CLIMATE CHANGE: TARGETS, BUDGETS AND AGREEMENTS (Everything’s Connected)

Targets are often presented as though we can choose. In practice there is little choice.  

If we are to avoid being burned to a cinder we have to stop using fossil fuels; to reach ‘net-zero emissions’ we can no longer choose how long to take to reach this target.

The 2015 Paris Agreement set limits to Global Warming that are regarded by the IPCC as consistent with a tolerable existence on planet earth.

 Initially 2°C was set. This limit was modified following an IPCC report (2018) which made clear that a 1.5° increase offered a much better chance of a much better climate.

 With a rise in global temperature of 1°C above pre-industrial temperatures, we are already experiencing extreme weather events: heat-waves and droughts, storms and floods, melting ice and rising sea levels, bleaching of our coral reefs and massive species loss.  Beyond a 1.5°C increase we risk realising our worst nightmare, ‘a cascade of tipping points’ as several natural systems break down. This could happen when the arctic ice is so reduced that instead of reflecting the sun’s rays back into space the radiation is absorbed by the sea, heating the ocean; the global temperature rises melting the permafrost which releases methane, further increasing the greenhouse gases and accelerating the warm-up.

 So! A 1.5°C increase seems to be the least-worst limit on which to agree.

The agreement to limit global temperature increases determines the remaining amount of greenhouse gases we can send into the atmosphere. This in turn translates into a Global Budget of 1,750 Gt CO₂ e. There is no choice about this Global Budget, it’s based on science and arithmetic and the need to keep global atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ e to 556 parts per million or less.

The Australian Government’s ‘Climate Change Authority’ originally calculated our National ‘fair-share’ budget, taking account of our share of the global population (0.33%) and our contribution to current global emissions (0.97%).

The recently formed independent ‘Climate Target Panel' followed the same methodology to calculate a new Australian ‘fair-share’ budget for 2021 to 2050 as follows: 

- for a 2°C increase the budget is 6,161 mega-tonnes CO₂ e (CO₂ equivalent) and   

- for a 1.5°C increase it is 3,521 mega-tonnes CO₂ e

These figures are based on the science, not the politics, nor the economics nor on any individual’s personal opinion. They stem from the harsh and undeniable reality that if we go on pumping Greenhouse Gases into the atmosphere the world will get unbearably hot.

Back in 2014 it would have been possible to reduce our emissions at a steady (straight-line) amount per year, stretching the budget to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. 

However, since we stopped reducing emissions when the carbon tax was repealed (2016), this is no longer possible; a steady rate of reduction no longer gets us to net-zero by 2050. To avoid over-spending our budget, we now have to reduce emissions more rapidly. According to the Climate Target Panel, at a steady rate of emissions reduction our remaining budget only lasts to 2034.

The conclusion is: ‘time is up’! We no longer have the luxury of choosing how long we have to reach our target of ‘net-zero emissions’. Later than 2050 is too late, and 2050 is not soon enough. What matters if we are to keep our commitment to the Paris Agreement is the Carbon Budget.

         - Nick Reeve

 

 

ISSUES WITH THE HUNTER GAS PIPELINE

Last month an application for the renewal of an approval to construct the Hunter gas pipeline was placed on exhibition for comment.

Reading what the consultants, RLMS, amazingly refer to as an “Environmental Assessment”, I was appalled at the arrogant approach. It was not an assessment, but a series of bland statements on how environmental issues would be approached.

Of the seven documents, only one actually mentions flora or fauna, and then only a single page focusing on the action of “Suitably qualified fauna handlers”, who “will conduct inspections along areas of open trench to rescue and recover fauna within the trench”. As a bonus: “Details of all animals found in the trench (dead or alive presumably) will be recorded and made available to the regulator”. Any threatened flora they encountered would simply be relocated.

The question is, why is the public being asked to comment on this rubbish? This pipeline is being built, in part, to facilitate Santos' Pilliga (Narrabri) gas field, producing more fossil fuel, which when burnt places the planet at increased risk of climate change.

Let's not forget the latest IPCC report, released in October, identifying that global greenhouse gas emissions are still rising, with global temperatures on track to increase 1.5 degrees within 15 years, and a catastrophic 5 degrees by century's end, threatening all life on earth. Limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees, they claim, would require, “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”.

In September, Austalia's national greenhouse gas emissions accounts were released, showing emissions increased by a massive 1.3% in the year to March.

