A glimpse of the future for Victoria's hilltops

Adam Morton

The Age, August 1, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/national/a-glimpse-of-the-future-for-victorias-hilltops-20090731-e4kv.html

SOME will tilt at them, but it would seem a pointless exercise: a surge in windmill construction is set to recast the Victorian landscape.

Two needs — offsetting the state's electricity-hungry new desalination plant and meeting an incoming national renewable energy target — are to trigger a huge expansion of wind power across the state.

The desalination plant dreamed up by Steve Bracks, John Brumby and John Thwaites in 2007 will transform not just the Wonthaggi coast, but parts of the Western District, too.

Energy giant AGL estimates it will need to build roughly 180 turbines to offset the power needed to run the plant once it starts operating in 2011. This will be extra power on top of the national target.

It announced that work on a 32-turbine farm at Oakland Hills, near the Grampians, would start in October. This is expected to be followed by a 183-turbine farm at Macarthur, north-east of Portland, with about 300 megawatts capacity.

"For us, it is all about Macarthur," says AGL merchant energy manager Jeff Dimery. "It will be the biggest wind farm in the southern hemisphere when it is constructed, and will more than meet all the energy requirements of the desalination plant." If it does hold this title, it may not be for long. At least two larger wind farms are proposed elsewhere in the country.

The likelihood they will get off the ground will increase dramatically once a renewable energy bill before the Senate is passed.

The Liberal Party supports the central point of the bill, which is to force electricity retailers to buy a fifth of their energy from clean sources by 2020. Energy analysts say unless it is changed the overwhelming majority — more than 90 per cent — of this investment in the short term will be in wind, easily the cheapest form of renewable energy.

Much of this will be in Victoria. The state has eight wind farms with 266 turbines. To date this accounted for less than 2 per cent of Victoria's energy generation.

Compare this with what is proposed: 20 farms with 850 turbines have been approved and are waiting to finalise finance and manufacturing deals so they can be built.

Another 27, with more than 1000 turbines, are at proposal or planning approval stage."If you look at a wind map of Australia, alongside Tasmania and South Australia, Victoria is the most attractive wind-yielding state," Mr Dimery says.

According to Environment Victoria, the proposed wind farms could be enough to replace one of the state's brown coal-fired electricity generators.

Pacific Hydro chief executive Andrew Richards says Victoria initially missed out on renewable projects in part because of a slow planning process, which took twice as long as South Australia and NSW. He says this is changing, but not fast enough. "Other states are more flexible," he says.

On a more positive note, he says Victoria was the first state to introduce its own renewable energy target.The impact of this was dulled by uncertainty over the delayed national target.

Wind power has faced criticism it cannot be relied on for baseload power.

The Energy Supply Association of Australia says the efficiency rating of Victoria's wind power plants last year was about 30 per cent because of fluctuations in wind strength.

Heat on Australia-Pacific climate change talks

By Shane McLeod for TWT

ABC News Online, 31 July 2009

• http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/31/2642451.htm?site=news
• Audio: Pacific and Australia should work together on climate deal: UN Climate head (The World Today)
• Audio: Government firm on ETS deadline (The World Today)

Australia's commitment to an emissions target is important to international negotiations leading up to the Copenhagen climate talks, says the head of the United Nations (UN) climate agency.

The UN's Yvo de Boer, on his way to Australia to meet Pacific leaders at their annual forum meeting in Cairns next week, says it would benefit Pacific countries to work with Australia in negotiating a global climate deal.

"The Pacific Island countries are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change - most likely to be impacted by sea level rise, saltwater intrusion and changes to their climate as a result of global warming," he said.

"I think it's in the direct geopolitical interests of Australia to ensure that we craft a response to climate change that addresses the concerns of your Pacific Island partners."

But environmentalists say Australia and New Zealand are a long way from matching what the Pacific nations want in terms of carbon emission reductions and money to help them develop without relying on fossil fuels.

Greenpeace climate campaigner Trish Harrup says the Pacific Island countries are clear about what they want.

"The survival of small island states to be set as a benchmark for a global agreement and that rich countries cut their emissions by 40 per cent," she said.

"That the rich countries put billions of dollars on the table to help with the adaptation, and share their intimate tool property and technology knowledge so that countries in the Pacific can develop cleanly."

None of those positions, as yet, are supported by Australia or New Zealand.

The joint statement that emerges from the Pacific leaders meeting will be the result of intense negotiations between the diplomats.

On an international scale, Mr De Boer says he is confident that the Copenhagen summit will yield a substantial deal, but says developed nations need to show how they are going to pay for it.

His hopes for Copenhagen outcomes are specific.

"We need ambitious emission reduction targets from industrialised countries, showing that they're willing to lead the way," he said.

"Secondly, we cannot have a meaningful response to climate change without also the engagement of major developing countries like China, India, Brazil and South Africa.

"My third benchmark is significant international financial support that will allow developing countries, both with investments to limit the growth of their emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change."

But Mr De Boer says he wants to make sure Pacific nations' voices are heard in the global debate, and Australia's role as a big coal exporter should not stop it from negotiating the global climate agreement with Pacific nations.

"Oil is running out I think in the next 30 to 50 years perhaps," he said.

"We have enough coal on our planet to keep burning it for the next 600 to 800 years so clearly coal is going to be an essential part of the energy mix going into the future.

"But we can only have it be an important part of the energy mix if we can use it much more cleanly than we are doing at the moment and that implies clean coal technology, carbon capture and storage and technologies like that."

Alps face snow loss threat: research

ABC News Online, Thu Jul 30

• http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/30/2640981.htm?site=news

A researcher is predicting a 96 per cent decrease in the amount of snow in Victoria's alpine areas, in 60 years.

Associate Professor Catherine Pickering says the alpine region is one of Australia's areas most threatened by climate change.

She says reliance on snow-making is not financially or economically sustainable.

"We've predicted by 2070 to lose something like 96 per cent of the snow cover of the Australian Alps, so it's going to be much sooner than we think," she said.

"Unfortunately because our current emissions and our current rises in temperatures are at the high end of the predictions, it's definitely coming to us sooner and faster.

"By 2020, we've found that the amount of water that the ski resorts are going to need to make snow, just to match current conditions, is going to exceed the amount of water that's used by Canberra."

Human activity is driving Earth's 'sixth great extinction event'

Population growth, pollution and invasive species are having a disastrous effect on species in the southern hemisphere, a major review by conservationists warn

• Ian Sample, science correspondent
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 July 2009 19.24 BST
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/28/species-extinction-hotspots-australia

Earth is experiencing its "sixth great extinction event" with disease and human activity taking a devastating toll on vulnerable species, according to a major review by conservationists.

Much of the southern hemisphere is suffering particularly badly, and Australia, New Zealand and neighbouring Pacific islands may become the extinction hot spots of the world, the report warns.

Ecosystems in Polynesia, Micronesia and Melanesia need urgent and effective conservation policies, or the region's already poor record on extinctions will worsen significantly.

Researchers trawled 24,000 published reports to compile information on the native flora and fauna of Australasia and the Pacific islands, which have six of the most biodiverse regions on the planet. Their report identifies six causes driving species to extinction, almost all linked in some way to human activity.

"Our region has the notorious distinction of having possibly the worst extinction record on Earth," said Richard Kingsford, an environmental scientist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney and lead author of the report. "We have an amazing natural environment, but so much of it is being destroyed before our eyes. Species are being threatened by habitat loss and degradation, invasive species, climate change, over-exploitation, pollution and wildlife disease."

The review, published in the journal Conservation Biology, highlights destruction and degradation of ecosystems as the main threat. In Australia, agriculture has altered or destroyed half of all woodland and forests. Around 70% of the remaining forest has been damaged by logging. Loss of habitats is behind 80% of threatened species, the report claims.

Invasive animals and plants have devastated native species on many Pacific islands. The Guam Micronesian kingfisher is thought to be extinct in the wild following the introduction of the brown tree snake. The impact of invasive species is often compounded by pollution and burgeoning human populations on the islands, which have outstripped their capacity to deal with waste. Plastics and fishing gear are an ongoing danger.

The impact of humans on wildlife is likely to increase in Australasia and the Pacific islands. By 2050, the population of Australia is expected to have risen by 35%, and New Zealand by 25%, while Papua New Guinea faces a 76% increase and New Caledonia 49%.

More than 2,500 invasive plant species have colonised Australia and New Zealand, competing for sunlight and nutrients. Many have been introduced by governments, horticulturists and hunters. In addition, the report says, average temperatures in Australia have increased, in line with climate change predictions, forcing some species towards Antarctica and others to higher, cooler ground.

The report highlights several studies that point to serious threats from diseases such as avian malaria and the chytrid fungus, linked to declines in frog populations. An infectious facial cancer is spreading rapidly among Tasmanian devils and populations of the world's largest marsupial predator are believed to have fallen by more than 60% as a result.

Plants have also fared badly: a root fungus deliberately introduced into Australia has destroyed several species.

The report sets out a raft of recommendations to slow the decline by introducing laws to limit land clearing, logging and mining; restricting deliberate introduction of invasive species; reducing carbon emissions and pollution; and limiting fisheries. It raises particular concerns about bottom trawling, and the use of cyanide and dynamite, and calls for early-warning systems to pick up diseases in the wild.

"The burden on the environment is going to get worse unless we are a lot smarter about reducing our footprint," said Kingsford. "Unless we get this right, future generations will surely be paying more in quality of life and the environment. And our region will continue its terrible reputation of leading the world in the extinction of plants and animals."

Dead and buried

Cretaceous-Tertiary 65m years ago, the dinosaurs were wiped out in a mass extinction that killed nearly a fifth of land vertebrate families, 16% of marine families and nearly half of all marine animals. Thought to have been caused by asteroid impact that created Chicxulub crater in the Yucatan.

End of Triassic About 200m years ago, lava floods erupting from the central Atlantic are thought to have created lethal global warming, killing off more than a fifth of all marine families and half of marine genera.

Permian-Triassic The worst mass extinction took place 250m years ago, killing 95% of all species. Experts disagree on the cause.

Late Devonian About 360m years ago, a fifth of marine families were wiped out, alongside more than half of all marine genera. Cause unknown.

Ordovician-Silurian About 440m years ago, a quarter of all marine families were wiped out by fluctuating sea levels as glaciers formed and melted. again.

Coal exemption would cost $10 billion

Phillip Coorey, Chief Political Correspondent

Sydney Morning Herald, July 29, 2009

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/coal-exemption-would-cost-10-billion-20090728-e06a.html

EXEMPTING the coal industry from the emissions trading scheme would cost the scheme $10 billion in revenue over 10 years and force the Federal Government to either cut compensation to households and other sectors or take money from the budget, Government experts say.

Senior departmental officials are urging the Government to stand firm as the coal industry and the Opposition increase demands for more money, free permits or exemption for coal.

The officials are also disputing claims by the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, and the coal sector that the scheme being developed in the US will treat polluting industries more favourably than the Australian scheme.

Today the coal sector is running more newspaper advertisements warning of job losses in NSW and Queensland. Yesterday Mr Turnbull used a business speech in Sydney to call again for the legislation to be delayed until early next year – after the international climate conference in Copenhagen and by which time the shape of the US scheme should be clearer.

But Mr Turnbull conceded that because the Government was determined to press ahead, it was likely the Coalition would come to a deal before the end of the year, thus avoiding a trigger for a double dissolution.

''We believe the scheme would be best legislated … or finalised after Copenhagen, but we will participate constructively in the debate about the design of the scheme in the course of this year.''

The comment brought Mr Turnbull another broadside from the renegade Liberal backbencher Wilson Tuckey, who sent his Coalition colleagues another email yesterday, blaming a drop in the polls on the attempts by Mr Turnbull and the Coalition to deal on the scheme this year.

''For those who wish to blame party division for their polling demise, just remember who broke ranks,'' Mr Tuckey wrote.

''Is it just possible we could get on a winner and criticise the ETS as the wrong solution to climate change?''

Last week, after an internal party brawl about when or if the Coalition should try to amend the bill, Mr Turnbull tried to unite the party behind a new position consisting of nine changes the Coalition would demand.

One of these involved exemptions for coal.

Under the proposed scheme, the coal industry is not counted as a heavy polluter or entitled to free permits. Most coalmines are low-emitting, open-cut projects that would have to pay for permits, and officials say this would add between $1.50 and $2.50 to the price of each tonne of coal.

The worst affected are 23 gassy, methane-emitting mines in NSW and Queensland. They pollute so much that the cost of permits would increase the price per tonne of coal from these mines by $20 to $25. Rather than giving them free permits and allowing them to go on polluting, the Government wants to give them $750 million to implement measures to reduce emissions.

Government officials argue this would lower the mines' emissions liability on a permanent basis, whereas exempting the coal sector, or giving it free permits, would cost $10 billion over a decade in lost revenue.

Coal industry urges fair emissions scheme

By Paul Robinson

ABC News Online, Tue Jul 28, 2009 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/28/2638421.htm?site=news

The coal industry has taken out full page newspaper advertisements today calling for fair and consistent treatment in the development of an emissions trading scheme.

The Australian Coal Association says the Government's new Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute shows Australia is a world leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from coal.

The association says the industry has committed more than $1 billion of its own money developing carbon storage projects in three states.

But the advertisement says an emissions trading scheme needs to take into account the actions of other countries so that jobs are not transferred offshore.

The Coal Association's executive director Ralph Hillman says coal companies will have to buy emissions licences, something that will not apply to other coal exporting countries, while other Australian industries will get concessions.

"60 per-cent of your permits would be handed to you by the government and liquefied natural gas is going to benefit from that, aluminium and cement, chemicals, but coal, even though it qualified easily under the government's own tests and criteria was excluded for political reasons," he said.

