockets of open water visible in satellite imagery taken in September 2013. NASAFiguring out exactly what all this means for the East Antarctic’s ice balance — and, ultimately, for global sea level rise — isn’t easy. Is that portion of the continent gaining more from snowfall, or losing more from flowing glaciers? Answering that involves adding up some very tiny numbers over a huge area, which leads to big uncertainties. Satellites have to detect an annual snowfall of a few centimeters or less, for example, over the vast area of the continent; most of East Antarctica is a polar desert, receiving only small amounts of snow annually.
“For every centimeter that falls, that’s about 100 billion tons of mass,” says Scambos. “Getting that right when you’ve got almost no weather data is a real challenge for a model.” In addition, satellite altimetry has a tough time in areas that aren’t flat — like the coastline, where the most dramatic changes are happening. And there is still disagreement about how fast the bedrock beneath the East Antarctic is moving upward, which complicates calculations of ice mass from satellites that measure gravity.
In West Antarctica, says Rignot, “The changes are so big, even with a paintbrush and a stick you’d be able to measure that. In the East, you need long-term records — not one decade, several decades.” For these reasons and more, the IMBIE review (which Rignot helped with) was far less certain about East Antarctica than the West Antarctic. The review concluded that the East might have gained a few billion tons of ice per year, on average, since the early 1990s; and in the last few years it might have lost ice mass, perhaps as much as the rapidly warming Antarctic Peninsula (the closest part of Antarctica to South America.)
In the face of rapid change and limited data, it is challenging to predict what Antarctica will do in the future.In January, Rignot and colleagues published a paper that looked back to 1979. Like the IMBIE study, they found an acceleration in ice loss over the continent as a whole: it went up six times over the four decades of their study. But, more strikingly, they could say that East Antarctica was a big player in that loss: from 2009 to 2017, they concluded, West Antarctica accounted for 63 percent of the continent’s ice loss, and East Antarctica accounted for 20 percent — more than the Antarctic Peninsula’s contribution of 17 percent.
That result is controversial. It used only one method, while the less-certain IMBIE review looked at 24 studies using a combination of 3 different methods. As Scambos sees it, Rignot’s result relies too heavily on one particular model of snowfall, which is on the low side. But other researchers say that Rignot’s numbers look right. “We have some unpublished data that would certainly be in agreement with that,” says Stokes. “We are thinking along the same lines, but we haven’t come up with a figure.”
In the face of rapid change and limited data, it is extremely challenging to predict what the Antarctic will do in the future. The models, says Rignot, “all have fundamental flaws. None of them are right.” Their resolution is coarse and they don’t include all the physics; plus they are lacking in critical input data. Very little is known, for example, about water temperatures and the seafloor shape off the coast of much of East Antarctica. That affects things like ocean currents and sea ice buildup, both of which affect glacier flow.
An iceberg (right) breaks off the Knox Coast in East Antarctica. TORSTEN BLACKWOOD/AFP/Getty ImagesIn 2016, the University of Massachusetts’ DeConto and colleague David Pollard added two important mechanisms to a model of Antarctic ice: the effect of hulking cliffs of vertical ice collapsing under their own weight, and the effect of melting surface waters trickling down through cracks to lubricate the flow of ice against rock. In their most recent model, DeConto and Pollard calculate that the Antarctic might contribute more than 3 feet to sea level rise by the middle of the next century. One recent paper, again with DeConto as co-author, estimates that by 2070, if greenhouse gas emissions remain unchecked and the world warms by 3.5 degrees Celsius (6.3 degrees F), the Antarctic will be contributing some 5 millimeters (.2 inches) to sea level rise a year — that’s more than 15 times its average contribution to sea level over the past 25 years.
For now, DeConto says, his models show that “the East Antarctic is stable for a few decades, but in the high emissions scenarios it starts to become a player in the late 21st century.” But, he adds, “If I went back and put [Rignot’s] numbers in…” He trails off, waving his hands at the potentially large, unknown increase that would cause.
Scambos is waiting to see what the next round of satellite data says before backing results like Rignot’s. Two next-generation satellites with improved resolution — ICESat-2 and GRACE-Follow-On — were both launched in 2018 to collect better altimetry and gravity data, respectively. Give them and other satellites about four to five years, says Scambos, and our view of the Antarctic’s present-day situation will be much clearer.
Contemplating the future of the ice-bound continent, Stokes uses this analogy: If the Antarctic were to walk into an emergency room clinic, West Antarctica would be the guy having a heart attack, and East Antarctica would be the drunk in the corner: The patient doesn’t seem to be in urgent trouble now, but that could change in an instant. “It’s tempting to ignore it,” says Stokes, “but you have to keep checking in.”
