5 Minutes Before Midnight

Dealing with climate change grief

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:08:00 +0000

It’s fair to say I’ve been going through the stages of grief over the past number of months.

At the start of the year, climate change was the farthest thing from my mind.

“It isn’t a major issue,” I thought, because it's not generally talked about and not much was being done about it.

But then I became aware that Sydney’s drinking water, my drinking water, was at risk from fracking – and that coal mining was already happening in our precious drinking water catchment areas.

So I started doing some research, and then began to understand the immense pressures we are putting our planet under.

Scientists armed with extensive research and knowledge are making it unequivocally clear that our climate is in a state of emergency. And that our oceans are on the brink of ecological collapse.

Grieving over this is a very strange thing. It’s a very private thing. You haven’t lost anything tangible. And it’s not something you want to openly admit, because some people will think you’ve got a screw loose. They don’t understand, or don’t want to understand, the gravity of the situation.

But what I feel is legitimate. I’m not alone in suffering from climate change grief: other people have gone through it - or are going through it - and it’s been written about by academics.

There’s a well-known model of 5 stages of grief. When it comes to the state of our planet, I’ve been through them all. Sometimes I still go back and forth between anger, depression and acceptance, or even feel a number of them at once.

1. Denial

With all my heart and soul I wanted to deny what was happening. Why wouldn’t I want to deny what it means for my kids’ future? And it was so easy to deny – politicians, most of the media and all those deniers out there make it so very easy.

2. Anger

I’ve been angry too. Angry at our politicians, angry at the media, angry at deniers, angry at the mining magnates, angry at the shareholders…angry that it’s currently so damn hard to go about my daily life without putting massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the air.

For other people, their anger is aimed at the prospect of needing to make changes to the way we live and do things. Sometimes that anger is targeted at the people who deliver the message, such as the climate scientists.

3. Bargaining

Bargaining was a good stage for me. I led myself to believe that it wouldn’t be so bad and that what I was reading – albeit from the world’s leading, highly researched and highly conservative experts – was exaggerated.

Adaptation also sounded like a great option, except that it’s not clear we’ll be able to adapt to the extreme conditions we’re currently on track for. Like denial, bargaining was a very easy phase.

4. Depression

Yes, I’ve felt depressed. And feeling such immense concern for my children’s future while the problem is generally being overlooked, downplayed and worsened made it seem all the more overwhelming and hopeless.

5. Acceptance

I’m now at the acceptance stage, but I really don’t like that expression. Yes, I understand what’s happening and understand what it means if we don’t take action. I now feel calm about the consequences if we do nothing.

But I refuse to do nothing. I refuse to simply accept it.

6. Action

Researcher Daphne Wysham says there's an important sixth stage that we all need to get to as soon as possible. She calls it ‘The Work’, but I like to call it ‘Action’.

We need to get the public, and majority of our political and business leaders, to this stage. It’s a stage of opportunity, of hope, of empowerment and of immense willpower.

It’s a stage where we start genuinely pursuing the many effective, achievable solutions there are out there – solutions which our politicians are ignoring, or even obstructing, because they’re under too much pressure from the fossil fuel industry.

My boys are very young, and unable to do anything about these challenges. By the time they have that ability, the window for effective action will have passed.

That’s why I blog. Because as difficult and unpleasant as these issues are, the only way we’re going to make a difference – and give our kids a chance – is if we all get a reality check and start taking proper, urgent action.

Image attribution: Joel Kramer

Super Typhoon Haiyan & Australia’s National Day of Climate Action

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Thu, 14 Nov 2013 05:08:00 +0000

I wasn’t really sure if I should talk about Super Typhoon Haiyan in this post.

It’s certainly not my intention to use every weather-related disaster as a promotional device for climate change action.

Moreover, scientists say that no single weather event can be blamed on climate change.

So I was going to cover something else instead.

But when I heard the impassioned speech of lead Filipino climate negotiator Yeb Sano on day one of the Warsaw climate talks, it became clear to me that this is a topic that must be given attention.

Yeb Sano’s impassioned plea and hunger strike

Sano opened the UN climate talks this week with a plea for urgent action.

In an emotional speech, he rightfully pointed out that typhoons such as Haiyan and its impacts represent a sobering reminder that we cannot afford to procrastinate on climate action.