"The important thing is just not to move jobs offshore such as coal jobs to our competitor countries who are not going to impose these restrictions so you will lose good jobs in Central Queensland.

"There'll be more jobs in Indonesia or South Africa or Colombia who are our competitors, but they will just produce the coal and emit the gas anyway so the global will be no better off."

75 million to flee climate change: report

By Linda Mottram for Radio Australia

ABC News Online, Mon Jul 27, 2009

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/27/2637587.htm?site=news

The report can be downloaded here - http://www.oxfam.org.au/campaigns/climate-change/reports/

A new report says climate change could produce 75 million refugees in the Asia Pacific region in the next 40 years.

It urges Australia to put new immigration measures in place to help with people movements, and to cut deeply into its own climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions.

The report, by aid agency Oxfam Australia and think-tank the Australia Institute, says the effects of climate change are already being felt in the region.

It says addressing the immigration question is vital, as is giving more financial assistance to the region targeted specifically at measures to help communities adapt.

The release of the report is timed to add to pressure on Australia over the issue when it chairs the Pacific Islands Forum leaders' meeting in the Queensland city of Cairns next week.

Climate change is expected to be a major issue for the regional leaders.

The Australia Institute's executive director, Richard Denniss, says the Rudd Government has failed to live up to promises it made to the Pacific before its election, going silent in particular on immigration.

"Some areas, some low-lying atolls, are already becoming impossible to inhabit and we do need to assist these people. We need to be talking to their governments about how we can help them move within their countries," Dr Denniss told Radio Australia's Pacific Beat program.

"But in time, we do need to discuss the very real possibility of some of these people having to move."

Oxfam Australia's executive director, Andrew Hewett, says the impact of climate change is already being seen in the Pacific.

"They're facing increasing food and water shortages, they're losing land, they're being forced from their homes, they're dealing with rising cases of malaria and they're facing much more intense weather patterns," Mr Hewett said.

He says Australia should be helping to build on work already being done by Pacific countries.

Australia has allocated $150 million to help with climate change in the Pacific.

The government says it is conducting research and already helping with local initiatives, such as building water tanks in Tuvalu.

The groups say at least double that amount will be required from Australia and they say tighter controls are needed to make sure the money is spent on adaptation-specific measures.

The groups also say that as the region's richest country and one of the world's biggest polluters, Australia has a responsibility to make deep cuts to its greenhouse gas emissions.

"Prevention is better than cure on this and step one is to demand tougher targets of ourselves and of other developed countries," Dr Denniss says.

The report has also called for a fixed percentage of Australia's planned carbon trading scheme to be allocated to the Pacific for climate change and for the Rudd government to fulfil an election promise to set up a Pacific Climate Change Alliance to strengthen the Pacific voice in international climate change talks.

US Copenhagen optimism

Anne Davies, Washington

The Age, July 29, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/us-copenhagen-optimism-20090728-e03l.html

CHIEF US climate negotiator Todd Stern has given his most bullish prediction yet of a successful outcome in Copenhagen, saying that China is equally keen to achieve a new climate treaty.

Speaking after the first day of a US-China economic and strategic dialogue, Mr Stern said: ''The issue has risen to the top of the US national security set of priorities.

''With respect to prospects, you know, we're slogging ahead. I think that we will get there. I think we will end up with an agreement.''

Mr Stern cautioned that the perspectives of the major developing countries such as China and India were still quite different.

''But I do think that we will get there, and I think that there is a lot of interest on the Chinese side to arrive at a constructive and successful outcome in Copenhagen,'' he said.

The US-China dialogue has provided an unusual chance for a large number of Chinese ministers and senior US officials, including cabinet secretaries, to hear directly from each other on climate change.

As a measure of how seriously China is taking the negotiations, Wang Qishan, the country's Vice-Premier in charge of economic and financial affairs, chaired the plenary session on climate change.

US Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, a noted scientist, provided an update on the scientific evidence of global warming, while Xie Zhenhua, China's environmental protection secretary-general, outlined the steps that China is taking to limit carbon dioxide emissions.

As to the likely agreement, Mr Stern said that the ''critical element'' would be different targets for the developed and developing countries.

''In the case of developed countries, that's a reduction against ... the baseline. And in the case of developing countries, that's a ... substantial reduction, but against a business-as-usual path, rather than something absolute,'' he said.

Mr Stern said the agreement would include measures to achieve longer-term, low-carbon paths, including a financing package to provide help to developing countries.

The different targets for developed and developing nations and talk of a financing package will be controversial with the US Congress and trade unions, which have expressed concern about the impact on US manufacturing if China and India are treated differently.

US President Barack Obama appeared to rule out tariffs proposed in the House of Representatives version of the climate change legislation passed last month.

World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns

New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Niño southern oscillation cycles is expected to silence global warming sceptics

• Duncan Clark
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 27 July 2009 15.39 BST
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study

The world faces a new period of record-breaking temperatures as the sun's activity increases, leading the planet to heat up significantly faster than scientists had predicted over the next five years, according to a new study.

The hottest year on record was 1998, and the relatively cool years since have led to some global-warming sceptics claiming that temperatures have levelled off or started to decline. However, the new research firmly rejects that argument.

The work is the first to assess the combined impact on global temperature of four factors: human influences such as CO2 and aerosol emissions; heating from the sun; volcanic activity; and the El Niño southern oscillation, the phenomenon by which the Pacific Ocean flips between warmer and cooler states every few years.

It shows that the relative stability in global temperatures observed in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El Niño events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

As solar activity picks up again in the coming years, the new research suggests, temperatures will shoot up at 150% of the rate predicted by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The research, to be published in a forthcoming edition of Geophysical Research Letters, was carried out by Judith Lean of the US Naval Research Laboratory and David Rind of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Lean said: "Our paper shows that the absence of warming observed in the last decade is no evidence that the climate isn't responding to man-made greenhouse gases. On the contrary, the study again confirms that we're seeing a long-term warming trend driven by human activity, with natural factors affecting the precise shape of that temperature rise."

Lean and Rind's research also sheds light on the extreme average temperature observed in 1998. The new paper confirms that the temperature spike of that year was caused primarily by a very strong El Niño episode. A similar episode occurring in the future could be expected to create a spike of equivalent magnitude on top of an even higher baseline, thus shattering the 1998 record.

Furthermore, the study comes within days of announcements from climatologists that the world is entering a new El Niño warm spell. This development suggests that temperature rises in the next year could be even more marked than Lean and Rind's paper suggests. A particularly hot autumn and winter could add to the pressure on policy-makers to reach a meaningful deal at December's climate-change negotiations in Copenhagen.

Bob Henson of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado said: "If El Niño continues to develop, it's quite possible that the Copenhagen meeting will take place during one of the warmest Decembers in the global record."

He added that the paper was a reminder that temperature patterns observed over periods of just a few years can be misleading when it comes to the bigger picture: "To claim that global temperatures have cooled since 1998 and therefore that man-made climate change isn't happening is a bit like saying spring has gone away when you have a mild week after a scorching Easter."

Temperature highs and lows

1998

Hottest year of the millennium

Caused by a major El Niño event. The climate phenomenon results from warming of the tropical Pacific and causes heatwaves, droughts and flooding around the world. The 1998 event caused 16% of the world's coral reefs to die.

1957

Most sunspots in a year since 1778

The sun's activity waxes and wanes on an 11-year cycle. The late 1950s saw a peak in activity and were relatively warm years for the period.

1601

Coldest year of the millennium

Ash from the huge eruption the previous year of a Peruvian volcano called Huaynaputina blocked out the sun. The volcanic winter caused Russia's worst famine, with a third of the population dying, and disrupted agriculture from China to France.

Pacific Islanders cry for help

Brendan Nicholson, Foreign Affairs Correspondent

Sydney Morning Herald, July 27, 2009

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/pacific-islanders-cry-for-help-20090726-dxio.html

REGIONAL leaders are preparing to bombard the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, with dire warnings about global warming and pleas for help at next week's summit of the Pacific Island Forum.

They will make clear their concern that they are already feeling the first devastating impact of rising sea levels and increasingly violent storms while Australia and other developed nations remain embroiled in debate about possible solutions.

The leaders say Pacific Islanders are already suffering and they need the help now that the Labor Party promised when in opposition.

In a report to be released today, Oxfam Australia says people are being forced to leave their homes and it is likely that 75 million people in the Asia-Pacific region will have to relocate by 2050.

Oxfam's executive director, Andrew Hewett, said yesterday Fijians were testing salt-resistant varieties of staple foods, planting mangroves and native grasses to halt coastal erosion in order to protect wells from salt water intrusion, and moving homes and community buildings away from vulnerable coastlines.

In the Solomon Islands officials were looking for land to resettle people from low-lying outer atolls, and those living in the outer atolls of the Federated States of Micronesia were facing food and water shortages and moving to higher ground.

"People are facing increasing food and water shortages, losing land and being forced from their homes, dealing with rising cases of malaria and coping with more frequent flooding and storm surges," Mr Hewett said.

He said not all of those living on inundated islands would be able to relocate within their own countries so it was vital that Australia start working with Pacific governments to plan for that now.

"It would be in Australia's interests to act now because, as the situation worsened, it would be called on to respond to more emergencies in the region.

Mr Hewett said that, as the wealthiest country in the region and the highest per capita polluter, Australia must prevent further climate damage to the Pacific by urgently adopting higher targets - reducing emissions by at least 40 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020 - and urging other developed countries to do the same.

The Government's commitment of $150 million to help Pacific Islanders adapt to climate change had to be at least doubled to meet their most urgent needs.

The Australia Institute says in a separate report that Labor made strong commitments while it was in opposition and symbolic steps early in its term in government, but there has been a disappointing lack of meaningful help to the Pacific since then.

The forum's meeting in Cairns would put the spotlight on Australia's failure to deliver, the report's author, Louise Collett, said.

Mr Rudd must fulfil Labor's election promise to establish a "Pacific Climate Change Alliance", allocate money from the carbon emissions scheme to aid for the Pacific, and allow islanders at risk of displacement to come to Australia, Ms Collett said.

We are stewing in our own oven

PAUL SHEEHAN

Sydney Morning Herald, July 27, 2009

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/we-are-stewing-in-our-own-oven-20090726-dxew.html?page=-1

You, reader, live in a primitive city. In a hundred years from now, the society we are building will look back and marvel at how little we really understood about the world we have constructed for ourselves.

We are stewing in our own juices.

Last Wednesday, a night of driving rain, I attended a seminar where more than 100 professionals, a standing room-only crowd, had gathered to learn about practical, cheap, achievable ways of stopping Sydney's pot from simmering. These were not wide-eyed utopians. In purely parochial terms, the heating of our biggest cities is even bigger than the global warming debate. Because the rise in temperature is mostly and demonstrably caused by outdated thinking.

The story starts on Observatory Hill, at the southern end of the Harbour Bridge, where weather records have been kept daily since 1860. What the observatory has recorded is a rise in the average temperature at the centre of Sydney from 20.5 degrees to 22 degrees. As Sydney grows, Sydney slowly heats.

At last Wednesday's seminar we learnt why - 27 per cent of the surface of the metropolitan area is covered by bitumen, the black tar which soaks and retains heat and thus changes the city's climate.

Nearly all the rainwater run-off on this 27 per cent of the city is lost to productive use, flowing into Sydney Harbour because it is designed that way. The city's rooftops also gather heat. Roads and pavements maximise the waste of arable land. Tree-planting is stunted for legal reasons. Topsoil is "scalped" by roadworks. The increasing use of air-conditioners is creating more energy. More heat begets more heat.

It is not just a Sydney story. The most telling detail lost amid all that was written and broadcast about the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria, which killed 173 people, was that more people died from heat stress in Melbourne than in the fires. During the oven-like temperature peak (three consecutive days above 43 degrees) Melbourne saw a spike of 1400 emergencies requiring an ambulance.

An extra 374 people died in Victoria that week compared to the average week. Most were heat stress related.

"To break this heating cycle we don't need more money, we need more intelligent use of what we already have," says the person who organised Wednesday's seminar, Michael Mobbs, the creator of Sydney's most famous experiment in sustainable housing. He was stunned by the size and quality of the turnout. The room was full of planners from councils across Sydney. He was especially pleased that the gathering was addressed by Arjan Rensen, a senior executive from ARRB, the company which writes the specification guidelines for all the road agencies in Australia.

"It was hugely symbolic having him there, willing to be associated with what we're trying to do," Mobbs told me. "It means the road authorities are at last starting to deal with the impact their roads are having on our cities."

The roads are Mobbs's starting point for reform, because they take up so much room and are so taken for granted. "We should just use existing bitumen and gravel but choose pale gravel, and mix it so that the gravel shows through the bitumen," Mobbs says. "We could also use dyes like those used in bus lanes, but paler than green or red. These were first used in the Harbour Tunnel, which was privately owned, because the owners wanted to cut the cost of their electricity bill. On streets with low traffic volume, these dyed surfaces will last 15 to 20 years."

Then there is the overlooked space, the humble pavements. They should be planted and widened where possible because of the cooling powers of plants and trees. Fruit trees and vegetable gardens should also be grown in public space such as roadsides. The practice is common in Germany.

Planners have started listening to Mobbs because, having transformed his own home into a dwelling with self-contained power, water and sewerage systems, he is busy converting his street, Myrtle Street, Chippendale, into the sort of micro-environment that, if replicated across the city, would cool it, slash energy consumption, and massively increase carbon sequestration.

In the block where Mobbs lives, much of the pavement is covered in mulch and supports a variety of plants, including fruit trees. The fruit is available to anyone. Large public compost bins store debris, each collecting three tonnes of food waste a year to create one tonne of compost. Pipes have been manipulated to retain rainwater run-off.