Links
East Antarctica is the coldest spot on earth, long thought to be untouched by warming. But now the glaciers and ice shelves in this frigid region are showing signs of melting, a development that portends dramatic rises in sea levels this century and beyond.
Melting ice on the coast of Adélie Land in East Antarctica. REUTERS/Pauline AskinNo place on Earth is colder than East Antarctica. Home to the South Pole and making up two-thirds of the southernmost continent, the vast ice sheets of East Antarctica — formed over tens of millions of years — are nearly three miles thick in places. The temperature commonly hovers around -67 degrees Fahrenheit (-55 degrees Celsius); in 2010, some spots on East Antarctica’s polar plateau plunged to a record-breaking -144 degrees F.
Now, however, parts of the East Antarctic are melting.
Research into what’s happening in East Antarctica is still in its early stages. It’s hard to decipher what exactly is taking place on a gigantic continent of ice with just a few decades of satellite data and limited actual measurements of things like snowfall and ocean temperatures. But according to one controversial paper released earlier this year, East Antarctica is now, in fact, shrinking, and is already responsible for 20 percent of the continent’s ice loss.
For decades, researchers considered this portion of the continent to be stable. While warming sea and air temperatures have caused ice shelves and glaciers in the lower-altitude, warmer western regions of the Antarctic to melt and collapse, the larger, colder East had seemed an untouchable behemoth. If anything, climate change was expected to bring more snow to its interior, making its ice sheets grow in size.
The Antarctic contains about 90 percent of the planet’s ice, enough to raise global sea levels 200 feet.But that picture is starting to change. Scientists are seeing worrying signs of ice loss in the East Antarctic. Glaciers are starting to move more quickly, dumping their ice into the Southern Ocean; in satellite images, depictions of the fast-moving ice light up in red, like a panic sign. The biggest and most obvious, the Totten Glacier, alone contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by 12.6 feet. “That’s the big red bullseye,” says Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at Colorado’s National Snow and Ice Data Center. The most recent data shows that Totten isn’t alone.
A melting East Antarctic is deeply worrying. The Antarctic as a whole contains about 90 percent of the planet’s ice — enough in theory to raise global sea levels an average of roughly 200 feet should it all melt. The eastern half is the big player in this game: it holds 10 times more ice than the West — enough, on its own, to raise sea levels by 170 feet. The full force of a melting Antarctic might not be felt for many thousands of years, but the continent could add a foot to sea level by 2100, says University of Massachusetts, Amherst geoscientist Robert DeConto, and possibly more than 3 feet by the mid-22nd century. Combined with melting mountain glaciers, the thawing Greenland Ice Sheet, and the expansion of water as it gets warmer, global sea levels could rise as much as 6 feet by the end of this century, swamping low-lying islands as well as large sections of coastline in places like Florida.
Annual ice loss in glaciers along the Wilkes Land coast in East Antarctica. The top four glaciers shown have lowered their surface height by about 9 feet since 2008. NASA Earth Observatory/Joshua StevensConcerns about eastern Antarctica are not that its interior plateau will soon start to melt — it’s still extremely cold and should remain so for a long while. But its edges, in contact with warming ocean waters, are another matter. As the region’s ice shelves — floating atop the Southern Ocean — erode, the vast glaciers behind them could rapidly accelerate their slide into the sea. This phenomenon occurred in 2002 when the Larsen B ice shelf famously collapsed off the Antarctic Peninsula. In the ensuing years, the glaciers behind the Larsen B, which had been held in place by the massive ice shelf, accelerated their slide to the sea by 5 to 8 times. Theoretically, if that happens continent-wide, points out Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at the University of California, Irvine, it would raise sea levels by 13 feet per century.
“You want to be scared by something?” says Rignot. “That’s the worst-case scenario. Antarctica can do that.”
The Antarctic is split into two unequal portions by the Transantarctic Mountains, a 2,200-mile-long range whose highest peaks are about half as tall as Mount Everest. The smaller area to the west, holding enough ice to raise sea levels by about 17 feet, has seen dramatic changes in recent decades. Today, satellites show huge glaciers moving rapidly toward the coast, with these wide rivers of ice sometimes moving several miles a year. “Since they’re maybe half-a-mile thick, that’s cubic miles of ice being pushed into the ocean: hundreds of billions of tons,” says Scambos. A recent review by nearly 100 polar scientists — known as the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise, or IMBIE — shows that from 2012 to 2017, the West Antarctic lost some 159 billion tons of ice annually, more than twice the rate of the early 2000s.
How climate change could jam the world's ocean circulation. Read more.
The main reason for the western half’s rapid ice loss is its topography. The bowl-shaped bedrock under its ice is mostly below sea level. As warming ocean waters lick away at the underside of the floating ice shelves, a runaway effect lifts more and more ice up and off the bedrock to where it can be melted from underneath. As the ice shelves melt and break away, the massive glaciers behind them start to flow into the sea.