The Science and Policy Institute's Climate Analytics report found that between 2015 and 2020 the emissions growth from gas production in Australia will effectively wipe out the carbon pollution avoided through our 23% renewable energy target.

Then there is the Australian Conservation Foundation's report, The Dirty Truth, just released, showing that air pollution from mining and burning fossil fuels is responsible for some 3,000 premature deaths in Australia every year.

So why on earth are even contemplating building more fossil fuel infrastructure?

- John Edwards

 This article was originally published in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on December 3, 2018. 

POLITICAL SPIN ON AUSTRALIA'S CARBON EMISSIONS

The latest figures on the nation’s greenhouse emissions, released late on Friday September 28 show that carbon pollution continues to rise.  In the twelve months to March 31 2018 total emissions increased by 1.3% from the year before.

What is interesting is the positive spin federal politicians can put this very poor result.  The new federal Environment Minister, Melissa Price, has claimed that this increase “shows Australia is on track to beat its 2020 emissions target.” 

 

The latest figures for our emissions were 1.9% below the 2000 levels.  Our 2020 target is to be 5% lower than the 2000 level. A further indicator is the 2005 emissions level.   In relation this level, the 2020 target is to be 11.2 % below the levels in the year to March 2018. 

It is astounding that Price can claim we’re “on track” when, even if drastic cuts were possible, it would be extremely unlikely that  the target for 2020 could be met.  Significant emissions reduction is impossible because the Government has no effective climate policy and its energy policy is a shambles following the dumping of the National Electricity Guarantee (NEG).   For Price’s claim to become a reality, something miraculous is obviously going to happen in less than two years!

The Prime Minister is also unjustifiably optimistic about curbing Australia’s emissions given the lack of any effective policies to do so. On September 30, a few days after the new emissions figures were released, he claimed that Australia would reach its 2030 targets “in a canter”.  The 2030 targets are the commitment the Australian Government made at the Paris climate summit.   That commitment is for a cut of 26% below our 2005 levels.

 

Emissions have increased every quarter since the end of the carbon price period in 2014.  The policies introduced by the Coalition Government following the abandonment of carbon pricing have been ineffective and have obviously failed at cutting emissions.  No part of positive political spin by the Prime Minister or his ministers can alter that.

An increasing majority of Australians want effective action on climate change rather than mindless political spin.

            - Leonie Blain

This article was originally published in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on October 8, 2018.

CLIMATE CHANGE: AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT DROPS EVEN FURTHER BEHIND

The joint announcement by China and the United States on November 12 that they plan to cut carbon emissions substantially has been welcomed as a "game changer".  Many see this as giving real hope that an effective international scheme can be developed at the Paris Climate Summit in December 2015.

The agreement is significant as both China and the US are the world's two largest economies as well as the world's major carbon polluters.  Together they account for around 40% of emissions.

The US has promised to cut its emissions by 26%-28% from 2005 levels by 2025. China expects that its emissions will peak by then - but this may happen earlier than 2030. By 2030 20% of China's energy production will be from renewables. 

Where does this leave the Australian Government?  While various Government Ministers have welcomed the announcement, it is likely that there is considerable embarrassment because Australia is clearly being left even further behind. 

Since it came to office, the current Government has been intent on dismantling all it could of the previous government's measures on climate change – this action extending way beyond abolishing the carbon tax.  The fact that some of the climate initiatives remain in place is primarily because the Senate has blocked their abolition.

Australia's Post-2020 Emission Challenge, a report from the independent Climate Commission  claims Australia needs to commit to much stronger emissions reduction.  The report states:  "Australia's decarbonisation goal should be to achieve a net zero-emissions economy between 2040 and 2050."

This would mean commiting to a marked ramping up of our national goal from 2020.  Will the current government be prepared to make such a commitment at the Paris Summit in 2015?  Their current actions would suggest that is extremely unlikely.

The Australian Government sought to avoid having climate change discussed during the Brisbane G20 talks  because it claimed climate change was not an economic issue. Australia was certainly in a minority with this view.  Some discussion of climate change was inevitable because of the concerns of many of the major countries.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes the dinosaurs leading Australia's government to acknowledge that climate change is a major economic issue. 

It will also be interesting to see how long Prime Minister Abbott will delay taking stronger climate action given that the major polluters are now showing their commitment to strong and effective action. The slowness of many major polluters to act has been used as an excuse by the Abbott Government for its piecemeal and ineffective climate policies. Now Mr Abbott does not have that excuse.