All this is so simple yet so innovative. Councils and planners have been trying to do their best with what they have inside a system they have inherited. What has been lacking is a sense of the whole, of the potential for policy symbiosis, a greater realisation of what Sydney looks like on Google Earth rather than on planners' maps. Google Earth shows a city that acts as a heat trap and an energy sink, especially in the sprawling, spreading western suburbs, away from the cooling salvation of the coast.

But when I asked Mobbs if he had received council approval for his innovations on public space on Myrtle Street he replies, "not quite".

The local authority, Sydney City Council, has an ambivalent attitude. It is on his side but it is also a bureaucracy operating under the morass of laws and regulations that sits like an oppressive weight on innovation in society. Says Mobbs: "It's all been done with the delicious sense of doing something without approval."

Ads by Google

Study backs UN panel on ocean rise

Sydney Morning Herald. July 27, 2009 

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/study-backs-un-panel-on-ocean-rise-20090727-dyi4.html

The UN's climate panel has been backed over a key question as to how far global warming will drive up sea levels this century.

The UN experts are right that the oceans are unlikely to rise by an order of metres by 2100, as some scientists have feared, the study published on Sunday says.

But, its authors caution, low-lying countries and delta areas could still face potentially catastrophic flooding if the upper range of the new estimate proves right.

In a landmark report in 2007, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted oceans would rise by 18-59 centimetres by 2100.

The increase would depend on warming, estimated at between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees Celsius this century, which in turn depends on how much man-made greenhouse gas is poured into the atmosphere.

It based the calculation on thermal expansion of the seas - when a liquid is warmed, it grows in volume.

Harder to calculate, the IPCC admitted, was how far meltwater from glaciers and icesheets on land would boost sea levels.

It ventured a provisional calculation, suggesting contributions from those sources could push the upper limit to 76 centimetres.

The new paper, led by Mark Siddall of Britain's University of Bristol, used data from fossilised coral and from ice-core measurements to reconstruct sea-level fluctuations over the past 22,000 years, from the height of the last Ice Age to the balmy era of today.

This century, they calculate, the seas will rise by between seven and 82 centimetres, all sources included, on the basis of a 1.1-6.4 degree warming - an estimated increase that is in the same ballpark as the IPCC's.

The study appeared in the journal Nature Geoscience on Sunday.

"Given that the two approaches are entirely independent of each other, this result strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results," said Siddall.

But, he said, no one should be fooled into thinking the flooding threat was over.

"The fact that this number is smaller than other numbers does not mean that this is not potentially a massive and very important sea level rise," Siddall said.

"Fifty centimetres of rise would be very, very dangerous for Bangladesh, it would be very dangerous for all low-lying areas. And not only that, the 50 centimetres is the global mean. Locally, it could be as high as a metre, perhaps even higher, because water is pushed into different places by the effect of gravity."

He added: "Extreme flood effects will definitely become more frequent. If you rise by 50 centimetres, floods that once happened every 100 years then become once a decade."

Siddall also pointed out that sea levels would inevitably rise even higher after the 21st century because of inertial effect.

It takes decades for atmospheric warming to translate into a warming of the seas because of the vast volume of the ocean, he said.

Thus the 22nd century and beyond will feel the impacts of the warming of the 21st century.

The IPCC's estimates on sea levels have been repeatedly challenged since the Fourth Assessment Report was published in 2007.

Several studies have suggested that runoff from the Greenland and Antarctic icesheets - which hold the world's biggest stores of freshwater - will be much higher than the panel suspected.

One paper, published in April by Paul Blanchon, a geoscientist at Mexico's National University, said that, in the distant past, the seas suddenly rose by 3 metres within a very short time.

There was "a distinct possibility" that a step change of this kind could happen within the next 100 years, said Blanchon.

AFP

Wong turns up heat on Coalition

By Chief political correspondent Lyndal Curtis for AM

ABC News Online, 27 July 2009

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/27/2636878.htm

The Federal Opposition may have blinked in the stand-off over emissions trading but the Government is not yet ready to cut it any slack.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says the Government is not prepared to delay a vote on the issue after the Coalition outlined its nine principles for negotiating over the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has promised to bring his party with him if the Government is willing to make the changes to the legislation.

But details about the amendments have not been provided, and with the first vote on the scheme expected in mid-August, time is running out.

"The Government has always been prepared to negotiate with the Opposition to pass this legislation through the Senate," Senator Wong said.

"But for us to do that, Mr Turnbull has to get a position that is supported by his party room and he has to put forward what he says the Opposition would need in terms of changes to the bill to pass the legislation.

"He simply hasn't done that."

Senator Wong says the Opposition should not be given more time to clarify its position given the bill was scheduled to be debated and voted on last month.

"It was delayed as a result, primarily, of the Opposition's delaying tactics in the Senate," she said.

"This is legislation has been out and public since March. It is based on policy that was announced in detail by the Prime Minister in December.

"So if Mr Turnbull has failed to get his house in order in this timeframe, he really only has himself to blame."

The minister gave no indication the Government would relent despite the first signs of the Coalition willing to negotiate, giving it a real chance of passing the bill before climate talks in Copenhagen in December.

"We have seen a range of positions being put forward by Mr Turnbull and his frontbenchers," she said.

"We are willing to have a discussion with Mr Turnbull when he gets clarity around what his position actually is.

"He really needs to get the support of his party room, and then the Government is willing to have a discussion with him and consider amendments he is going to put forward.

"We have always said that is the case."

The Government's stance can be seen as taking the first step on the road to a double dissolution trigger over the bill, pressuring the Coalition to come to the table.

"The Government has been clear about its timetable from the start," Senator Wong said.

"[The Coalition] is now seeking yet another reason for delay.

"In 17 days, Mr Turnbull will have to decide whether he votes to take action on climate change or whether he allows the climate change sceptics in his own party room to again dominate the Liberal Party's position."

Carbon scheme stand-off remains

Michelle Grattan and Brendan Nicholson

The Age, July 27, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/carbon-scheme-standoff-remains-20090726-dxk0.html

THE Government and Opposition remain in a stand-off over an emissions trading scheme, despite Malcolm Turnbull's offer to support it if extensive concessions are made.

Labor says Mr Turnbull must produce amendments as a condition of talks; he says there is no time for that if the Government insists on the planned August 13 vote on the proposed legislation.

In a slap to Liberal MP Wilson Tuckey and other sceptics, Mr Turnbull yesterday dismissed Liberals who oppose emissions trading as having been "asleep" during the last term, when the Howard government proposed a trading scheme.

Mr Turnbull said the Opposition would vote against an unchanged scheme on August 13, but "we may well present amendments later", calling on the Government to be willing to negotiate.

But Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said there had been plenty of time since the legislation was released in March for Mr Turnbull to suggest amendments, which the Government had always said it would consider.

Mr Turnbull outlined his demands after a shadow cabinet phone hook-up. Previously, the Opposition said it would oppose the proposed legislation if the Government refused to defer it until after December's Copenhagen conference.

Mr Turnbull also said he would reply in the Fairfax press to the Prime Minister's 6000-word economics essay, published in The Age on Saturday — but he would be briefer.

- Pacific Island leaders are preparing to bombard Mr Rudd with pleas for more help to adapt to climate change when they meet at next week's Pacific Island Forum summit.

Warning that Pacific Islanders are feeling the impact of rising sea levels and increasingly violent storms, they say their nations urgently need the help Labor promised in opposition. An Oxfam Australia report being released today says people in the Asia-Pacific region are already being forced to leave their homes because of climate change, with about 75 million likely to relocate by 2050.

Oxfam executive director Andrew Hewett said it was in Australia's interests to help the Pacific Islands now, because as the problem worsened it would be called on to respond to more regional emergencies. He said that as the wealthiest and highest per capita polluter in the region, Australia should show leadership by adopting emission reduction targets of at least 40 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020.

A report from the Australia Institute also found that Labor made strong commitments in opposition to help Pacific Islanders that it was yet to fulfil.

With GABRIELLA COSLOVICH

Timber body under fire over climate aid claims

Adam Morton

The Age, July 27, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/timber-body-under-fire-over-climate-aid-claims-20090726-dxjx.html

A TIMBER industry body is being investigated over claims it misled the public by asserting that buying wood products helps the fight against climate change.

The consumer watchdog has asked Forest & Wood Products Australia to respond to allegations it made two deceptive claims: that the carbon dioxide stored in trees is locked up when they are logged and converted into wood products, and that forestry is one of Australia's most greenhouse-friendly industries.

The "Wood. Naturally Better" print advertisement campaign was based on variations on the slogan "It's more than attractive furniture. It's a helping hand in climate change."

It prompted a complaint to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission by the Wilderness Society, backed by advice from community legal service, the Environment Defenders Office.

Wilderness Society forest campaigner Luke Chamberlain said the advertisements were "clear green washing", and failed to reflect that logging old-growth forest resulted in larger greenhouse gas emissions than plantation harvesting. "It's like somebody bulldozing a house, making a fruit bowl and saying: 'Isn't this great, I've made a fruit bowl from the rubble'," he said.

"Eighty-five per cent of what comes out when native forests are logged ends up as woodchips, waste and sawdust and most of the carbon is lost during the forest burn and the creation of woodchips."

He said suggestions that forestry was a carbon-positive industry were "unsubstantiated and debatable".

Forest & Wood Products Australia managing director Ric Sinclair said the complaint was baseless, citing a Federal Government report in 2005 that found forestry was Australia's only carbon-positive industry.

He said the advertisements made no claims about emissions from forest waste. They aimed to improve the public's poor understanding of the role timber products could play in storing carbon.

The organisation last week published its own research that found timber in Australian houses stored about 100 million tonnes of carbon, adding about 2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent each year as new houses are built. "We're not interested in making misleading claims. Our campaign is based on science," he said.

"It is a statement of fact that wood products store carbon — half the dry weight of wood is carbon. We're trying to get people to be conscious about their purchase choices."

In a reply to the complaint, the consumer commission said it had not yet formed a view about the claims. It said it had told the wood products body it needed to make sure its claims could be substantiated.

Clouds Appear to Be Big, Bad Player in Global Warming

Science 24 July 2009: Vol. 325. no. 5939, p. 376 DOI: 10.1126/science.325_376 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/325/5939/376 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/325/5939/460

Richard A. Kerr

The first reliable analysis of cloud behavior over past decades suggests—but falls short of proving—that clouds are strongly amplifying global warming. If that's true, then almost all climate models have got it wrong. On page 460, climate researchers consider the two best, long-term records of cloud behavior over a rectangle of ocean that nearly spans the subtropics between Hawaii and Mexico. In a warming episode that started around 1976, ship-based data showed that cloud cover—especially low-altitude cloud layers—decreased in the study area as ocean temperatures rose and atmospheric pressure fell. One interpretation, the researchers say, is that the warming ocean was transferring heat to the overlying atmosphere, thinning out the low-lying clouds to let in more sunlight that further warmed the ocean. That's a positive or amplifying feedback. During a cooling event in the late 1990s, both data sets recorded just the opposite changes—exactly what would happen if the same amplifying process were operating in reverse.

Climate researchers have long viewed clouds' reaction to greenhouse warming as the key to understanding the world's climatic fate. As rising carbon dioxide strengthens the greenhouse, will some clouds thicken and spread, shading the planet and tempering the warming? Or will they thin and shrink, letting in more sunshine to amplify the warming? The first reliable analysis of cloud behavior over past decades suggests—but falls short of proving—that clouds are strongly amplifying the warming. If that's true, then almost all climate models have got it wrong.

The new study "confirms with observations that low clouds are critical for the climate system's response," says climate modeler Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. But "it's really a challenge for models" to simulate that response, he adds. If real-world cloud amplification works the way the study indicates, researchers say, global warming could be even worse than the typical model predicts.

Clouds have been a climate conundrum in part because no one has been keeping an eye on them the way the weatherman has been recording temperature for more than a century. On page 460, climate researcher Amy Clement of the University of Miami in Florida and colleagues consider the two best, long-term records of cloud behavior over a rectangle of ocean that nearly spans the subtropics between Hawaii and Mexico. Other researchers had compiled one of the records from eyeball estimates of cloud cover made by mariners who passed through the region from 1952 to 2006. The other record, which runs from 1984 to 2005, came from satellite measurements, which Clement and her colleagues adjusted to account for calibration shifts from one satellite to the next.   Figure 1  Leaky clouds. Decades-long records show that when sea surface temperature (SST) warms, cloud cover—especially from low clouds (bottom)—decreases (blues, top), letting in more sunlight.

Between them, the observations recorded the two major climate shifts that roiled the North Pacific during the periods they covered. In a warming episode that started around 1976, the ship-based data showed that cloud cover—especially low-altitude cloud layers—decreased in the study area as ocean temperatures rose and atmospheric pressure fell. One interpretation, the researchers say, is that the warming ocean was transferring heat to the overlying atmosphere, thinning out the low-lying clouds to let in more sunlight that further warmed the ocean. That's a positive or amplifying feedback. During a cooling event in the late 1990s, both data sets recorded just the opposite changes—exactly what would happen if the same amplifying process were operating in reverse. "All of the elements of a positive feedback are there," Clement says.

Even so, positive low-cloud feedback was only a supposition until the group looked at another sort of satellite measurement of the second natural climate shift. That showed that when decreasing cloud cover let the sun leak through, the additional solar heating was large enough to account for much of the ocean warming. A positive feedback operating in the decades-long climate shifts "is real," Clement concludes. And other studies link cloud changes in the northeastern tropical Pacific to atmospheric changes across the Pacific.