In solidarity with his countrymen who are struggling to find food and his brother who had not had food for three days, Sano announced that he was going on a hunger strike until “a meaningful outcome is in sight”.

Australia’s waning commitment to climate action

In contrast to Sano’s pressing call for increased commitment on climate action from the international community, Australian’s commitment is weakening.

Sadly, these are the first climate talks in 17 years where Australia has failed to send a minister to represent us.

There are also now suggestions that Australia will only remain committed to its 5% emissions reduction target, even though Australia has previously signed up to higher emissions targets if there is a commitment for stronger action by the international community. As well as damaging our credibility internationally, this would leave us further lagging behind other countries.

Sano’s plea also comes at a time when Australia’s federal government is swiftly removing, reducing and abolishing Australia’s climate change and clean energy policies and initiatives, and their associated institutions.

While I’m pleased that our federal government has pledged A$10 million of humanitarian aid in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan, the extent of the destruction is so great that this amount will barely cover a fraction of a bill which will run into billions of dollars.

The reality is that Australia must also focus on real, urgent climate action. By allowing the world to get warmer, we enable storms to become more destructive.

For although there have been no conclusive scientific studies finding that storms are getting more frequent or stronger in the Pacific Ocean, much of the devastation in typhoons comes with the related storm surge. Since climate change is already raising sea levels, the risk for severe inundation is also increasing.

In fact, the sea level in the eastern Philippines is rising at one of the fastest rates worldwide – a fact that made coastal flooding from Haiyan worse, and likely contributed to the death toll.

Australia’s National Day of Climate Action, Sunday 17 November

Sano’s opening speech in Warsaw this week echoes his sentiment 11 months ago at the Doha climate talks. At those talks he made a similar plea in the wake of Typhoon Bohpa, which left more than a thousand people dead and hundreds of thousands homeless, asking:

"If not us, then who? If not now, then when?"

Sano’s question is a very poignant one, relevant to each and every one of us. And we must be comfortable with the answer.

It seems to me that we are coming to a defining point in history. It is a point that our children will look back on, and ask what we did to halt the climate emergency.

This Sunday, 17 November 2013, is Australia’s National Day of Climate Action. Come and be part of the campaign for climate change action. Join myself, and thousands of people from all over Australia, in demanding real, urgent action on climate change.

Useful links:

Further information on Australia’s National Day of Climate Action:

https://www.getup.org.au/get_togethers/climate-catchup

Yeb Sano’s powerful speech can be viewed at the following link:

http://tcktcktck.org/2013/11/cop19-philippines-speech-moves-plenary-tears/58705

Taiphoon Haiyan relief effort:

Click here for Australia-based appeals

Click here for New Zealand-based appeals (pls scroll down to "To donate" section)

Click here for US-based appeals

Click here for UK-based appeals

Image attribution: DVIDSHUB

Why we need to keep the carbon tax

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Sat, 02 Nov 2013 21:15:00 +0000

Submissions on the carbon tax repeal are due by 5pm (AEST) tomorrow, Monday 4 November 2013.

If you’re keen to make a submission but stuck on what to say, here are some compelling reasons why the carbon tax should not be repealed:

1. It’s being replaced by a weaker, more expensive scheme

The federal government intends to replace the carbon tax with its Direct Action Policy. The policy sets aside A$2.6 billion of taxpayers’ money over the first four years to pay polluters to reduce their pollution.

The money budgeted for the policy is based on a target of reducing Australia's domestic emissions by 5% below 2000 levels by 2020. However, modelling by Sinclair Knight Merz/MMA and Reputex climate analytics has shown that the funding budgeted for direct action would fall short by billions of dollars in meeting what is already a very weak target.

2. Direct action restricts us to an inadequate 5% emissions reduction target

Direct action’s 5% target and cap on spend is particularly concerning because a draft report released on Wednesday by our soon-to-be-abolished Climate Change Authority said that our 5% target is inadequate.

It presented two "options" for emissions trajectories: 15% below 2000 levels by 2020 matched with 35-50% by 2030, and 25% below 2000 levels by 2020 with 40%-50% cuts by 2030.