At the same time, shifting wind patterns linked to climate change are driving the top layer of cold, fresh water around the Antarctic away from shore, and the bottom layer of warmer water is moving upward to take its place. While that water is still frigid, it is nevertheless warm enough to cause some serious melting in a place like Antarctica, says Scambos. “It’s 3 to 4 degrees Celsius above freezing,” he says. “That represents a tremendous amount of heat. Once that gets started, it acts as a pump to draw more warm water in.”
“Early satellite data showed something going on in East Antarctica, but I don’t think anyone took it seriously,” says one scientist.The eastern half of the continent, by comparison, sits higher above sea level than its western cousin. The ice here is thicker and the air colder. For decades, researchers hardly bothered to look at it. “The satellite data very early on showed something going on in the East Antarctic, but I don’t think anyone took it seriously,” says Rignot. “Now that has changed.”
A few large basins in the East, including the Wilkes and Aurora sub-glacial basins, actually share the same sub-sea-bowl topography as the West. And although there are just a handful of glaciers here, their ice can be more than 6,500 feet thick. That’s a lot of vulnerable ice. “The majority of East Antarctica is in balance, and some might be gaining mass,” says Chris Stokes, a glaciologist at Durham University in England. “But it is often overlooked that just one or two of its basins hold nearly as much ice as the West Antarctic.”
The Totten Glacier — that big red bullseye in the satellite maps — is flowing faster today than in 2000. Catherine Walker at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California has seen rapid outflows not just at Totten, but also at four much smaller glaciers in a region known as Vincennes Bay. “They’re small glaciers,” she says, “but they’re changing fast.” In Rignot’s paper, Denman Glacier is reported to have sped up 16 percent since the 1970s. And Stokes is starting to pay close attention to the massive Cook Glacier, which lies above the Wilkes basin and lost half of its ice shelf in the 1970s.
“There aren’t many studies on Cook, but it’s one of the biggies,” says Stokes, with the potential to raise sea level by 5 feet. “That’s one we should be looking at in more detail.”
Warm ocean water has begun eating away at East Antarctica's Totten Glacier, with cracking in the ice and pockets of open water visible in satellite imagery taken in September 2013. NASAFiguring out exactly what all this means for the East Antarctic’s ice balance — and, ultimately, for global sea level rise — isn’t easy. Is that portion of the continent gaining more from snowfall, or losing more from flowing glaciers? Answering that involves adding up some very tiny numbers over a huge area, which leads to big uncertainties. Satellites have to detect an annual snowfall of a few centimeters or less, for example, over the vast area of the continent; most of East Antarctica is a polar desert, receiving only small amounts of snow annually.
“For every centimeter that falls, that’s about 100 billion tons of mass,” says Scambos. “Getting that right when you’ve got almost no weather data is a real challenge for a model.” In addition, satellite altimetry has a tough time in areas that aren’t flat — like the coastline, where the most dramatic changes are happening. And there is still disagreement about how fast the bedrock beneath the East Antarctic is moving upward, which complicates calculations of ice mass from satellites that measure gravity.
In West Antarctica, says Rignot, “The changes are so big, even with a paintbrush and a stick you’d be able to measure that. In the East, you need long-term records — not one decade, several decades.” For these reasons and more, the IMBIE review (which Rignot helped with) was far less certain about East Antarctica than the West Antarctic. The review concluded that the East might have gained a few billion tons of ice per year, on average, since the early 1990s; and in the last few years it might have lost ice mass, perhaps as much as the rapidly warming Antarctic Peninsula (the closest part of Antarctica to South America.)
In the face of rapid change and limited data, it is challenging to predict what Antarctica will do in the future.In January, Rignot and colleagues published a paper that looked back to 1979. Like the IMBIE study, they found an acceleration in ice loss over the continent as a whole: it went up six times over the four decades of their study. But, more strikingly, they could say that East Antarctica was a big player in that loss: from 2009 to 2017, they concluded, West Antarctica accounted for 63 percent of the continent’s ice loss, and East Antarctica accounted for 20 percent — more than the Antarctic Peninsula’s contribution of 17 percent.
That result is controversial. It used only one method, while the less-certain IMBIE review looked at 24 studies using a combination of 3 different methods. As Scambos sees it, Rignot’s result relies too heavily on one particular model of snowfall, which is on the low side. But other researchers say that Rignot’s numbers look right. “We have some unpublished data that would certainly be in agreement with that,” says Stokes. “We are thinking along the same lines, but we haven’t come up with a figure.”
In the face of rapid change and limited data, it is extremely challenging to predict what the Antarctic will do in the future. The models, says Rignot, “all have fundamental flaws. None of them are right.” Their resolution is coarse and they don’t include all the physics; plus they are lacking in critical input data. Very little is known, for example, about water temperatures and the seafloor shape off the coast of much of East Antarctica. That affects things like ocean currents and sea ice buildup, both of which affect glacier flow.