But is such a feedback actually working to amplify global warming? To get some indication, Clement and her colleagues checked the archives of a study in which the international Coupled Model Intercomparison Project compared the results of 18 global climate models run under standardized conditions. Clement and her colleagues tested whether each model was properly simulating each element of the positive cloud feedback they had found in the northeastern Pacific.

When the results were in, only two models showed low clouds producing a positive feedback as observed. One of them stood out from the pack. The HadGEM1 model from the U.K. Met Office's Hadley Center in Exeter produced patterns of warming and circulation changes during greenhouse warming that resembled those of all 18 models averaged together—the best guide available. The group also concluded that HadGEM1's simulation of meteorological processes in the lowermost kilometer or two of the atmosphere—where the key low-lying clouds reside—is particularly realistic.

As it happens, the HadGEM1 model is among the most sensitive of the 18 models to added greenhouse gases. When carbon dioxide is doubled, the model warms the world by 4.4°C; the median of the models for a doubling is 3.1°C. That gap raises a red flag for Clement. "We tend to focus on the middle of the range of model projections and ignore the extremes," she says. "I think it does suggest serious consideration should be given to the upper end of the range."

Climate researchers agree that Clement and her colleagues may be on to something. "There's been a gradual recognition that this rather boring type of [low-level] cloud is important in the climate system," says climate researcher David Randall of Colorado State University, Fort Collins. "They make a good case that in [decadal] variability there is a positive feedback. The leap is that the same feedback would operate in global climate change." The study tends to support an important role for marine low clouds in amplifying global warming, he says, but it doesn't prove it.  One clear contribution of the study, Randall says, is to point the way toward more reliable climate models. The paper "is definitely a reasonable approach to deciding which models to pay the most attention to," he says. In its previous international assessments, Randall notes, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumed that all models are created equal. "I think we have to get away from that."

Ready and running for race against time

Peter Munro

The Age, July 26, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/ready-and-running-for-race-against-time-20090725-dww1.html

STARK images from the ashes: a dead mother cradles two toddlers by a wire fence; the Prime Minister drops to his knees before a weeping woman; molten cars lie wasted by the roadside.

Together, Australia's emergency services battled the Black Saturday blazes, tended the dead in January's heatwave and fought floods in the country's north. They are on the front line facing a climate they fear is becoming more hostile, putting more lives at risk.

Now they have reunited — firefighters, police, paramedics, military and state emergency service workers — for a 6000-kilometre relay run to raise awareness of climate change. Down the eastern seaboard from the Daintree Rainforest to Melbourne, the month-long run in November will pass natural icons under threat from global warming — from the wet tropics and the Great Barrier Reef, to the Australian Alps, Murray-Darling Basin and river red gums.

Run for a Safe Climate will finish on St Kilda Beach on November 29, before the crucial United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen. Among the 35 runners, who will donate their annual leave to take part, is Michael "Ace" Acreman, 26, who graduated as a firefighter two months before searching for survivors of the deadly Kinglake and Kinglake West fires.

"Everything was ash and grey. We found a mum and two kids that had perished in the fire next to a wire fence. The kids were tiny … I've got a niece who is four years old and they were about that size," he says.

"You don't see many fires on that scale. But if we don't do anything about climate change we will see that more and more. And I don't want to see families go through that, let alone have to do it as a job."

For many of the runners, February's bushfires were a catalyst for action, quashing any doubts about the threat of climate change. Altona firefighter Dan Condon, 32, battled Black Saturday blazes in Gippsland and Whittlesea. "The fires we fought this summer were unstoppable. I think they've gotten bigger and worse," he says.

"Australia has some of the most beautiful icons the world can offer and they're all under threat from global warming … We deal with life-and-death situations daily and can't afford to sit on our hands. We need to get a solution and go with it."

Scientists are reluctant to link individual bushfires to global warming. But climate change makes severe weather events — bushfires, floods, heatwaves and drought — more likely, they say. A 2-degree temperature rise could wreak havoc in Australia: driving rainforest species to extinction; causing coral reefs to collapse; shrinking snow-covered areas; and starving Australia's food bowl of water.

Former US vice-president Al Gore launched Run for a Safe Climate in Melbourne this month. "No nation is more vulnerable to the impact scientists have predicted," Mr Gore said.

Victoria Police Leading Senior Constable Matt Astill, 34, is among the 35 relay runners, who will each clock 15 kilometres a day on average. He says Black Saturday was a rude awakening of how climate change places demand on emergency services.

He provided protection for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Premier John Brumby on their visits to bushfire areas. "It stripped people emotionally down to bare bones. The Prime Minister was in Whittlesea Community Hall talking to people who had lost their homes or members of their family … [He] was down on his knees to speak to a grieving mother."

Highett firefighter Dave Rylance, 36, recalls trying to save homes at Narre Warren. "I had been in the brigade for just under 12 months, but to hear firefighters with 40 years' experience say they have never seen fires like that is concerning," he says. "The run is something I can do to educate people about the environment."

European Carbon ETS 'seriously flawed'

• Report by campaign group Sandbag critical of scheme

• Hot air carbon credits preventing actual emissions cuts

• Datablog: every European carbon permit

• Damian Carrington
• The Guardian, Monday 20 July 2009
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jul/20/carbon-emissions-trading-system-sandbag
• Download the Sandbag report here - http://sandbag.org.uk/files/sandbag.org.uk/Sandbag_ETS_SOS_Report_0.pdf

The system of trading carbon emissions at the heart of the ambitious low-carbon plan announced by the government last week is seriously flawed and close to becoming irrelevant, according to researchers behind a new analysis.

So-called "hot air" carbon credits – those which do not result in any actual emissions cuts – could be so numerous that companies covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme would not have to make any cuts to their own emissions until 2015, says the report from climate campaign group, Sandbag. The hot air permits result from the over-allocation of emissions allowances and from those going unused as the recession cuts economic activity.

The ETS covers 50% of the UK and EU's carbon emissions, mainly in the energy, cement, steel, glass and manufacturing sectors. Companies in these sectors are allocated allowances for the carbon they emit, with the total number shrinking over time, theoretically forcing companies to buy additional permits to pollute if they do not cut their emissions.

A large proportion of the UK's promised cut of 34% by 2020 will come via British companies in the ETS. Globally, the carbon trading market was worth €92bn (£79bn) in 2008, trading 5bn tonnes.

However, the large number of carbon permits that have been allocated and a fall in emissions due to the recession, have made the trading system less effective.

"With too many rights to pollute in circulation, the scheme is in danger of being rendered irrelevant," said Sandbag founder, Bryony Worthington. "At a time when other countries are looking to set up their own trading schemes and the world is set to debate a global deal on how to tackle climate change, [this] flagship policy urgently needs rescuing – starting with much tougher caps."

She called for an immediate tightening of the cap on permits to 30% of industry's emissions by 2020, compared to the existing 21%, and a commitment to 40% if a strong global deal results from a UN climate change summit in Copenhagen in December. Making the 30% cut would cost virtually the same as was originally envisaged for the 21% cut, she said, and be much closer to the cuts scientists say must be made to avoid dangerous climate change.

Why people don't act on climate change

• 23 July 2009 by George Marshall
• New Scientist Magazine issue 2718. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
• For similar stories, visit the Comment and Analysis and Climate Change Topic Guides
• http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327185.900-comment-why-people-dont-act-on-climate-change.html?full=true

AT A recent dinner at the University of Oxford, a senior researcher in atmospheric physics was telling me about his coming holiday in Thailand. I asked him whether he was concerned that his trip would make a contribution to climate change - we had, after all, just sat through a two-hour presentation on the topic. "Of course," he said blithely. "And I'm sure the government will make long-haul flights illegal at some point."

I had deliberately steered our conversation this way as part of an informal research project that I am conducting - one you are welcome to join. My participants so far include a senior adviser to a leading UK climate policy expert who flies regularly to South Africa ("my offsets help set a price in the carbon market"), a member of the British Antarctic Survey who makes several long-haul skiing trips a year ("my job is stressful"), a national media environment correspondent who took his family to Sri Lanka ("I can't see much hope") and a Greenpeace climate campaigner just back from scuba diving in the Pacific ("it was a great trip!").

Intriguing as their dissonance may be, what is especially revealing is that each has a career predicated on the assumption that information is sufficient to generate change. It is an assumption that a moment's introspection would show them was deeply flawed.

It is now 44 years since US president Lyndon Johnson's scientific advisory council warned that our greenhouse gas emissions could generate "marked changes in climate". That's 44 years of research costing, by one estimate, $3 billion per year, symposia, conferences, documentaries, articles and now 80 million references on the internet. Despite all this information, opinion polls over the years have shown that 40 per cent of people in the UK and over 50 per cent in the US resolutely refuse to accept that our emissions are changing the climate. Scarcely 10 per cent of Britons regard climate change as a major problem.

I do not accept that this continuing rejection of the science is a reflection of media distortion or scientific illiteracy. Rather, I see it as proof of our society's failure to construct a shared belief in climate change.

I use the word "belief" in full knowledge that climate scientists dislike it. Vicky Pope, head of the Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change in Exeter, UK, wrote in The Guardian earlier this year: "We are increasingly asked whether we 'believe in climate change'. Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence."

I could not disagree more. People's attitudes towards climate change, even Pope's, are belief systems constructed through social interactions within peer groups. People then select the storylines that accord best with their personal world view. In Pope's case and in my own this is a world view that respects scientists and empirical evidence.

But listen to what others say. Most regard climate change as an unsettled technical issue still hotly debated by eggheads. Many reject personal responsibility by shifting blame elsewhere - the rich, the poor, the Americans, the Chinese - or they suspect the issue is a Trojan horse built by hair-shirted environmentalists who want to spoil their fun.

The climate specialists in my informal experiment are no less immune to the power of their belief systems. They may be immersed in the scientific evidence, yet they have nonetheless developed ingenious storylines to justify their long-haul holidays.

How, then, should we go about generating a shared belief in the reality of climate change? What should change about the way we present the evidence for climate change?

For one thing, we should become far more concerned about the communicators and how trustworthy they appear. Trustworthiness is a complex bundle of qualities: authority and expertise are among them, but so too are honesty, confidence, charm, humour and outspokenness.

Many of the maverick, self-promoting climate sceptics play this game well, which is one reason they exercise such disproportionate influence over public opinion. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on the other hand, plays it badly. Rather than let loose its most presentable participants to tell the world how it achieves consensus on an unprecedented scale, it fails even to provide a list of the people involved in the process. It has no human face at all: the only images on its website are the palace or beach resort where it will hold its next meeting.

Since people tend to put most trust in those who appear to share their values and understand their needs, it is crucial we widen the range of voices speaking on climate change - even if this means climate experts relinquishing some control and encouraging others who are better communicators to speak for them.

Another key to achieving a widely held belief in climate change is collective imagination. We will never fully appreciate the risks unless we can project ourselves into the future - and that requires an appeal to the collective emotional imagination. In the past years I have been delighted to observe a growing partnership between scientists and the creative arts, such as retreats for scientists, artists and writers.

It is clear that the cautious language of science is now inadequate to inspire concerted change, even among scientists. We need a fundamentally different approach. Only then will scientists be in a position to throw down the ultimate challenge to the public: "We've done the work, we believe the results, now when the hell will you wake up?"

George Marshall is founder of the Climate Outreach Information Network in Oxford, UK

Carbon trading and cash values on forests cannot curb carbon emissions

Climate change solutions cannot be created by unfettered markets, despite what business leaders think

• Oscar Reyes
• guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 May 2009
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/may/28/carbon-trading

When Sir Crispin Tickell had the temerity to suggest that "the business community needs to re-examine the fundamentals of economics" at the recent World Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen, his discordant tone was drowned out by a chorus of more than 800 delegates singing the praises of unfettered markets as a means to tackle climate change.

The commitment to carry on with business as usual took an almost surreal form at times. Indra Nooyi, the chief executive officer of PepsiCo, proudly proclaimed: "The fact that I flew here for 1 1/2 hours to sit on a panel them I'm flying straight back to the US is an example of our commitment to environmental sustainability."

More worryingly, plans for low-carbon technology give the expansion of high-carbon coal power pride of place. The promotional rhetoric is of Carbon Capture and Storage [CCS background guide], yet those from the power sector are blunt about its shortcomings. "One of the plants we are building is CCS ready, although to be quite frank no one really knows what that is at the moment," claimed Steve Lennon, managing director of South Africa's Eskom.

The underlying problem is that business adjusts the problem of climate change to neoliberal economics, which judges value according to financial cost rather than environmental sustainability or social justice. This manifests itself in a promise to massively expand carbon markets [emissions trading background guide]. The idea is that governments give out a limited number of permits to pollute; the scarcity of these permits should encourage their price to rise; and the resulting additional cost to industry and power producers should encourage them to pollute less.

Jos Delbeke, deputy director-general for the environment at the European commission, was in Copenhagen claiming that this is how the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is now working. Yet his department's own data for 2008 shows more international "offset" credits circulating than the level of claimed reductions, while lobbying pressure has resulted in a twin-track system from which every business wins.

On one side, heavy industry like the steel sector has more credits than would be needed to reduce its emissions, so it sells them. Delbeke shared a panel on carbon markets with a representative of ArcelorMittal, which alone gained an estimated subsidy of more than €1bn between 2005 and 2008 by this means.

On the other side, power companies pay less for pollution permits than the cost they pass on to consumers, generating windfall profits that could reach up to around €70bn by 2012. The circulation of these permits does nothing to help new investment in renewables.

Other measures to avoid business obligations displace the problem of tackling climate change on to developing countries. The Summit's final Copenhagen Call talks of a crucial role for forest protection in developing countries, and that such measures should represent around half of the action needed to limit climate change by 2020.