However, a report from global analysts Ecofys (commissioned by WWF and also released last week) concluded that Australia’s targets would need to be even higher. The report showed that to contribute our fair share to the kind of global emissions cuts necessary to give us a decent chance of staying below 2°C warming, we need to deliver 27-34% cuts by 2020, 82-101% by 2030 and 98-106% by 2050.

The 5% emissions target imposed by direct action also has potential implications for our international commitments. Australia has previously signed up to higher emissions targets if there is a commitment for stronger action by the international community – which is possible at the 2015 UN Conference on Climate Change in Paris.

3. The carbon tax should only be replaced by a better alternative

The only circumstances in which the carbon tax should be repealed is to be replaced by a better alternative, namely, an emissions trading scheme (ETS).

A trading scheme places a cap on emissions and requires big emitters to buy a permit for every tonne of carbon dioxide they release. Permits can be traded, allowing businesses that cut emissions to save money.

An ETS sets a cap on pollution. It’s also flexible, so our pollution cap can be altered if our emissions targets change. It’s easy for businesses to adapt to as we've already got a price on carbon. It can also be linked to international carbon markets for the purposes of buying and selling permits. Indeed, the carbon tax was only ever a transitional arrangement in moving to an ETS.

Another benefit of an emissions trading scheme is that if the government chose to increase its emissions targets under such a scheme, our economy would still keep growing. The Climate Change Authority’s draft report on Wednesday projected that if the government set a target of 15% and allowed business to buy international carbon credits, the pace of economic growth would be only three months slower in 2020. If it adopted a 25% target and economic growth would be slowed by just five months.

Notably, the authority is chaired by former Reserve Bank chairman Bernie Fraser and includes views from across the spectrum, including serious business minds Heather Ridout, former Tomago Aluminium head John Marlay and AustralianSuper chairwoman Elana Rubin.

It's also worth noting that a recent Fairfax Media survey of 35 prominent university and business economists found only that the overwhelming majority supported a price on carbon over direct action.

If the carbon tax was being replaced by a more effective scheme, I would support its repeal. But unfortunately it’s not.

4. The carbon tax appears to be working

In the first six months under the carbon tax, emissions from the electricity sector dived, with much greater use of renewable energy and cutbacks in consumption.

5. The carbon tax’s impact on household bills is imperceptible

Most people don’t realise it, but only the biggest 500 polluting companies pay the carbon tax. You and I don’t pay the tax directly, but the effects may flow through to the goods and services we buy.

Hugh Saddler, a principal consultant for energy analysts Pitt & Sherry, has in fact said it had been ''almost impossible'' to see the carbon price footprint when it was introduced, and it would be no easier if it was removed. The Australian Bureau of Statistics agreed.

In addition, new estimates by the Bureau of Statistics released on Wednesday showed that for most Australians the cost of living is scarcely rising. While Australia's official inflation rate is 2.2%, for working Australians the cost of living climbed just 0.9% in the year to September. For households headed by Australians on benefits, old age pensioners and retirees the cost of living climbed 2%.

6. Proceeds from carbon tax are helping to keep electricity prices down

A report released by advisory firm RepuTex in August 2013 showed that scrapping the carbon tax is actually likely to increase electricity bills. The reason for this is because some of the proceeds the government had received from the carbon tax have been put towards renewable energy. Renewable energy has become far more efficient and cost effective, and now represents a very low-cost form of energy that displaces other fossil fuel generators, which have very high fuel costs.

So why have electricity prices gone up so much in recent years? There are many reasons, but network services (poles and wires) has been the single most costly component. Although the carbon price contributed to higher electricity prices in the year to June 2013 - its first full year of operation - it was a one-off increase and was lower than the effect of network costs in the last few years.

New calculations by the Bureau of Statistics in fact show that electricity prices are currently climbing at their lowest annual pace in six years: 6.1%.

7. We're unlikely to meet our renewable energy targets if we don’t have a price on carbon

Federal renewable energy targets aim for 25% of all electricity to be renewable by 2020. Modelling in the report by RepuTex shows that with the carbon price in place, the federal renewable target is likely to be met. However, scrapping the carbon price would likely see only 14% of Australia's electricity generated from renewables by 2020.

The government and the Climate Change Authority came to the same conclusion when the Renewable Energy Target Review was conducted last year.