An iceberg (right) breaks off the Knox Coast in East Antarctica. TORSTEN BLACKWOOD/AFP/Getty ImagesIn 2016, the University of Massachusetts’ DeConto and colleague David Pollard added two important mechanisms to a model of Antarctic ice: the effect of hulking cliffs of vertical ice collapsing under their own weight, and the effect of melting surface waters trickling down through cracks to lubricate the flow of ice against rock. In their most recent model, DeConto and Pollard calculate that the Antarctic might contribute more than 3 feet to sea level rise by the middle of the next century. One recent paper, again with DeConto as co-author, estimates that by 2070, if greenhouse gas emissions remain unchecked and the world warms by 3.5 degrees Celsius (6.3 degrees F), the Antarctic will be contributing some 5 millimeters (.2 inches) to sea level rise a year — that’s more than 15 times its average contribution to sea level over the past 25 years.
For now, DeConto says, his models show that “the East Antarctic is stable for a few decades, but in the high emissions scenarios it starts to become a player in the late 21st century.” But, he adds, “If I went back and put [Rignot’s] numbers in…” He trails off, waving his hands at the potentially large, unknown increase that would cause.
Scambos is waiting to see what the next round of satellite data says before backing results like Rignot’s. Two next-generation satellites with improved resolution — ICESat-2 and GRACE-Follow-On — were both launched in 2018 to collect better altimetry and gravity data, respectively. Give them and other satellites about four to five years, says Scambos, and our view of the Antarctic’s present-day situation will be much clearer.
Contemplating the future of the ice-bound continent, Stokes uses this analogy: If the Antarctic were to walk into an emergency room clinic, West Antarctica would be the guy having a heart attack, and East Antarctica would be the drunk in the corner: The patient doesn’t seem to be in urgent trouble now, but that could change in an instant. “It’s tempting to ignore it,” says Stokes, “but you have to keep checking in.”
Links
- Journey to Antarctica: Is This What a Climate Catastrophe Looks Like in Real Time?
- One Of Antartica's Biggest Glaciers Has A Giant Hole Under It. What Would Happen If It Collapsed?
- Huge Cavity In Antarctic Glacier Signals Rapid Decay
- 'Terrifying': Scientists Dig Deep For Missing Piece Of Climate Puzzle
- Ice Loss From Antarctica Has Sextupled Since The 1970s, New Research Finds
- An Ocean Of Evidence On Warming Is Our Cue To Take Action - Now
- Discovery Of Recent Antarctic Ice Sheet Collapse Raises Fears Of A New Global Flood
- Ancient Antarctic Ice Sheet Collapse Could Happen Again, Triggering A New Global Flood
- Outgoing Australian Antarctic Division Boss Sounds Climate Change Warning
- Exclusive Photos: A Giant Iceberg Breaks Off Antarctica
- The Big Meltdown
Categories: External websites
Climate Change: Global Impacts 'Accelerating' - WMO
BBC - Matt McGrath
Tomwang112 The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says that the physical and financial impacts of global warming are accelerating.Record greenhouse gas levels are driving temperatures to "increasingly dangerous levels", it says.
Their report comes in the same week as the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported a surge in CO2 in 2018.
However, new data from the UK suggests Britain is bucking the trend with emissions down by 3%.
This year's State of the Climate report from the WMO is the 25th annual record of the climate.
When it first came out in 1993, carbon dioxide levels were at 357 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere. These have now risen to 405.5ppm and are expected to increase further.
This is having a significant impact on temperatures, with 2018 the fourth warmest year on record, almost 1C above what they were in the period between 1850-1900.
Hurricane Florence was one of 14 disasters causing over $1bn in damages. Getty ImagesThe years between 2015 and 2018 were the four warmest on that record, the study says.
"This report makes it very clear that the impacts of climate change are accelerating," said Prof Samantha Hepburn who is director of the Centre for Energy and Natural Resource Law at Deakin University in Australia.
"We know that if the current trajectory for greenhouse gas concentrations continues, temperatures may increase by 3 - 5 degrees C compared to pre-industrial levels by the end of the century and we have already reached 1 degree."
While some of these figures were published in a preliminary release of the study from last November, the full version has data on many key climate indicators, that the WMO says break new ground.
One example is ocean heat content. More than 90% of the energy trapped by greenhouse gases goes into the seas and according to the WMO, 2018 saw new records set for the amount of ocean heat content found in the upper 700 metres of the seas, and also for the upper 2,000 metres.
Sea levels also continued to increase with global mean sea level rising 3.7mm higher in 2018 than the previous year.