These figures are taken directly from Project Catalyst, an initiative bringing together "climate negotiatiors, senior government officials... and business executives", whose presentation (marked confidential) more straightforwardly emphasises the "the size of the prize for business". It also speaks of the opportunities for "companies in forest management, pulp and paper, or construction" to access a "€20-30bn value chain" in developing countries.

Strikingly similar assumptions have found their way into negotiating texts on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD), which will be discussed when UN climate negotiations resume in Bonn next week. Yet the whole idea that deforestation can be stopped by simply putting a price on forests is flawed, with forest communities and indigenous peoples warning that it will encourage further land grabs by large companies. They point to evidence that the real drivers of deforestation are the major construction, mining, logging and plantation developments whose owners stand to be rewarded by REDD funds.

These are the voices that the world should be listening to as it seeks to tackle climate change. Even the self-proclaimed "progressives" of big business seem to be putting profit margins above environmental need. Without a more fundamental re-examination, to paraphrase one panellist, they look set to remain on the back end of a horse that is galloping in the wrong direction.

• Oscar Reyes is a researcher with Carbon Trade Watch, a project of the Transnational Institute, and environment editor of Red Pepper magazine.

Meet Belcha – Europe's biggest carbon polluter (and it's about to get even bigger)

• Polish facility pumps out 30m tonnes of CO₂ a year 

• Activists say giant plants undermine climate fight

• Terry Macalister
• guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 22 July 2009
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/22/europes-biggest-carbon-polluter-coal

The biggest single producer of carbon emissions in the European Union has been named – and it is about to get even bigger. The appropriately titled Elektrownia Belchatow – a massive coal-fired power station – belched out 30,862,792 tonnes of CO₂ last year and by 2010 the whole generating facility will have grown by 20%.

The Polish energy giant was named as climate change enemy number one in a report by the London-based Sandbag Climate Campaign and its greenhouse gas output dwarfed the 22m tonnes of annual carbon produced by the Drax power station in North Yorkshire and a host of equally dirty German plants.

Sandbag said the expansion of Belchatow and the planned construction of 50 coal-fired plants across the European mainland demonstrated that policies such as the EU's European Trading Scheme (ETS) were not working.

Bryony Worthington, founder of Sandbag, said the price of pollution allowances in the ETS was too low to deter companies from choosing coal over clean energy, noting that six of the 10 most polluting plants are in Germany despite generous government subsidies for solar and other clean technologies.

"They have to buy emission allowances yet they are still planning a massive expansion. If the scheme was having the desired effect they would be pursuing cleaner options now, not at some distant point in the future," she added.

While British ministers have taken a stand against constructing new coal stations at Kingsnorth in Kent and elsewhere without "clean" technology to capture the emissions, the deluge of projects in Europe is undermining EU credibility ahead of the forthcoming UN negotiations in Copenhagen on tackling global warming, according to Mark Johnson, a Brussels-based campaigner at the WWF.

"Dozens of new unabated projects across Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland and elsewhere are either under construction or could soon be approved. Going ahead with these could wreck Europe's climate strategy," he said.

Elektrownia Belchatow is raising coal-fired capacity from 4,400 megawatts to 5,258 from next year. The facility, which burns the most polluting lignite "brown" coal from its own mine next door, is earmarked for a full carbon capture and storage prototype, but only by 2015 at the earliest.

A spokesman for French engineering company Alstom said they were working on a range of initiatives to improve the wider efficiency of the plant and reduce its carbon output. It is one of an estimated 11 new coal schemes planned in Poland, while 28 more are on the drawing board in Germany, according to the WWF.

While Poland has long been dependent on its home-mined lignite, Germany is expanding its coal-fired stations to produce electricity in anticipation of a rundown in its nuclear facilities.

This strategy, being pioneered by RWE and E.ON, could yet be changed as the two main political parties vying for power in the September elections have opposing views on how energy security should be achieved.

E.ON said that coal is being pursued because it answers some of the problems posed in the energy sector.

"It is a cheap form of power but it also gives security of supply and flexibility. The final element is obviously to find a way of not damaging the environment and we hope CCS will be the answer to that," explained a UK spokesman for the German company.

Protests by environmentalists over E.ON's plans to build a coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth have encouraged Ed Miliband, the secretary of state for energy and climate change, to rule that there should be no plants in the UK without some degree of CCS, with the remainder of any plant having CCS fitted within five years of it being judged "technically and economically proven".

The WWF believes the 50 coal schemes in total around Europe represent about 50 gigawatts of power. That compares with the 70GW of total power produced in Britain from all existing sources, including gas, nuclear and a small but growing contribution from wind.

New coal stations are being planned in big numbers in the US and China but the EU has been arguing that all countries should proceed only if they use CCS to turn them into "clean" coal projects.

The EU is committed to cutting carbon emissions by at least 20% by the year 2020 and 80% by 2050 and wants all nations to agree tough new targets at Copenhagen.

The concept of CCS is considered vital to the fight against global warming.

But question marks remain about whether the feasibility of doing it at large scale and at a cost that makes it work, leaving Belchatow and others belching on.

Study considers Surat carbon capture scheme

By Fidelis Rego

ABC News Online, 23 July 2009

• http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/23/2633844.htm?site=news

Carbon Energy says it hopes to be storing emissions from its power plant and gas fields in the Surat Basin, in Queensland's southern inland, within 18 months.

It has begun studies to see if carbon from its Bloodwood Creek site can be trucked to central Queensland - where Zerogen is building a large storage facility and coal-gas power station.

The emissions would be stored two kilometres underground

Chief executive Andrew Dash says it is the first of its type in Australia.

"I think carbon capture and storage has been well recognised by the Federal Government as the real future for both Australia and the world in fact for carbon constrained future and that's why there's a lot of investment and focus now going into carbon capture and storage solutions," he said.

"What we're commencing immediately is the scoping study to complete the work and we're doing that in parallel with our front-end engineering and design of our power station.

"So both of those engineering studies will be complete around November this year and it's about that time we'll be making an investment decision."

The mucky country: we outsource our pollution

Gaurav Gupta

The Age, July 23, 2009

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/the-mucky-country-we-outsource-our-pollution-20090722-dthu.html?page=-1

Mumbai, where I live, is an affront to the senses, yet through the filthy living conditions, a resilient social fabric - somehow - thrives. Returning to Sydney is a welcome break from the chaos and makes me feel privileged to have grown up in such a clean, well-functioning environment. But climate change makes me wonder if the privilege is not a burden, or at least a responsibility.

Carbon dioxide is insidious pollution; without odour, taste or colour, it diabolically causes global harm at limited personal cost. In Australia, signs of more than a century of past carbon pollution are everywhere, from the energy-intensive construction and maintenance of heavily concreted and bricked cities to the vast network of roads, bridges and pavements, often serving just a few hundred people. All of it has been possible because of cheap energy from fossil fuels, especially brown coal. Australia is anything but a clean country.

Contrast this with the rubbish-filled streets and open sewers of India. Although confronting, this mismanaged pollution is more honest. It is not hidden in the air and it is not shared with the rest of the world.

India's per person emission of carbon dioxide is between 1/15th and 1/20th of the average in Australia, depending on which data you look at. This comparison is more stark if we look at who contributed to the accumulated CO2 which relies on historical emissions: Britain and the United States followed by the other so-called developed countries. India largely lives with its own pollution; Australia outsources most of its and does not pay a price. But someone is paying.

The countries least responsible for climate change stand to suffer the most because of their geographic locations, industrial structure and limited resources to adapt. A two-degree temperature rise - which most scientists agree is unavoidable - risks anywhere between a fifth and a half of agricultural output in a country such as India, according to United Nations figures. Yet agricultural output in parts of many northern countries, especially the US, Canada and much of Europe, stands to benefit from this initial rise.

At least in this regard, Australia and India are both facing increased droughts that may devastate agriculture. The difference is that 60 per cent of India's population is involved in agricultural activities.

Instead of pushing for a bolder Australian target, the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, along with leaders of other developed countries, continues to point to the reluctance of developing countries as an excuse for his own weakness.

The spectre of China and India is raised as a diversion for richer nations' unsustainable appetites. How often I have heard that China is now the greatest emitter of CO2 and India is fifth, and without them it is pointless to do anything.

But both countries are large and their per capita emissions remain low. If India broke apart and formed a union of 20 smaller countries (like Europe), each would have a population equivalent to a European nation yet a 10th of its carbon footprint. Would such a country hold back rich nations from acting?

More than 400 million people in India live in non-electrified dwellings and several hundred million more receive sporadic power. Villagers burn kerosene and biofuels for lighting and cooking which exposes them to dangerous smoke and perpetuates poverty through the huge amount of time spent, mainly by women, sourcing these fuels. The poverty of these people, often mistakenly glorified as simple living, is one of the great carbon sinks of the world.

Australians can drive their large cars because Indian villagers have not filled the atmospheric space with emissions. Don't we all have equal rights to that space? If we do, then the lifestyles of the energy rich are possible by the denial of service to the energy poor.

Developing countries can boldly contain emissions, but not by denying the poor energy. What India can do is contain emissions from the growing class of energy rich who over-consume at the expense of the poor.

Its Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, maintains an Indian commitment to never exceed the average per capita emissions of developed nations. If developed nations bring their emissions down to four tonnes a person by 2030, India will not exceed that amount either. Automatically, it agrees to be as bold as developed nations wish to be.

Yet the Copenhagen debate continues to be painted as evenly poised between rich nations wanting to do more but waiting for the poorer ones to make more commitments. Are India's commitments ignored because the implications are too hard for rich nations politically?

Copenhagen is not just a negotiation between the rich and poor nations, it is a negotiation that nations have to have with themselves. What are Australians willing to give up to meet their environmental obligation to the world?

Are they willing to pay higher taxes to pay for cleaner development in poor countries? Will they pay a tax for the climate adaptation burden being imposed on poor nations today due to their historical emissions?

When Rudd says "we are all in this together", he glosses over the deep inequities of climate change. Australians have enjoyed the benefits of more than a century of untaxed carbon emissions floating into the global atmosphere.

It is time to focus on Australian responsibilities, and develop leadership after decades of it being a laggard.

Gaurav Gupta is the director of The Climate Project - India.

World starts to act on climate change

• 20 July 2009 by Fred Pearce
• New Scientist Magazine issue 2717. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
• http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327174.500-world-starts-to-act-on-climate-change.html?full=true
• For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide

IT'S like a giant game of Jenga. One by one, pieces of our green future are stacking up, some more precariously than others.

At last week's summit in L'Aquila, Italy, leaders of the G8 declared formally for the first time that the world should not allow global temperatures to rise by more than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. The group also backed Mexico's plan for a green fund to help the poorest countries develop clean-technology economies.

Meanwhile, in London this week, the shipping industry is meeting to see if it can agree on a way of cutting emissions. Come December, it will be down to UN negotiators to decide which pieces are solid and which are not.

Take the 2 °C target, for instance. The truth is that few climate scientists believe this is possible, even with the G8's proposed target of cutting global emissions of greenhouse gases by 50 per cent by 2050. "An overshoot is inevitable," concluded a recent climate science summit in Copenhagen, Denmark (New Scientist, 21 March, p 6). "Atmospheric CO₂ concentrations are already at levels predicted to lead to global warming of between 2.0 °C and 2.4 °C."

Global average temperatures so far have risen by only about 0.8 °C but there are two reasons why warming three times as great seems inevitable. First, there is a time lag of several decades between when greenhouse gas levels rise and when temperatures follow. The lag means there is another 0.6 °C of inevitable warming in the pipeline.

Second, the planet is currently being cooled by about 0.5 °C by aerosols of other man-made air pollutants, such as fine soot and sulphates, which shield the planet from solar energy. This effect should decline in coming decades as countries, particularly in Asia, clean up their air to improve health. Add it all up and we're close to 2 °C above pre-industrial times.

Taking this into account, the World Economic Forum's Global Agenda Council on Climate Change told the WEF meeting in Davos in January that we should aim for a global 80 per cent emissions cut by 2050, which it estimated would give a 4 in 5 chance of staying below 2 °C.

Yet even meeting the G8's lower target of cutting emissions by 50 per cent will require urgent and rapid action on a scale that some have compared to a war effort. "If we want to limit temperature increase to no more than 2 °C to 2.4 °C, we have to peak global emissions no later than 2015. We have six years to bring about a major change in the way we have been doing business all over the world," says Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UK Hadley Centre calculates that to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050, emissions everywhere need to stop rising by 2015, then drop by 3 per cent each year (see graph).

"Every decade of delay will raise global temperatures by another half a degree," says Vicky Pope of the Hadley Centre. It also increases the risk that the land and oceans will stop absorbing half our emissions, which could swiftly trigger runaway warming.

Despite the need for early action, the G8 stopped short of explaining how its 50 per cent by 2050 target might be achieved. And even the 50 per cent cut was shaky: the G8 did not give a baseline date from which to measure the cut. Climate scientists make their calculations from a 1990 baseline, but the G8 declaration talks about industrialised countries making cuts "compared to 1990 or more recent years". That matters: emissions today are 38 per cent higher than in 1990.

The G8 declaration is also silent on setting a date after which global emissions must decline, and offers no emission-reduction targets for industrialised nations to reach by 2020. This latter omission, according to German chancellor Angela Merkel, resulted in China and India last week refusing to endorse the 2050 target. It also exasperated UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon, who said: "The policies that [the G8] have stated so far are not enough. We must work according to the science. This is a political and moral imperative and a historic responsibility."