8. Uncertainty for electricity, oil and gas industries

The report by RepuTex also found that not pricing carbon would deliver uncertainty to the electricity, oil and gas industries, which have already adapted to the change.

Furthermore, if Australia adopts direct action, but at some point in the future decides to increase its emissions targets, in my view it will in all probability have to revert back to carbon pricing. This will deliver even more uncertainty for these industries.

9. Compared to other countries, Australia’s emissions targets are inadequate

The countries that Australia is often compared with – most notably the US and China – are looking to the long term and stepping up plans to cut emissions.

This week’s reports from the Climate Change Authority and Ecofys showed that a 5% target would leave Australia lagging behind others.

10. Per person, Australia is one of the world’s biggest carbon emitters

Contrary to popular perception, Australia is one of the world’s biggest carbon emitters on a per capita basis.

In fact, a recent study by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the European Commission's Joint Research Centre found that in 2012 Australia had the highest per capita emissions in the world.

We’ve helped create the problem. Now we need to do our fair share to get emissions down - and quickly.

11. We need to take real, urgent action

We need to get very serious about climate change. In the recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report scientists gave what is considered the gold standard for certainty that climate change is real, man-made and that it needs urgent action.

For people still not convinced about climate change, a recent report by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) has shown that burning fossil fuels is having such an impact on our oceans that a mass extinction may already be under way.

Australia’s recently-abolished Climate Commission warned that 2011-2020 is the “Critical Decade” for tackling climate change.

In addition, Climate Change Authority chairman and former Reserve Bank governor Bernie Fraser has said: ''If Australia is to take this science – and the below 2 degrees goal – seriously, it needs to act now and continue this effort over the long term.''

The fact of the matter is we don’t have any time to waste going backwards, which is what we’ll be doing if we repeal the carbon tax to move to direct action.

12. The long-term costs of minimal action

The less climate change action we take now, the much greater the costs will be in the future. This is especially the case for Australia, which is particularly exposed to the extreme weather events associated with climate change.

The costs to taxpayers of extreme weather events will far outweigh the money some businesses will have saved by repealing the carbon tax or implementing an emissions trading scheme.

13. The government should be acting to protect us

Australia is already starting to see the effects of climate change. Our last summer broke 123 extreme weather records in 90 days. September was Australia’s hottest ever on record. The world’s leading scientists are telling us we need to urgently reduce our emissions.

If we ignore what science is telling us, and stick to a 5% target, we are wasting precious time and putting our children’s futures at further risk.

The government should be taking proper action to protect us, not downplaying the threat by moving to a less effective scheme.

14. The abolition of the Climate Change Authority

The legislation that repeals the carbon tax also abolishes the Climate Change Authority. The Authority provides independent advice on Australia’s emissions reduction targets and other Australian Government climate change initiatives.

Under the proposed arrangement, the government will rely on reviews by the Department of Environment if they are commissioned by the environment minister.

The abolition of the Climate Change Authority is deeply concerning. At such a critical time for climate action, we should have an independent body continually monitoring and providing advice to government on these key issues.

So what are you waiting for? Send in a submission!

By repealing the carbon tax we are ignoring the advice of leading scientists and delaying real climate action.

Wherever you are in the world, write to the Australian government – even if it’s just one line – to tell them why they must not repeal the carbon tax.

After all, it’s not just a change that affects Australians. It affects everyone.

Useful information

Submissions on the carbon tax repeal are due by 5pm (Australian Eastern Standard Time) on Monday 4 November 2013.

The ‘Carbon tax repeal submission cover sheet’ must accompany all submissions. Please complete it, and either scan it or take a photo of it, and email it with your submission.

Further details are at the following link:

http://www.environment.gov.au/carbon-tax-repeal/consultation.html

Image attribution: mpeterke

Carbon pricing versus direct action

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 08:37:00 +0000

Australia’s carbon tax has copped an enormous amount of flak since even before it was implemented in July 2012.

Intense criticism by those against it, and poor efforts to defend it by those who support it, have left most Australians believing that it is highly expensive and largely ineffective.

The focus on the carbon tax has muddied the path we were on, which in my view is the right one: putting a price on carbon.