"This report highlights the increase in the rate of sea-level rise, and this is a real concern for those living in low-lying coastal areas, for both developed and developing countries," said Dr Sally Brown, a research fellow at the University of Southampton.
"We know that sea-level rise is a global problem that will not go away, and efforts need to be made to help those who are really vulnerable to adapt to sea-level rise or move to safer areas."
2018 Climate impacts
"Extreme weather has continued in the early 2019, most recently with Tropical Cyclone Idai, which caused devastating floods and tragic loss of life in Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Malawi. It may turn out to be one of the deadliest weather-related disasters to hit the southern hemisphere," said WMO Secretary General Petteri Taalas.
"Idai made landfall over the city of Beira: a rapidly growing, low-lying city on a coastline vulnerable to storm surges and already facing the consequences of sea level rise. Idai's victims personify why we need the global agenda on sustainable development, climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction," said Mr Taalas.
The report has been launched at a news conference in New York attended by the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.
Image caption Emissions from energy grew at a fast rate in 2018. Getty Images"There is no longer any time for delay," he wrote in a foreword to the new study.
However earlier this week the International Energy Agency published worrying data, indicating that in 2018 carbon emissions were up 1.7%, as a result of the fastest growth in energy use in the last six years.
The UK government has also released emissions data about greenhouse gas emissions over the past year. The figures show that emissions across the UK have fallen by 3% over the last year, the equivalent the government says, of taking 5 million cars off the road.
Factors driving UK emissions down include the fact that coal was the source of just 5% of electricity in 2018.
The government now says that carbon emissions are at their lowest level since before the turn of the 20th century, when Queen Victoria was on the throne.
Links
Tomwang112 The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says that the physical and financial impacts of global warming are accelerating.Record greenhouse gas levels are driving temperatures to "increasingly dangerous levels", it says.
Their report comes in the same week as the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported a surge in CO2 in 2018.
However, new data from the UK suggests Britain is bucking the trend with emissions down by 3%.
This year's State of the Climate report from the WMO is the 25th annual record of the climate.
When it first came out in 1993, carbon dioxide levels were at 357 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere. These have now risen to 405.5ppm and are expected to increase further.
This is having a significant impact on temperatures, with 2018 the fourth warmest year on record, almost 1C above what they were in the period between 1850-1900.
Hurricane Florence was one of 14 disasters causing over $1bn in damages. Getty ImagesThe years between 2015 and 2018 were the four warmest on that record, the study says.
"This report makes it very clear that the impacts of climate change are accelerating," said Prof Samantha Hepburn who is director of the Centre for Energy and Natural Resource Law at Deakin University in Australia.
"We know that if the current trajectory for greenhouse gas concentrations continues, temperatures may increase by 3 - 5 degrees C compared to pre-industrial levels by the end of the century and we have already reached 1 degree."
While some of these figures were published in a preliminary release of the study from last November, the full version has data on many key climate indicators, that the WMO says break new ground.
One example is ocean heat content. More than 90% of the energy trapped by greenhouse gases goes into the seas and according to the WMO, 2018 saw new records set for the amount of ocean heat content found in the upper 700 metres of the seas, and also for the upper 2,000 metres.
Sea levels also continued to increase with global mean sea level rising 3.7mm higher in 2018 than the previous year.
"This report highlights the increase in the rate of sea-level rise, and this is a real concern for those living in low-lying coastal areas, for both developed and developing countries," said Dr Sally Brown, a research fellow at the University of Southampton.
"We know that sea-level rise is a global problem that will not go away, and efforts need to be made to help those who are really vulnerable to adapt to sea-level rise or move to safer areas."
2018 Climate impacts
- According to the report, most of the natural hazards that affected nearly 62 million people in 2018 were associated with extreme weather and climate events.
- Some 35 million people were hit by floods.
- Hurricane Florence and Hurricane Michael were just two of 14 "billion dollar disasters" in 2018 in the US.
- Super Typhoon Mangkhut affected 2.4 million people in and killed 134, mainly in the Philippines.
- More than 1,600 deaths were linked to heat waves and wildfires in Europe, Japan and US.
- Kerala in India suffered the heaviest rainfall and worst flooding in nearly a century
"Extreme weather has continued in the early 2019, most recently with Tropical Cyclone Idai, which caused devastating floods and tragic loss of life in Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Malawi. It may turn out to be one of the deadliest weather-related disasters to hit the southern hemisphere," said WMO Secretary General Petteri Taalas.
"Idai made landfall over the city of Beira: a rapidly growing, low-lying city on a coastline vulnerable to storm surges and already facing the consequences of sea level rise. Idai's victims personify why we need the global agenda on sustainable development, climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction," said Mr Taalas.
The report has been launched at a news conference in New York attended by the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.
Image caption Emissions from energy grew at a fast rate in 2018. Getty Images"There is no longer any time for delay," he wrote in a foreword to the new study.