The G8 did make a nod towards their responsibility to take on the lion's share of fixing the climate problem. Industrialised nations have contributed 70 per cent of CO₂ emissions since 1800 even though they have only a fifth of the world's population. Recognising this, the G8 countries agreed that while the world as a whole should cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050, they should aim for 80 per cent cuts. Still, Martin Khor of the South Centre, a think tank based in Geneva, Switzerland, estimates that this plan will leave the industrialised countries having emitted 200 billion tonnes of carbon more than their "fair share", based on population.

One way of getting around the fairness issue is for the rich nations to help poorer ones develop their industries more cleanly than they did. The potential to curtail rising emissions in developing economies is huge. Many are extremely carbon inefficient, in part because they are at an early stage of development. China, for instance, produces only a fifth as much GDP as the US or Australia for every tonne of carbon emitted.

This opens up the prospect of a global deal in which rich nations stump up cash so that developing nations can "leapfrog" to cleaner energy technologies. This, alongside early cuts in emissions from industrialised countries, will be at the heart of negotiations at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December.

At a little-noticed speech at London Zoo last month, British prime minister Gordon Brown became the first world leader to put a figure on how much all this might cost. He said the developed world needed to contribute $100 billion a year by 2020 to a "green fund" first proposed by Mexican president Felipe Calderón, in return for developing countries agreeing to deviate from "business as usual" economic growth.

Where will this money come from? Brown suggested four options, including a tariff on the airline and shipping industries - two of the fastest-growing polluters. The Kyoto protocol does not cover aircraft and shipping because negotiators could not agree on who should bear responsibility for journeys between countries. Few think that exclusion should continue in the Copenhagen agreement. Brown proposes that, rather than bringing those emissions under the umbrella of national targets, they could become a cash cow for the green fund.

In February, Air France/KLM, British Airways, Cathay Pacific and Virgin Atlantic backed the idea. They want a limited number of emissions permits that they can auction among themselves, setting aside some of the proceeds for the green fund. The four airlines say the arrangement is fair because airlines in the developing world would have to pay up, too, whether or not their national governments faced emissions targets.

Developing-world airlines may object, but an insider at one of the four companies told New Scientist he believed the proceeds could deliver $30 billion a year into the green fund. The shipping industry is meeting at the UN International Maritime Organization in London this week to discuss whether to adopt something similar.

Optimists believe that we are starting to see the bones of a new "green economy" that puts a price on carbon and uses the proceeds to drive down emissions. Many scientists are wary about whether it will achieve the goal of keeping global warming below 2 °C, but whatever their fears, they are prepared to live with some scientific fudge if it delivers political action.

Time is short. Seventeen years ago, 192 governments signed up to a climate change convention that promised to prevent "dangerous" climate change. Arguably, almost two decades of prevarication, including the fearfully weak Kyoto protocol, have made that promise impossible to keep.

Even so, the less warming we allow, the lower the risk that we trigger runaway warming, or sudden sea level rise as ice sheets disintegrate. Such tipping points almost certainly exist above 2 °C of warming. The trouble is, nobody knows quite where.

Tuvalu vows to go carbon neutral

BBC News Online, Monday, 20 July 2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8158604.stm

The tiny Pacific island state of Tuvalu has said it wants all its energy to come from renewable sources by 2020.

Public Utilities Minister Kausea Natano said his nation of 12,000 people wanted to set an example to others.

Tuvalu is made up of a string of atolls with the highest point only 4.5m (15 ft) above sea level, making it extremely vulnerable to flooding.

The government hopes to use wind and solar power to generate electricity, instead of imported diesel.

"We look forward to the day when our nation offers an example to all - powered entirely by natural resources such as the sun and the wind," Kausea Natano said.

Inspiring others

Tuvalu and many other low-lying atolls in the Pacific, the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean fear that global warning could lead to sea level rises that could literally wipe them off the map.

Other nations - including Norway, New Zealand, Iceland and Costa Rica - have also vowed to become carbon neutral, reducing their emissions of greenhouse gases to zero.

Most of these countries have relatively small populations, and their pledges are unlikely to make a significant difference in the overall battle against global warming.

But many environmentalists say their stance is nevertheless important, as they provide a lead for other countries to follow.

"In a sense, they are paving the way for medium and larger economies which have to move if we are going combat climate change," Nick Nuttall, spokesman for the United Nations Environment Programme, told the French news agency AFP.

Tuvalu estimates it would will cost about $20m to generate all its electricity by using renewables. It has already begun the process by installing a $410,000 solar system on the roof of the main soccer stadium in the capital, Funafuti.

IPCC chief: Benefits of tackling climate change will balance cost of action

The cost of tackling climate change will be paid for by benefits that would come from better energy security, employment and health, Rajendra Pachauri says ahead of major announcement on 2013 reports

• Damian Carrington
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 20 July 2009 13.52 BST
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/20/ipcc-pachauri-climate-change-cost

Measures needed to tackle global warming could save economies more money than they cost, the world's top climate change expert said today.

Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told the Guardian: "The cost could undoubtedly be negative overall." This is because of the additional benefits that reducing greenhouse gas emissions could bring, beyond limiting temperature rises.

Until now, estimates of the price of preventing dangerous climate change have all indicated significant costs. The most authoritative study, the 2006 Stern report, concluded that 1% of global GDP would be required, and he has since said 2% is now more likely.

Pachauri's comments came ahead of a press announcement in New York today about the IPCC's plans for its next series of reports in 2013. He said these would include a greater emphasis on the economics, as well as ethical and humanitarian concerns.

Funding for reducing and adapting to climate change in one of the most difficult issues in the negotiations towards a global deal at a UN summit in December in Copenhagen. But Pachauri argues that if the costs are negative, then "inertia and vested interests would be washed away. As the Americans say, it would be like dollar bills lying on the sidewalk."

Alex Bowen, one of the Stern report authors, said: "[Pachauri's] is a defensible postion, not delusional. But I am more of a sceptic."

"My hunch overall is that it will be a little more costly than we estimated in 2006. But if well designed policies are put in place, we can still do it remarkably cheaply. And there is still no doubt that strong action now is much cheaper than no action," added Bowen, an economist at the Grantham Research Institute On Climate Change at the London School of Economics.

The associated benefits Pachauri pointed to include better energy security, protecting consumers from oil price spikes, new employment in green industries, more productive agriculture and lower air pollution, cutting health costs. He said one good example was insulating draughty homes and installing better energy control systems. "This can yield very high rates of returns, with pay back in one year."

The idea of co-benefits is also central to the "green new deals" promoted by the UN Environment programme, Lord Stern's group and others.

Bowen said: "Negative costs depends on assumption that policy design and implementation is sensible and very consistent across countries all over the world. But we have gone three years [since the Stern report] without global policies. Emissions have grown rapidly and a lot of people now think economic growth will be much higher later in the century." The faster you have to reduce emissions, he said, the more expensive it is likely to be.

Pachauri's comments came as he led discussions what the next set of reports from the IPCC should cover. Its last report in 2007 is acknowledged to have settled the argument over whether emissions from human activities were causing climate change.

In the next series, due in 2013, Pachauri said the focus would change. "The IPCC cannot address the issue in purely scientific terms. For adaptation and mitigation, we need to put euro or dollar values on those. But there are also some costs you can't quantify. For example, take Hurricane Katrina. You can put a value on property losses, what about psychological, sociological, and institutional costs. I would not like to try to quantify those."

The IPCC meeting raised a range of further issues that it believes need more attention, including extreme weather events, new greenhouse gases, the full impacts of aviation and global scale geo-engineering.

The reports take between five and seven years to complete, but Pachauri argued that this is their strength: "The IPCC process of regular peer review means the reports are far more defensible than anything else. Comments received are posted on our website as are actions."

Business in the dark about emissions trading

ABC News Online, Mon Jul 20, 2009 

• http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/20/2631035.htm?site=news
• Audio: Most Businesses Lack Understanding of Climate change Laws (The World Today)
• Related Story: Turnbull signals emissions scheme rethink

A new report suggests the business sector is largely in the dark about the Government's plans to address climate change.

The survey by the Australian Industry Group (AiGroup) discovered only a small number of businesses have thorough knowledge of the proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme.

The AiGroup's chief executive Heather Ridout says the Government must act to educate business.

"Our members are on the job in relation to climate change. Some 70 per cent of them have already been measuring their carbon footprint or plan to do so and a similar percentage expect to really make operational changes over the next few years to do it," she told ABC Radio's The World Today program.

"The other couple of issues though, only 15 per cent have any really detailed knowledge of the carbon pollution reduction scheme and its impact on them, so that's a worry and there is huge misconceptions I think out there about how they will be impacted.

"And the final real issue that worries me is the huge growth in regulatory burden on business and the fact that we really do need to draw our line in the sand on this and get some real leadership around reducing it coincident with the implementation of a CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme)."

The survey found that 30 per cent of businesses have no knowledge whatsoever of the CPRS, and Heather Ridout blames a lack of education by the Government.

"I think whilst companies have been looking to reduce their energy use, et cetera, and quite a few have, they really have not yet engaged in the scheme and the Government have a thing called the Climate Change Action Fund which is part of the CPRS arrangement and that is aimed in part increasing information out there to business and we really think that that should be rolled out ASAP," she said.

"I think if we are going to lay the foundations for a successful transition, we need to start the education process sooner rather than later."

Wide impact

Heather Ridout also believes that many smaller companies not directly affected by the scheme will be impacted by big businesses trying to cut the carbon intensiveness of their inputs.

"There will be 1000 companies roughly tied up with the emissions trading part of the scheme, but the big companies that want small companies to supply with them, the report shows that they will be making changes to their procurement arrangements," she commented.

"Electricity costs are going to double over the next ten years because of this scheme so all companies, all business in all sectors, are going to be to some extent caught up in changing Australia's carbon footprint and so, yes, you can run but you can't hide from this scheme."

Heather Ridout also sees the need for further amendments to the emissions trading legislation before it passes through Parliament.

"We see a few things that need to happen. I mean the Government have moved quite a long way and the delay in the start dates are good and I think we are quite happy with that aspect of it but, in terms of emissions intensive industries, there is still work that needs to be done there," she said.

"We still see the need for more work with trade exposed companies, the coal industry, the generators are still sitting out there."

Mrs Ridout says that business will welcome a resolution to negotiations in the Parliament so that a bill is passed to provide certainty for companies in their forward planning.

"The regulatory issues need to be addressed so there is still a range of improvements that need to be made to the legislation," she said.

"If they can be made, we are happy to see legislation go through before the end of the year."

Based on an interview by Emma Griffiths for The World Today

Call to delay climate vote

The Age, July 21, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/national/call-to-delay-climate-vote-20090720-dqt9.html

OPPOSITION emissions trading spokesman Andrew Robb has called for the agreed August Senate vote on the proposed legislation to be put off once again.

Mr Robb's call came yesterday amid fresh Opposition confusion over its emissions stance, and as a poll showed more than three in 10 businesses say they have no knowledge of the Government scheme's key elements.

Before Parliament rose, the Opposition agreed with independent Nick Xenophon to a vote — which a Senate majority wants — being held mid-next-month.

But Mr Robb told The Age last night that work commissioned by the Opposition and Senator Xenophon from Frontier Economics, and his findings from his recent trip to the US and China "will reveal major deficiencies" in the scheme and point to a way forward.

Earlier, Malcolm Turnbull hinted at a possible deal this year on the legislation, only to draw a sharp slap from a senior Nationals senator.

Queensland senator Ron Boswell reminded Mr Turnbull the Coalition joint party room had decided the legislation should be opposed in the Senate if the Government refused to defer it until next year.

MICHELLE GRATTAN

India rebuffs Clinton's carbon deal

Matt Wade, Delhi

The Age, July 21, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/india-rebuffs-clintons-carbon-deal-20090720-dqrn.html

INDIA'S Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has bluntly stated that India will not give in to international pressure to cut emissions.

Speaking during an awkward media conference with visiting US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he said: "India's position is clear and categorical that we are simply not in a position to take any legally binding emissions reductions."

The pair were sharing the podium at the opening of an environmentally friendly building in the Gurgaon, one of India's IT hubs.

The clash between developed and developing countries over climate change intruded on the high-profile photo opportunity midway through the Secretary of State's three-day tour of India.

Mr Ramesh complained about US pressure to cut a worldwide deal, and Mrs Clinton countered that the Obama Administration's push for an agreement would not sacrifice India's economic growth.

As dozens of cameras recorded the scene, Mr Ramesh declared that India would not commit to a deal that would require it to meet targets to reduce emissions. "It is not true that India is running away from mitigation," he said. "India's position, let me be clear, is that we are simply not in the position to take legally binding emissions targets."

Mrs Clinton responded that she believed there was a way to eradicate poverty while promoting sustainable development that would "lower significantly" the carbon footprint.

Mr Ramesh is reported to have rammed home his point at a separate closed-door meeting with Mrs Clinton.

India, which has much lower per capita emissions than the West, has only promised that it will not allow its emissions to rise above the developed-country average.

With WASHINGTON POST

Victoria proving the dirtiest state

Adam Morton

The Age, July 21, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/victoria-proving-the-dirtiest-state-20090720-dqt8.html

VICTORIA is the least climate-friendly state — home to three of Australia's four dirtiest power stations and none of the 12 biggest renewable energy plants.

An analysis by the Climate Group, an international think-tank, found less than 2 per cent of electricity generated in Victoria last year was from clean sources. Brown coal accounted for 94 per cent of electricity, with gas making up the other 4 per cent.

Victoria's largest renewable energy generator was not a purpose-built power station, but the Maryvale pulp and paper mill, which produces energy on site and feeds a small amount into the grid.

It was ranked the 13th-biggest renewable power generator in the eastern states, generating 166,000 megawatt hours, or just 0.003 per cent of the state's total electricity.

Climate Group Australia director Rupert Posner said the analysis was a wake-up call.