In fact, most Australians don’t know it, but the carbon tax was only ever intended as a transitional arrangement before moving to an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

The recently elected Australian Liberal federal government – which has led the criticism against the carbon tax – has come up with a Direct Action Policy to replace carbon pricing.

In its first step towards implementing the new policy, the government has introduced legislation into Parliament to repeal the carbon tax. The final date for submissions on the carbon tax repeal bills is 5pm (AEST), next Monday 4 November 2013.

To help people who may want to make a submission, I’ve been researching the options. This week my posts will focus on why carbon pricing is the path Australia should continue to follow.

How the schemes work

The carbon tax

Under the carbon tax, the top polluting companies must pay a ‘fixed’ price for every tonne of greenhouse gases they emit. Presently that amount is $24.15.

Only the biggest 500 polluting companies pay the carbon tax. You and I don’t pay the tax directly, but the effects can flow through to the goods and services we buy.

The carbon price is premised on a simple idea about human behaviour: if you have to pay for something, you’ll be more careful about how you use it.

It’s very difficult to find statistical information on the effectiveness of the carbon tax. What has been reported is that in the first six months under the carbon tax emissions from the electricity sector dived, with much greater use of renewable energy and cutbacks in consumption.

In any event, its effectiveness is somewhat of a moot point as it was only ever a transitional arrangement before moving to an ETS that would actually cap pollution.

The carbon tax has received an enormous amount of criticism regarding its impact on household bills. But this appears to be unjustified. Hugh Saddler, a principal consultant for energy analysts Pitt & Sherry, said it had been ''almost impossible'' to see the carbon price footprint when it was introduced, and it would be no easier if it was removed. The Australian Bureau of Statistics agreed.

Not only that, a recent report has shown that scrapping the carbon tax is actually likely to increase electricity bills. The reason for this is because some of the proceeds the government had received from the carbon tax have been put towards renewable energy. Renewable energy has become far more efficient and cost effective, and now represents a very low-cost form of energy that displaces other fossil fuel generators, which have very high fuel costs. In fact, renewable energy, when it’s put onto the system, tends to cut household electricity bills, not push them up.

The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)

It had always been intended by the previous government that the fixed price carbon tax would move to an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

The price of carbon would be set by the market under an ETS, and is therefore likely to go down.

The ETS is designed to link to international carbon markets. In other words, companies would be able to buy and sell permits in the international market if they wanted to do so. Currently, more than 30 other countries have carbon pricing schemes. This figure does not include state schemes like those in California and some Chinese provinces.

The benefits of the ETS are clear. It sets a cap on pollution; it’s flexible, as the pollution cap can be altered if our emission targets change; it is set by the market and it can be linked to international carbon markets. In my view, this is the route we should continue to take.

How direct action works

Under the proposed Direct Action Policy, polluters are paid to reduce their pollution. The Government will institute incentives for businesses, farmers, households and other entities to invest in technologies that will reduce our emissions.

The details of the policy are very vague. The Government has produced a White Paper on The Emissions Reduction Fund, which is the centrepiece of the Australian Government’s Direct Action Plan. The White Paper contains little detail.

What is clear however, is that with direct action there is no price on carbon and there is no limit on pollution. The cap is on spending, not emissions.

The payments will come out of a newly established Emissions Reduction Fund comprising taxpayers’ money. The costs of the ERF will be capped at $300 million (2014-15), $500 million (2015-16) and $750 million (2016-17) over the forward estimates.

The money budgeted for the policy is based on a target of reducing Australia's domestic emissions by 5 per cent by 2020.

However, modelling by Sinclair Knight Merz/MMA for The Climate Institute found the Coalition would have to find at least another $4 billion for its climate policy or else break its pledge to cut emissions by 5% by 2020 and instead allow them to increase by 9%.

Modelling by Reputex climate analytics, commissioned by the environment group WWF-Australia, found the Coalition funding would fall short by $5.9 billion a year between 2015 and 2020, or between $20 billion and $35 billion in total.

Australia has previously committed to higher emissions targets if there is a commitment for stronger action by the international community, which is possible at the 2015 UN Conference on Climate Change. Given how much money is required by direct action to enable us to just meet our 5% targets, it is unlikely direct action would enable us to meet these higher targets, or indeed even our existing target.