However earlier this week the International Energy Agency published worrying data, indicating that in 2018 carbon emissions were up 1.7%, as a result of the fastest growth in energy use in the last six years.
The UK government has also released emissions data about greenhouse gas emissions over the past year. The figures show that emissions across the UK have fallen by 3% over the last year, the equivalent the government says, of taking 5 million cars off the road.
Factors driving UK emissions down include the fact that coal was the source of just 5% of electricity in 2018.
The government now says that carbon emissions are at their lowest level since before the turn of the 20th century, when Queen Victoria was on the throne.
Links
- 'Great Concern': World Meteorology Agency Reports Bad Climate Tidings
- WMO Statement on the State of the Global Climate in 2018
- New UN Global Climate report ‘another strong wake-up call’ over global warming: Guterres
- Climate change: Global impacts 'accelerating' - WMO
- Experts demand action after 'staggering' climate report
- Extreme weather affected 62 million people last year, UN climate change report says
- Drilling climate history in 'Iceberg Alley'
- Sir David to present climate change film
- Cyclone Idai and the climate connection
Categories: External websites
5 Surprising Ways Major Cities Are Going Green
World Economic Forum - Douglas Broom
Eco-innovations involving cockroaches and cow dung have the potential to clean up urban life.Image: REUTERS/Thomas SuenWhat do cow dung, cockroaches, wood pellets and empty plastic bottles have in common? It’s not a trick question. The answer is that they could help us save the planet.
When the Pakistan port city of Karachi had to shut down its public transport authority, the 14.9 million people who live there were left without a formal bus service. An informal network of brightly decorated but often overcrowded private buses struggles to keep people moving.
Karachi could soon have the world's first biomethane bus fleet.
Image: REUTERS/Caren FirouzNow the UN-backed Green Climate Fund and the Asian Development Bank have stepped in to fund a 30km zero-emission bus network that will be safe and accessible to all. Buses will be powered by methane from cow dung, making it the world’s first biomethane hybrid bus fleet.
A new plant is being built outside the city to generate methane from dung which would otherwise find its way into the Arabian Sea. The $584 million project includes 25 new bus stations, secure pedestrian crossings, cycle lanes and segregated bus lanes to speed buses past Karachi’s notoriously slow traffic.
Cockroaches to the rescue
If the idea of cow dung makes you hold your nose, how about a billion cockroaches? That’s how many they have at a plant in Jinan, capital of eastern Shandong province, China and they are eating their way through 50 tonnes of food waste every day.
The city, in common with many others, produces more food waste than can be accomodated in local landfill. So the Shandong Qiaobin Agricultural Technology Co came up with the idea of feeding it to cockroaches, which can in turn be fed to pigs.
China bans the feeding of food waste to pigs to prevent transmission of African swine fever. By next year, the Shandong Qiaobin Agricultural Technology plans to have three more plants operating that will be capable of handling a third of the kitchen waste produced by Jinan’s 7 million people.
As well as a protein-rich food for pigs, cockroaches are also believed to provide a cure for oral and peptic ulcers and heal skin wounds and other conditions. In Sichuan, a company called Gooddoctor is rearing 6 billion cockroaches for medicinal use.
Pay with plastic
In China’s capital, Beijing, and Surabaya, Indonesia’s second largest city, you can buy your ticket for the bus or metro with a bag of recycling plastic.
In Surabaya, a two-hour bus ticket costs 10 plastic cups or up to five plastic bottles, depending on their size. Each bus can collect up to 250kg of plastic bottles a day, helping the city towards its target of eliminating plastic waste by next year.
Plastic is a big issue for Indonesia. A study in the journal Science named the country’s archipelago of a thousand islands as a major source of plastic in the world’s oceans, second only to China.
In Beijing, ticket machines in the city’s subway system now take plastic bottles as well as more conventional payment methods. Passengers receive a credit of between five and 15 cents for each bottle and can top up their fare with cash. China’s rivers are among the 10 major sources of plastic pollution. Eight of the 10 are in Asia.
World’s first carbon neutral city
As nations take action to reduce waste and their environmental footprints, one of the greenest cities in the world is on the verge of becoming fully carbon neutral. Copenhagen plans to be carbon neutral - meaning it will produce no more carbon emissions than it can offset elsewhere - by 2025, a quarter of a century ahead of the targets set in the Paris climate agreement.
It helps that the city owns its electricity generation, which is mostly wind powered. A happy legacy of the last century is that most buildings in the city are on a district heating system, where heat is supplied to homes from a single neighbourhood plant, instead of by each household having its own system.
Virtually all of Copenhagen’s 600,000 residents own a bicycle, and the city has 375km of cycle lanes. But what happens if the wind fails to blow? The city-owned energy company HOFOR is converting a coal-fired plant to burn renewable wood pellets. They will still emit some carbon but the city expects to be 95% carbon neutral even if it has to fall back on pellet power.