"What's clear is we need to rapidly scale up renewable energy," he said. "It is far too small a part of the energy mix."

The analysis found Victoria lagged behind other eastern states in renewable energy generation. Clean power sources make up 13 per cent of the electricity mix in South Australia, 6 per cent in NSW and 3 per cent in Queensland.

Mr Posner said there was not enough renewable energy in the country. "A large chunk of our renewable energy to date has come from large-scale hydro projects," he said.

The analysis comes as the Federal Government tries to push through the Senate its renewable energy target, requiring 20 per cent of electricity to come from clean sources by 2020. The target is supported by the Liberal Party, but stalled after the Government made an industry compensation package contingent on its controversial emissions trading scheme also being passed.

Environment Victoria campaigns director Mark Wakeham said more renewable energy projects were being developed, but the analysis showed the state was on an unsustainable path. He said Victoria's main problem was its continued support of brown coal. Its increased use led to emissions from electricity rising 1 per cent last year.

The Loy Yang A, Hazelwood and Yallourn W power stations, all in the Latrobe Valley, were found to be among the highest-emitting plants in the country.

"It's very easy in the climate change debate to point the finger at different countries around the world … but when we've got some of the largest polluting power stations supplying the majority of our electricity, the onus is on us to take action very quickly," Mr Wakeham said.

Victoria can expect an influx of wind power. It has just 427 megawatts of wind power, but 1558 megawatts more has been approved with 2424 megawatts at various stages of planning.

A large solar plant near Mildura and a hydro plant at Bogong are also in development.

Government spokeswoman Emma Tyner said the state renewable energy target had attracted $2 billion in investment and would create more than 2000 jobs.

Government unveils sweeping plans to transform UK into low-carbon economy

The low-carbon transition plan covers all sectors, from home insulation and generating power, to electric cars and high-speed trains

• Alok Jha, green technology correspondent
• guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 July 2009 15.32 BST
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/15/government-low-carbon-plans

• Interactive: How the UK will meet its carbon targets
• George Monbiot: Energy bill rises will be tiny
• 'Clean energy cashback' scheme in detail
• High-speed rail plan to reduce transport emissions
• South-west to be world centre for marine energy
• 2020 vision: big bills, electric cars and Miliband, PM
• Mark Lynas: Miliband takes the greener path

The government has unveiled detailed plans for transforming the UK to a low-carbon economy and meeting its targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The measures, which touch on all aspects of life, from home insulation and power generation to electric cars and high-speed trains, are designed to achieve emissions cuts of 34% by 2020 compared with 1990 levels.

Under the plans, which are projected to create 1.2m "green jobs", every government department will be required to meet a carbon budget alongside its financial budget. The announcement is the first time the government has laid out in detail where the carbon axe will fall and how much each department will be expected to cut.

Miliband warned, however, that domestic energy prices would rise in 2020 to pay for some of the required changes. He hoped this would be offset with energy efficiency savings in 7m homes and financial help for the poorest consumers.

"The proposals published today are the first time we have set out a comprehensive plan for carbon across every sector – energy, homes, transport, agriculture and business," said Miliband. "Our transition plan is a route map to 2020. It strengthens our energy security, it seeks to be fair in the decisions we make, above all it rises to the moral challenge of climate change."

In the government's white paper on energy and climate, called the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan and published today, half of the proposed carbon cuts to 2020 would come from changes to the power sector, 15% from making homes more efficient, 10% from workplace improvements, 20% from changing how we travel and 5% from agriculture and land use.

This means that 40% of UK electricity by 2020 will come from low-carbon sources including renewables, nuclear and clean coal. The white paper also launches consultation on the details of the government's feed-in tariff, re-named the "clean energy cash-back" scheme, which will pay people and businesses a premium for generating low-carbon electricity. A similar scheme for renewable heat will follow in April 2011.

The white paper details plans for a "pay as you save" scheme for homeowners to receive loans to insulate their homes, with money repaid by savings in energy costs.

Philip Sellwood, chief executive of the Energy Saving Trust welcomed the scheme. "People tell us that the biggest barrier that stops them from making their homes more energy efficient is the need to find money to pay for the up-front costs. Our research shows that householders are more likely to make larger investments, including micro-generation and solid-wall insulation, if the costs can be spread through the savings they make on their energy bills."

Other measures in the white paper and the industrial and transport strategies, also published today, include:

• Up to £6m to start development of a "smart grid", including a policy road map next year.

• Launch of the new Office for Renewable Energy Deployment in the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to speed up the growth of renewables in the UK.

• DECC to take direct responsibility from Ofgem for establishing a new grid access regime within 12 months.

• Up to £180m would be made available to promote wind and tidal power – this includes setting up a low-carbon economic area in the south-west to promote marine technologies and money for up to 3,000 wind turbines off the UK's shores by 2020.

• £15m to establish a Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre that will develop the next generation of nuclear power infrastructure.

• £10 million will go to improving infrastructure for charging electric vehicles.

• Challenging 15 villages, towns or cities to be test-beds for piloting future green initiatives.

The shadow energy secretary Greg Clark welcomed the white paper, which he said was familiar since much of it borrowed from Conservative policy. "Over 12 years we have had 15 energy ministers, but no energy policy. Does [Miliband] recognise that while other countries have spent the last decade diversifying their supplies of energy, Britain has become even more dependent on imported fossil fuels – threatening our energy security, our economic competitiveness, and our climate change objectives?"

He added: "The secretary of state stands in a position of great moment. He must decide whether he breaks with the past and implements rigorously the measures that both he and I know are needed, or whether the next six months will prove, like the last 12 years, to have been a time of opportunity lost."

John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace, said: "If this plan becomes a reality, it will create hundreds of thousands of green jobs and make Britain a safer and more prosperous country. This will be good for the British economy and, in the long-run, save householders money as we reduce our dependence on foreign oil and gas. Ed Miliband appears to be winning important battles in Whitehall. But it's crucial that these plans now get full cross-party support and more backing from the chancellor. The renewable energy industry is too important to become a political football and this strategy for green jobs deserves more than the current paltry sums being offered by the Treasury."

Miliband's manifesto to make Britain a low-carbon economy

The national strategy to cut emissions published yesterday comes at a price. But are we willing to pay it?

By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor

Thursday, 16 July 2009

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/milibands-manifesto-to-make-britain-a-lowcarbon-economy-1748282.html

Thousands more wind turbines, millions of "smart" electricity meters for homes and new cars emitting 40 per cent less pollution than they do now all are on the way in the next decade under ambitious plans to slash CO2 emissions from every sector of the economy.

They form part of the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan, a national government strategy for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the fight against climate change, which was launched by the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, yesterday.

Although the detail may sound familiar – many of these projects are already on the drawing board – it is the bringing them together into an all-inclusive society-wide plan which is new, as the Government faces up to its legally-binding target of cutting UK carbon emissions to 34 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020

Under last year's Climate Change Act, ministers have bound themselves to hit the target with a system of rolling five-year "carbon budgets", and the strategy shows in detail for the first time how they intend to do this.

Its central component is a seven-fold increase – in just a decade – in the amount of Britain's energy for power generation, transport and home heating supplied from renewable sources such as wind, wave and solar power (from just over 2 per cent to 15 per cent).

This leap will mean that by 2020 about 30 per cent of electricity alone will come from renewables (up from 5.5 per cent today) and this huge expansion will derive principally from much more wind power. Although no precise figure was given yesterday, this will involve, Mr Miliband said, "thousands" of new wind turbines, both onshore and offshore (one current estimate is about 7,000).

By the 2020 date another 10 per cent of electricity will come from non-renewable low-carbon energy sources, principally the new nuclear power stations whose construction the Government is backing, and the infant technology of carbon capture and storage (CCS), which takes the CO2 emissions from power stations and buries them underground. Demonstration power plants fitted with CCS should be coming onstream by 2020.

The Government accepts that low-carbon energy will be more expensive for consumers and yesterday gave two sets of estimated increases on power bills. Just paying for the new system might add £77 to electricity and £172 to gas bills each year but when all climate change measures are taken into account – such as home insulation which will save consumers money – the total addition is likely to be between £75 and £92 by 2020, the Government said. On the other hand, the White Paper foresees a substantial increase in employment from the changes, with as many as 400,000 new green jobs being created.

The Low Carbon Transition Plan: Major cuts in five sectors of society

Energy Generation (responsible for 35 per cent of UK emissions)

The plan envisages 40 per cent of UK electricity coming from low-carbon sources by 2020 – 30 per cent from renewable energy sources and 10 per cent from nuclear and clean coal. Later this year there will be a national Policy Statement on Nuclear Power which will assess potential sites for new atomic power stations. The Government has already said that any new coal-fired power stations will have to be fitted with Carbon Capture and Storage technology. Later this year plans will be published for a "smart" version of the National Grid which will be more flexible.

Workplaces: Industry and Business (20 per cent of emissions)

High-carbon industries will be included in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme which will save around 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year by 2020. There will be financial incentives to save energy and invest in low-carbon technologies. The Government will seek to boost green industries with £405m for new technologies, up to £120m of investment in offshore wind, and £60m for marine energy and to help develop the South-west as the UK's first Low Carbon Economic Area.

Homes and Communities (13 per cent of emissions)

Emissions will be cut from homes by 29 per cent on 2020 levels by much greater energy efficiency achieved through the wider use of insulation. Smart meters, which enable people to understand exactly how much energy they are using in real time, and maximise their energy saving opportunities, will be rolled out to every home – 26 million – by 2020. The obligation on energy suppliers to help households save energy will be extended. From 2016 all new homes will have to be zero-carbon and rental properties may have to have Energy Performance Certificates.

Farming, Land Use and Waste (11 per cent of emissions)

Farmers will be encouraged to cut emissions by 6 per cent by 2020 through more efficient use of fertiliser and better management of livestock and manure. Although the UK now recycles or composts a third of its waste, more must be done. There will be support for anaerobic digestion (a technology which turns waste and manure into renewable energy) and there will be a push to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills, and also for better capture of landfill emissions.

Transport (20 per cent of emissions)

By 2020 transport emissions will be cut by 14 per cent on 2008 levels, and the first step will be to improve the fuel efficiency of conventional vehicles : C02 emissions from new cars will have to fall by 40 per on current levels across the EU by 2015, to 95 grams per kilometre. British government vehicles will comply with this by 2011. £30m will be invested to deliver several hundred low-carbon buses and there will be more support for new technology for low-carbon cars. £140m is being invested to promote cycling and £5m is being spent on new cycle storage at rail stations.

Al Gore is hoping, Obama is scared, Rudd is a wimp. The earth?

Crikey

by Clive Hamilton

Wednesday, 15 July 2009

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/07/15/al-gore-is-hoping-obama-is-scared-rudd-is-a-wimp-the-earth/

You know you're in trouble when authority figures say we must remain hopeful. Al Gore's message of hope is now delivered with less passion and more desperation. Fear makes people do stupid things. The organisers of the Copenhagen conference have commissioned some of the world's biggest advertising agencies to develop a campaign to save the planet. The funky creatives have decided that global warming is a "communication challenge" and the answer is to "empower global citizens" by creating a "popular movement". So they have announced the existence of a movement and are planning an "aggressive" consumer launch for September. The goal? "Let's turn Copenhagen into Hopenhagen". Yes, Hopenhagen. There's a website where people can send messages of hope to the UN delegates.

Presumably Australia's contribution to the UN helps fund this bollocks. The advertising corporations behind the Hopenhagen campaign include Ogilvy & Mather which, when not saving the planet from climate change, is persuading us to buy more petrol from BP and cars from Ford. Then there's Colle + McVoy which promotes petrochemicals for DuPont and Ketchum which wants us to fly more on Delta Airlines. So what did the G8 summit tell us about hope and desperation? Barack Obama's speech at the L'Aquila closing event was beautiful, and remarkable on several fronts. He began with a powerful, unvarnished statement of the crisis the world confronts and the urgency demanded. He was frank about developing country anxiety over being treated unfairly, deploying the pregnant phrase "historic responsibility", an admission of guilt. He acknowledged the past failings of the United States and made a convincing case that the country had now changed and takes global warming very seriously. (Listing the actions his administration had taken, he made no mention of clean coal.) Obama finished with a Kennedyesque flourish: "We know that the problems we face are made by human beings; that means it's within our capacity to solve them. The question is whether we will have the will to do so, whether we'll summon the courage and exercise the leadership to chart a new course. That's the responsibility of our generation." In his heart, Obama knows the game is up; he hinted at the thoughts that weigh him down when he is alone in the Oval Office: "I think that one of the things we're going to have to do is fight the temptation towards cynicism, to feel that the problem is so immense that somehow we cannot make significant strides." His closest advisers on climate, John Holdren and Steven Chu, know the science better than anyone. But leaders can't say it so the G8 agreed that the world should aim to limit warming to 2°C by asking rich countries to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, and for the world to cut emissions by 50 per cent. Obama said this is "what the mainstream of the scientific community has called for", but he is at least five years out of date. The latest science is saying that aiming for 2°C is dangerous and, even so, to achieve 2°C global emissions must be cut, not by 50 per cent in 2050, but by "60-80% immediately". The President stressed that any progress at G8 would not substitute for UN negotiations but support them. There is concern in the EU that the US will reach a bilateral deal with China. A Sino-American agreement would pre-empt the Copenhagen negotiations, sharply narrowing the possible outcomes. Europe has committed to a huge 30 per cent cut in emissions by 2020 if boldness prevails at Copenhagen. It has not been widely noticed that the US undertaking to cut emissions by only 4 per cent below 1990 levels would entrench a huge disparity in effort. Essentially, the EU would be carrying the developed world to the 25 per cent target. But the Europeans also understand that Obama and House Democrats have pushed climate policy as far as domestic political circumstances allow. That of course is where the Obama Administration diverges from the Rudd Labor Government. Rudd was in a stronger position than Obama to push hard on climate. He had a mandate from the electorate, an Opposition in disarray, a Garnaut interim report justifying radical measures and a financial crisis that could have been used to pour money into restructuring the energy economy. Unwilling to resist the pressure from the fossil fuel lobby Rudd went soft; the Captain Planet who thrilled the world in Bali morphed into a wimp. I'm guessing Rudd was shocked in L'Aquila when he realised how seriously Obama takes global warming and how the US push is making Australia look timorous, despite Al Gore's polite comparisons. Everyone is scared. If the Copenhagen agreement fails to reflect the science there will be no second chances and we can expect a furious spasm of protest across the globe. In the United States, some activist groups are already preparing for a change in the rules of the game. A new website called Beyond Talk has appeared which asks people to put their names to this: "I pledge, if asked, to perform non-violent civil disobedience and risk arrest in order to get our leaders to make the right climate-change choices."