Direct action also delivers disruption and uncertainty to an industry that’s already adapted to the concept of carbon pricing.

Is Direct action the right course of action for Australia? According to many leading economists it is not. A Fairfax Media survey released today of 35 prominent university and business economists found only two believed direct action was the better way to limit Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.

Of the two economists that supported direct action, one described it as "no action", which he felt was the right path to take for Australia. The other economist, from Commsec, was skeptical whether humans were having a serious impact on climate.

Thirty – or 86% – of the economists surveyed favored the existing carbon price scheme. Three rejected both schemes.

Internationally renowned Australian economist Justin Wolfers, of the Washington based Brookings Institution and the University of Michigan, has expressed surprise that any economists would opt for direct action. He has said that direct action would involve more economic disruption but have a lesser environmental pay-off than an emissions trading scheme.

Direct action a more expensive way of doing much less

It’s incredibly disappointing that political debate over a transitional arrangement – the carbon tax – has gotten in the way of our move to an Emissions Trading Scheme.

When comparing carbon pricing against direct action, carbon pricing wins hands down.

In fact, direct action is just a much more expensive way of doing much less.

Useful links:

Repealing the Carbon Tax – Call for public comment

http://www.environment.gov.au/carbon-tax-repeal/consultation.html

Emissions Reduction Fund - Call for public comment

http://www.environment.gov.au/emissions-reduction-fund/consultation.html

Image attribution: Jan-Joost Verhoef

How climate change impacts bushfires

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Fri, 18 Oct 2013 22:59:00 +0000

On Thursday, Sydney saw its worst bushfires in more than 10 years.

Of the more than 100 bushfires that raged across the state of NSW, at least one life was lost and the number of homes destroyed is still being counted.

Some of the bushfires still continue to burn out of control. Even right now as I type inside my home, I can smell smoke. Outside the trees are shrouded in smoke. I live nowhere near the fires.

Today, firefighters are desperately trying to contain the remaining fires, because tomorrow we are expecting yet another hot day.

Unusual weather patterns

As a Sydney-sider, I am shocked for the people whose lives have been, and will be, devastated by the fires.

But I haven’t been surprised by the bushfires. Not even by the scale of them.

This year we experienced a surprisingly early start to the bushfire season. Fires started in our first week of spring, in September. Since then we’ve had many hot days in the late 30C and late 20C, which is very uncommon. We’ve also had lots of very strong wind.

In fact, Australia as a whole has been going through some pretty unusual weather patterns and breaking various records. We’ve just had our hottest 12 month period on record, we’ve had an unusually warm winter, and the hottest September on record. We also had 28 days in a row without rain. All this is occurring with the El Niño cycle being neutral.

While climate change deniers have focused on a 'pause' in atmospheric land temperatures over the last 15 years, the oceans, which absorb approximately 30% of our CO2, have continued to warm. In fact, claiming that global warming has ‘paused’ is deeply misleading: it is factually incorrect and also selectively seizes on a very specific timeframe where a strong El Niño causing hot weather had been in play.

Bushfires and climate change

Although climate change doesn’t start bushfires, it does contribute to the conditions that exacerbate the risk of the bushfires. It also creates the conditions in which bushfires can flourish.

Global warming amplifies the risk factors for extreme weather events. The extra heat pulls water from the soil and plants on land, making it very dry. Meanwhile, as the atmosphere becomes warmer its capacity to hold water increases. As a result, downpours become more amplified. The rainfall may in turn lead to grass growth, which can then end up fueling fires.

Scientists and researchers are making it increasingly clear that a serious consequence of climate change for Australia will be an increase in the frequency and severity of bushfires.

Australia’s CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) predicts that under extreme climate change, the kind of bushfires we saw in Victoria on Black Saturday may happen on average once every two years.

A leaked draft document of a forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) – which is the internationally accepted authority on climate change – says that climate change will increase the likelihood of deaths from heat stress and bushfires in Australia.

Moving backwards in the fight against climate change

The timing of these terrible bushfires is ironic. They happened in the same week that Australia took a significant step backwards in the fight against climate change: its recently elected federal government released draft laws to axe the carbon tax.

By moving away from an effective model of dealing with climate change we are ignoring the fact that climate change poses the biggest ever threat to Australians and the Australian way of life.