Links
Eco-innovations involving cockroaches and cow dung have the potential to clean up urban life.Image: REUTERS/Thomas SuenWhat do cow dung, cockroaches, wood pellets and empty plastic bottles have in common? It’s not a trick question. The answer is that they could help us save the planet.
When the Pakistan port city of Karachi had to shut down its public transport authority, the 14.9 million people who live there were left without a formal bus service. An informal network of brightly decorated but often overcrowded private buses struggles to keep people moving.
Karachi could soon have the world's first biomethane bus fleet.
Image: REUTERS/Caren FirouzNow the UN-backed Green Climate Fund and the Asian Development Bank have stepped in to fund a 30km zero-emission bus network that will be safe and accessible to all. Buses will be powered by methane from cow dung, making it the world’s first biomethane hybrid bus fleet.
A new plant is being built outside the city to generate methane from dung which would otherwise find its way into the Arabian Sea. The $584 million project includes 25 new bus stations, secure pedestrian crossings, cycle lanes and segregated bus lanes to speed buses past Karachi’s notoriously slow traffic.
Cockroaches to the rescue
If the idea of cow dung makes you hold your nose, how about a billion cockroaches? That’s how many they have at a plant in Jinan, capital of eastern Shandong province, China and they are eating their way through 50 tonnes of food waste every day.
The city, in common with many others, produces more food waste than can be accomodated in local landfill. So the Shandong Qiaobin Agricultural Technology Co came up with the idea of feeding it to cockroaches, which can in turn be fed to pigs.
China bans the feeding of food waste to pigs to prevent transmission of African swine fever. By next year, the Shandong Qiaobin Agricultural Technology plans to have three more plants operating that will be capable of handling a third of the kitchen waste produced by Jinan’s 7 million people.
As well as a protein-rich food for pigs, cockroaches are also believed to provide a cure for oral and peptic ulcers and heal skin wounds and other conditions. In Sichuan, a company called Gooddoctor is rearing 6 billion cockroaches for medicinal use.
Pay with plastic
In China’s capital, Beijing, and Surabaya, Indonesia’s second largest city, you can buy your ticket for the bus or metro with a bag of recycling plastic.
In Surabaya, a two-hour bus ticket costs 10 plastic cups or up to five plastic bottles, depending on their size. Each bus can collect up to 250kg of plastic bottles a day, helping the city towards its target of eliminating plastic waste by next year.
Plastic is a big issue for Indonesia. A study in the journal Science named the country’s archipelago of a thousand islands as a major source of plastic in the world’s oceans, second only to China.
In Beijing, ticket machines in the city’s subway system now take plastic bottles as well as more conventional payment methods. Passengers receive a credit of between five and 15 cents for each bottle and can top up their fare with cash. China’s rivers are among the 10 major sources of plastic pollution. Eight of the 10 are in Asia.
World’s first carbon neutral city
As nations take action to reduce waste and their environmental footprints, one of the greenest cities in the world is on the verge of becoming fully carbon neutral. Copenhagen plans to be carbon neutral - meaning it will produce no more carbon emissions than it can offset elsewhere - by 2025, a quarter of a century ahead of the targets set in the Paris climate agreement.
It helps that the city owns its electricity generation, which is mostly wind powered. A happy legacy of the last century is that most buildings in the city are on a district heating system, where heat is supplied to homes from a single neighbourhood plant, instead of by each household having its own system.
Virtually all of Copenhagen’s 600,000 residents own a bicycle, and the city has 375km of cycle lanes. But what happens if the wind fails to blow? The city-owned energy company HOFOR is converting a coal-fired plant to burn renewable wood pellets. They will still emit some carbon but the city expects to be 95% carbon neutral even if it has to fall back on pellet power.
Links
- Does it pay for cities to be green?
- 7 of the world’s 10 most polluted cities are in India
- Climate change is a disruptor. Here’s how to harness it for innovation
- Four Ways Our Cities Can Cut Transport Emissions In A Hurry: Avoid, Shift, Share And Improve
- More Than 100 Cities Now Mostly Powered By Renewable Energy, Data Shows
- This Is How Climate Change Will Shift The World’s Cities
- How To Fix Climate Change: Put Cities, Not Countries, In Charge
- These Six Utopian Cities Of The Future Will Help You Re-Imagine Life On Earth
- Taking Up The Slack: When Governments Don’t Act On Climate Change
- How 300 Years Of Urbanization And Farming Transformed The Planet
Categories: External websites
Fed Official: Climate Change Is An ‘International Market Failure’
Grist - Eric Holthaus
U.S. Federal Reserve official: Global warming is an international market failure – “Climate-based risk could threaten the stability of the financial system as a whole”
Floodwaters surround office buildings on September 5, 2017 in Houston, more than a week after Hurricane Harvey hit Southern Texas. Justin Sullivan / Getty ImagesClimate change was already worrying enough — now a report from the U.S. central bank cautions that rising temperatures and extreme storms could eventually trigger a financial collapse.