In doing so we are also perpetuating the problem of bushfires, which puts our people and our firefighters at tremendous risk.

In November 2009, appearing before Parliament, the United Firefighters Union of Australia urged it to take real action on climate change:

"We are asking you very clearly, stop making this a political football, put in place the action that's required to secure the future because by 2020 we are going to see a frequency like we've not seen before."

Since then, Australia has made very little climate change progress. In fact, we’re currently moving backwards. We’re ignoring the facts being put before us and in doing so putting more lives at risk.

Image attribution: Desi

Our oceans in crisis

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Tue, 15 Oct 2013 05:17:00 +0000

There is another resounding reason for urgently moving away from fossil fuels: to save our oceans.

Burning fossil fuels is having a grave impact on our oceans that’s only just starting to be understood.

A study released earlier this month from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) has shown that our oceans are in such a bad way that a mass extinction may already be under way.

The “deadly trio”

IPSO’s report warns of a "deadly trio" of acidification, oxygen loss and ocean warming:

1. Ocean acidification

The oceans currently absorb about a third of human-created CO2 emissions, roughly 22 million tons a day. This has benefited us by slowing the climate change these emissions would have instigated if they had remained in the air.

But when carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean, carbonic acid is formed. This means that the oceans become more acidic.

Acidification threatens marine organisms that use calcium carbonate to build their skeletons, such as reef-forming corals, crabs, oysters and some plankton vital to marine food webs.

Alarmingly, IPSO’s recent study has said that the rate of acidification in the oceans is the highest it’s been in over 300 million years due to carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.

Moreover, it is acknowledged by the scientific community that the damage being done now will take hundreds of thousands of years to repair itself through natural processes, so there is no prospect of quick reversal.

2. The de-oxygenation of our oceans

Our oceans are also running out of air (being ‘deoxygenated’) due to increased temperatures from global warming and runoff from sewerage and agriculture.

The reduction of oxygen is a concern as areas of severe depletion effectively become dead.

3. Ocean warming

Our oceans are warming because of heat from a build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

This is already causing biodiversity to drop and species to scatter away from their natural habitats.

4. Other human-made stresses

The “deadly trio” of threats to our oceans are “further exacerbated by other anthropogenic stresses” like pollution, overfishing, habitat destruction, and the introduction of non-indigenous species to different areas.

How much danger are our oceans in?

According to IPSO’s recent study, our oceans are now facing devastating issues at a scale and rate "unprecedented in Earth's known history."

Current rates of carbon release into the oceans are 10 times faster than the rates of release just before the most recent major species extinction about 55 million years ago, the scientists found.

The report went on to say that a mass extinction of key species may already be almost inevitable.

How does the health of the oceans impact us?

Simply put, our oceans are the lifeblood of the world. The potential impacts of this crisis are diverse and enormous.

Our oceans cover nearly three quarters of the Earth's surface, provide about half the oxygen we breathe and feed billions of people every year.

Coral reefs, which are especially in danger, serve as the home for many forms of ocean life. Their disappearance would be akin to rainforests being wiped out worldwide. Such losses would reverberate throughout the marine environment.

Alex Rogers, IPSO’s director and professor of biology at Oxford University, has said:

“The situation should be of the gravest concern to everyone since everyone will be affected by changes in the ability of the ocean to support life on Earth."

What should we be doing about this?

We need to reduce our CO2 emissions – and quickly.

IPSO’s report urged world governments to take fast action to ensure temperatures don’t rise past 2 degrees C. Current limits, it warned, weren’t enough to ensure the health of coral reefs, since there will be a time lag of several decades between a decrease in levels of atmospheric CO2 and the levels of dissolved CO2 in the ocean.

There are other strategies we should adopt too. Evidence suggests that coral reefs in protected ocean reserves are less affected by global threats such as global warming and ocean acidification. This is a big incentive to:

Create marine protected areas (essentially national parks for the sea) and
Stop destructive fishing practices.

Let’s get on with it!

No one is disputing that our oceans are in grave danger. Nor are they disputing the urgency of the situation.

There's no time to waste. It's time to take action.