A Federal Reserve researcher warned in a report on Monday that “climate-based risk could threaten the stability of the financial system as a whole.”
But possible fixes — using the Fed’s buying power to green the economy — are currently against the law.
Glenn Rudebusch, the San Francisco Fed’s executive vice president for research, ranks climate change as one of the three “key forces transforming the economy,” along with an aging population and rapid advances in technology.
Climate change could soon hit the banking system “by storms, droughts, wildfires, and other extreme events” making it harder for businesses to repay loans.
Rudebusch warns that crops and inundated cities have already started to hurt the economy: “Economists view these losses as the result of a fundamental market failure: carbon fuel prices do not properly account for climate change costs,” he writes.
“Businesses and households that produce greenhouse gas emissions, say, by driving cars or generating electricity, do not pay for the losses and damage caused by that pollution.”
A hefty carbon tax alone wouldn’t be enough to fix the problem — what he calls an “intergenerational and international market failure.”
Since Congress has yet to take sufficient action, Rudebusch says that the Fed could, in theory, take matters into its own hands by encouraging a shift away from fossil fuels.
The problem is, the Fed’s only official job is to keep inflation tame and unemployment low. And its tools are limited to buying and selling government debt to tweak interest rates.
That means it can’t help companies make a shift to a low-carbon economy by, for instance, lending them money in the bond market.
By contrast, the European Central Bank has been buying “green” bonds since 2016. An ECB research note last July found that those purchases have helped boost the market for these kind of investments, helping spur environmental improvements.
Along with a report last week from the insurance industry saying that climate change could eventually make insurance unaffordable for most people, Rudebusch’s report is part of a growing body of evidence that climate change poses an existential threat to the world economy as it currently exists.
Last month, Fed chairman Jerome Powell told legislators that asking why the Fed doesn’t currently consider the risks of climate change was a “fair question.”
Links
U.S. Federal Reserve official: Global warming is an international market failure – “Climate-based risk could threaten the stability of the financial system as a whole”
Floodwaters surround office buildings on September 5, 2017 in Houston, more than a week after Hurricane Harvey hit Southern Texas. Justin Sullivan / Getty ImagesClimate change was already worrying enough — now a report from the U.S. central bank cautions that rising temperatures and extreme storms could eventually trigger a financial collapse.
A Federal Reserve researcher warned in a report on Monday that “climate-based risk could threaten the stability of the financial system as a whole.”
But possible fixes — using the Fed’s buying power to green the economy — are currently against the law.
Glenn Rudebusch, the San Francisco Fed’s executive vice president for research, ranks climate change as one of the three “key forces transforming the economy,” along with an aging population and rapid advances in technology.
Climate change could soon hit the banking system “by storms, droughts, wildfires, and other extreme events” making it harder for businesses to repay loans.
Rudebusch warns that crops and inundated cities have already started to hurt the economy: “Economists view these losses as the result of a fundamental market failure: carbon fuel prices do not properly account for climate change costs,” he writes.
“Businesses and households that produce greenhouse gas emissions, say, by driving cars or generating electricity, do not pay for the losses and damage caused by that pollution.”
A hefty carbon tax alone wouldn’t be enough to fix the problem — what he calls an “intergenerational and international market failure.”
Since Congress has yet to take sufficient action, Rudebusch says that the Fed could, in theory, take matters into its own hands by encouraging a shift away from fossil fuels.
The problem is, the Fed’s only official job is to keep inflation tame and unemployment low. And its tools are limited to buying and selling government debt to tweak interest rates.
That means it can’t help companies make a shift to a low-carbon economy by, for instance, lending them money in the bond market.
By contrast, the European Central Bank has been buying “green” bonds since 2016. An ECB research note last July found that those purchases have helped boost the market for these kind of investments, helping spur environmental improvements.
Along with a report last week from the insurance industry saying that climate change could eventually make insurance unaffordable for most people, Rudebusch’s report is part of a growing body of evidence that climate change poses an existential threat to the world economy as it currently exists.
Last month, Fed chairman Jerome Powell told legislators that asking why the Fed doesn’t currently consider the risks of climate change was a “fair question.”
Links
- Climate Change and the Federal Reserve
- Report: Climate change could make insurance too expensive for most people
- Ending climate change requires the end of capitalism. Have we got the stomach for it?
- In blow to climate, coal plants emitted more than ever in 2018 – “We are headed for disaster, and nobody seems to be able to slow things down”
Categories: External websites
Pages