Image attribution: Milan Boers

Enormous pressure from everyday people

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 03:31:00 +0000

In order to get ourselves out of the current climate emergency, there are 3 main things we quickly need to do:

1. Significantly reduce our emissions by moving away from fossil fuels (i.e. coal, oil and natural gas)

2. Move to 100% renewable energy

3. Significantly reduce our waste and become much more efficient.

Technologically, coming off fossil fuels and transitioning to 100% renewable energy is not as incomprehensible as you may think. Worldwide, renewable energy is developing – and being implemented – at breakneck speed, and is becoming far more cost effective and efficient. In fact, renewable energy, when it’s put onto the system, tends to cut household electricity bills, not push them up.

It is political will that is the key missing ingredient. This is largely because governments are under extraordinary pressure from the fossil fuel industries to maintain the status quo.

In a recent speech, President Barack Obama disparaged dirty energy money being pumped into political campaigns, saying that members of Congress’ energy committees didn’t have the public’s best interest at heart because they were bought and sold by “fossil fuel industries.”

This means that it’s up to us, everyday people, to put enormous pressure on our governments – and also on the companies that provide and/or finance fossil fuel energy – to make the changes needed.

The following are 3 key ways in which we can start building that pressure:

1. By communicating with one another

Although many people are very concerned about climate change, it’s not a topic that comes up much in everyday conversation. But sweeping it under the carpet is only letting the problem get worse.

Talking about it brings the issue to the forefront, helps us to realise that we’re not the only one with these concerns (in fact, we’re in the majority), gives us an opportunity to work together on solutions and mobilises us.

Joining pro-environment groups (such as online groups) can also be a good way to keep you up-to-date with climate change initiatives, including those taking place in your area.

2. Through economic pressure

Companies can’t exist if we don’t buy their products. Nor do they like getting bad publicity, as it can significantly affect their bottom line.

Yet many banks lend money to projects that have serious detrimental impacts on our environment and our climate. For example, in Australia the ‘big four banks’ – ANZ, Commonwealth, NAB and Westpac – have lent almost $4 billion to coal and gas projects in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area since 2008.

In addition, a significant number of investments and superannuation funds help finance the fossil fuel industry.

An effective way of exerting economic pressure on the fossil fuel industry is by switching from banks – and divesting of investments – that finance the industry.

So why not make a call or two? Ring your bank and superannuation fund and find out if they are financing fossil fuel companies or infrastructure. If they are, tell them you're not happy. Or better still, switch.

3. Through political pressure

Although it is the fossil fuel companies that have the money to pump into political campaigns, at the end of the day it is the people who have the power to vote politicians in and out. A politician is unlikely to make a decision that will seriously jeopardise their election / re-election prospects.

Writing to and lobbying government, and peaceful protests, are good ways to create political pressure. Also, if you’re concerned about a proposed law that requires opposition support in order to pass, lobby opposition members. The key is to keep the political pressure on. And of course, at election time, use your vote very wisely.

Useful links:

www.350.org

350.org is an international climate movement to unite the world around solutions to climate change.

www.350.org.au is the website for its Australian branch.

www.350.org.nz is the website for its New Zealand branch.

www.marketforces.org.au/banks

This organisation helps Australians work together to get their banks out of coal and gas.

Image attribution: James Cridland

Our small window of opportunity

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Fri, 04 Oct 2013 01:22:00 +0000

You may not know it, but late last week the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the most comprehensive assessment of the science of climate change ever undertaken: the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.

One of the key take-outs of this report was that we only have a very brief period of time in which to deal with climate change.

The report predicts that the average temperature between 2080 and 2100 will be 2.6-4.8C higher than today if emissions are unchecked.

Perhaps a 4C rise doesn’t sound like much to you? But consider this: the last ice age was just 4C cooler than it is today.

In addition, according to some commentators, within 15 to 30 years we will exhaust the total emissions budget that would provide us with reasonable odds of staying beneath 2C.

Scientists regard a warming of 2C as the threshold of safety. But even 2C risks severe drought and storms that could challenge civilized society, leading to conflict and mass migrations.

The good news is that the IPCC report says it's not too late. We have a window in which to limit warming, but it is a small one.

In my next post, I’ll be writing about action we can all take to overcome this terrible problem.

Image: ‘Earth South Pole’. FlyingSinger.