Gore backs Govt's emissions trading push

ABC News Online, Posted Mon Jul 13, 2009

• http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/13/2624681.htm?site=news
• Video: Al Gore urges Australia to move on carbon emissions trading (7.30 Report)
• Audio: Al Gore approves of Fed Govt's efforts to implement a carbon emissions trading scheme (PM)

Climate change campaigner Al Gore has backed the Federal Government's push for emissions trading legislation to be passed by Parliament ahead of global talks later this year.

The Government is pressuring the Opposition to support its carbon pollution reduction scheme when the legislation comes before the Senate in August.

The Government says it is vital Australia has its scheme in place before international negotiations in Copenhagen in December.

In an interview with the ABC1's 7.30 Report, Mr Gore said it is important both Australia and the US set up emissions trading scheme soon.

"We're fortunate to have Barack Obama and Kevin Rudd in the positions they're in leading towards a solution for this crisis," he said.

"And I think it matters a lot if they are able to convince their parliamentarians, our members of the Senate to pass these laws before Copenhagen."

He said it would help global negotiations if both the US and Australia go to Copenhagen with laws already in place.

"Neither has gone as far as I would like to see but both have gone as far as the political limitations seem to make it possible to go and finishing that task in this first stage, before Copenhagen, I think is very important," he said.

But the Opposition believes the Government should wait to see the outcome of the Copenhagen talks before passing any laws.

Local targets

Mr Gore says more work needs to be done on reducing emissions in the short term.

"I agree with him because it's all too easy for politicians to say 50 years from now, sure, no problem, but the nearer term and medium term goals have more practical consequence for those that are in office today and it's more difficult but more meaningful," he said.

But he said the while the Government's medium term targets were not strong enough, the commitments were an important shift.

"Well no [they're not]. Nor is the legislation that I'm supporting in the US good enough," he said.

"But we live in democracies, with political limitations and as Winston Churchill famously said; democracy's the worst form of government in the world except for every other form that's been tried, and it can be extremely frustrating.

"But once the process of change begins, the whole system begins to shift and then further change begins to become easier to accomplish.

"Once we put a price on carbon, establish this system of limiting CO2 emissions, then that change will build on itself and we'll have a much better chance of solving the crisis."

But Mr Gore is unconvinced by the Government's push for carbon capture technology.

"I have some scepticism about how big a role that particular technology is going to play, but I hope I'm wrong," he said.

"I think it will play some role and it could well be that these demonstration projects will give us the basis for more hope that it will play a bigger role.

"And since both the United States and Australia have a lot of coal and burn a lot of coal, it's certainly a good idea to investigate as thoroughly as possible, how big a role this sequestration technology can play."

Fires a reason to act on climate change: Gore

ABC News Online, Posted Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:09pm AEST

Former US vice-president and environmental activist Al Gore says Victoria's recent bushfires underline the importance of a global deal on climate change.

The climate change campaigner is in Melbourne, where he is supporting the Federal Government's push to implement an emissions trading scheme.

Mr Gore says Australia's own experience with bushfires, floods and cyclones shows why a global deal on climate change is imperative.

"What they do say again with increasing force is that the odds have been shifted so heavily that fires that used to be manageable now threaten to spin out of control and wreak damages that are far beyond what was experienced in the past," he said.

"The planet now has a fever.

"If you have a young child with a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor tells you ... you have to take some serious medical action, the typical response from parents is not 'well I was listening to a commentator on the radio the other day and I think you're wrong doctor.' You may ask for a second opinion, and that's what the world has done."

Mr Gore was helping to launch a new organisation called Safe Climate Australia that wants to link science, business, government and the community to press the case for a national response to the challenges of climate change.

"It is an emergency. We really do have to act," he said.

Mr Gore had been speaking at a conference in Melbourne to train 300 people from across the Asia-Pacific region as climate ambassadors.

"When a sheep farmer talks to other farmers, when a firefighter talks to other firefighters, the word spreads," he said.

Gore to back 'map' of emissions reduction

Adam Morton and Geoff Strong

The Age, July 14, 2009

A FULLY costed map for how Australia could reduce greenhouse gas emissions "at emergency speed" will be developed with the backing of former US vice-president Al Gore.

The climate campaigner launched Safe Climate Australia, a non-government organisation modelled on Mr Gore's Repower America, a think tank pushing for the US to move to 100 per cent clean energy within a decade.

Mr Gore said Safe Climate Australia would be an apolitical, science-based bid to deal with "what many scientists have now been saying is truly a planetary emergency".

"The economists tell us the obvious response is to find opportunities to invest sensibly in the building of new infrastructure that can make our countries stronger and put people to work and give them money that they can spend to get the economy moving again," he said.

Safe Climate Australia foundation board member Ian Dunlop, former chairman of the Australian Coal Association, said it would draw on the most promising policies worldwide to cut emissions and find ways to suck greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. Its other major project is Run for a Safe Climate, a 6000-kilometre relay down the eastern seaboard by 35 emergency service workers who fear they will have to put their lives on the line as climate becomes more hostile.

A group of 35 will spend November running from the Daintree in North Queensland down the east coast before following the Murray River to Adelaide and the Great Ocean Road back to Melbourne.

It is timed to finish just before the world's leaders gather for the crucial United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen in December.

Organising the run is Michael Acreman, a metropolitan firefighter who had a climate change epiphany on February 7.

The following day he was part of a strike team that went to the Kinglake-Whittlesea area to help fight the fire and look for bodies among the ruins.

"I saw Black Saturday as an indication of climate change," Mr Acreman said.

"It was a powerful experience … our team saved a whole lot of buildings in the Whittlesea area, but now we realise that climate change means more of this. We have to convince people that something has to be done … more of this is going to happen."

Mr Gore said while no bushfire could be linked to climate change, their size and intensity would increase under climate change projections.

"The odds have been shifted so heavily that fires that used to be manageable now threaten to spin out of control and wreak damages that are far beyond what was experienced in the past," he said.

As well as firefighters, Run for a Safe Climate runners will be from the police (including one detective), ambulance and state emergency service.

The Gore effect

 The Age, July 14, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/the-gore-effect-20090713-diqw.html?page=-1

Al Gore captivates audiences even as he foresees a dire future, but is the inconvenient truth that he is preaching to the converted? Adam Morton reports.

AS MOST of Melbourne slept, business leaders, politicians and green campaigners queued on a Docklands wharf in the pre-dawn cold yesterday to hear a man say what he has said many times before.

Notionally, they were there for the launch of Safe Climate Australia — an apolitical organisation that hopes to plan a future without greenhouse gas emissions. But few braved the chill to hear about a new non-government organisation, no matter how impressive.

They were there to hear Al Gore, in Melbourne for a whistlestop 30 hours of training climate activists and delivering his well-honed message. Those hoping for insight into global negotiations on a new climate deal, or an intervention into the Australian climate change debate, would have been disappointed. In its place they got a practised summary of the climate problem, and hope that a solution is within grasp.

"We can see that we are standing in front of a fork in the road," Gore said. We can take one of two different directions. "We can say to the scientists, 'We don't want to listen to you. We would prefer to seek out the 1 or 2 per cent of the naysayers who stand against this growing and building consensus.' If we continue on that path it leads towards a catastrophic outcome. It is difficult to ignore that the cyclones are getting stronger, that the fires are getting bigger, that the sea level is rising, that the refugees are beginning to move from places they have long called home.

"So what should we do? We should respond not only to the danger, but also to the opportunity, because we face this crisis at a moment when the world is in an economic crisis as well, and the economists tell us the obvious response is to find opportunities to invest sensibly in the building of new infrastructure that can make our countries stronger and put people to work and give them money that they can spend to get the economy moving again."

Beyond the content there was the charisma; the intangible pull of a celebrity who is famous for what he does, not who he is, and is renowned as an inspiring speaker.

For the hosts — Safe Climate Australia — his presence transformed an earnest gathering of the usual green suspects into an A-list environmental event. "There are not many things you get out of bed that early on a Monday morning for," says Mark Lister, group manager corporate affairs with Szencorp, a designer of environmentally friendly commercial buildings. "Having some people who know some people who know Al Gore is very, very helpful and it makes a big difference because people look to opinion leaders like him … Having someone like that endorse what you're doing speaks volumes."

Bob Welsh, chief executive of VicSuper, says Gore is a "bit of a rock star". "What I like about it is he has been on this sort of pathway for about 30 years. He's not a Johnny-come-lately, he's a deep thinker about these issues and passionate about humanity picking up the challenge."

Gore's method is to create a sense of unified hope in the face of a divisive and seemingly hopeless task. Before his arrival in Australia there was speculation within the environmental movement over whether the former US vice-president would back the Rudd Government's climate policies. Gore is a strong supporter of a campaign to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide to at most 350 parts per million — seemingly at odds with Canberra's ambition of a global deal to stabilise at a comparatively dangerous 450 parts per million.

But the man behind An Inconvenient Truth — the world's only successful movie based on a PowerPoint presentation — gave pragmatic support for the Government at a press conference on Sunday, reckoning it was better to pass what was politically possible than hold out for something perfect. He reiterated yesterday: "The changes that must take place follow the old maxim that we must walk before we can run, and beginning to act can build confidence that we can act more boldly and more effectively."

Many who stood alongside Gore would vigorously oppose this view, but breakfasters who spoke with The Age afterwards left feeling he had reinforced their own opinion.

Lister says the ability to bring people together is a significant part of the Nobel laureate's appeal. "His political skill is being able to give everyone a nod, and not claim that he's supporting one or the other, and actually leave everyone feeling like he's on board with what they're doing," he says.

'HE told a couple of gags that I've heard him tell before (that he is on stage nine in a 12-step recovery program from politics, for example), so he probably needs to sharpen up his material in that area would be my only advice. Not that he needs my advice; he's still got the ability to inspire people."

It was a similar story at the United Nations climate summit in Poznan, Poland, last December. The key note speaker after a fractious two weeks of negotiations, Gore spoke with such inclusive warmth — embracing the oft-criticised Chinese regime by listing the steps it was taking to move to a clean energy supply — that he received a standing ovation for more-or-less telling delegates that they weren't doing their job properly.

In Melbourne, his message was littered with well-rehearsed illustrations of the problem. In 1900 the planet was home to 1.6 billion people, but today there are 6.78 billion — a quadrupling in the space of a century. Even more significantly, is the advent 150 years ago of the first oil drill and, shortly afterwards, the widening use of coal to drive machinery. As a result of these changes, Gore says, the planet has a fever. If a doctor told us our child had a fever, and we got a second opinion and received the same diagnosis, would we continue not to act? This was effectively what the world had done in ignoring four reports by "the leading experts from more than 100 nations" — the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Gore's key message was of opportunities being ignored. "This climate crisis presents not only the most dangerous threat we've ever faced in civilisation, but truly the greatest opportunity that we have ever confronted as well," he said.

"I place my hope in you. When political leaders and nations around the world are trying to decide whether or not it's politically safe for them to move beyond what the pollsters say is safe, one way that political leaders in every nation can get the backbone to step up to this is if the leaders of society take time to learn for themselves and speak up and say, 'I understand that we in this generation have a obligation to those who come after us.' "

It is a message that is gradually being embraced in business circles. Bob Welsh has seen VicSuper slowly shift its investment strategy towards environmentally friendly ventures since 2001. It now invests in two funds run by Generation Investment global equities fund, which is chaired by Gore, that invest respectively in the large companies that exhibit the best sustainability credentials and in venture capital start-ups attempting to create the technologies needed to move to a low-carbon environment.

It is, Welsh says, a gradual shift to the fund being more sustainable.

"It is not an ethical thing, it is not a socially responsible thing, it's fundamentally about risk moving forward," he says. "How do you invest in a way to create wealth for the current generation, while creating opportunity for the next generation? It's a challenge, but so far it has worked for us."

One of the key questions raised by Gore's visit is: does the message break through beyond the converted into the wider community? Yesterday's breakfast was accompanied by protesters bearing placards condemning "junk science" and wearing T-shirts bearing the slogan Carbon Really Ain't Pollution — CRAP.

Inside was Family First senator Steve Fielding, whose recent fact-finding mission to the US led to him becoming a climate sceptic. He was attempting to arrange a meeting with Gore to discuss the scientific evidence. Gore's speech appeared to be "preaching the science".

While Gore listed a number of climatic changes that scientists have linked to greenhouse emissions, including ocean chemistry harming coral reefs and summer sea ice in the Arctic retreating at unprecedented rates, Fielding was unconvinced: "It could be an inconvenient fact that greenhouse gas emissions have risen and global air temperatures haven't risen in the past 15 years."

Despite polls regularly finding that more than 70 per cent of Australians are concerned about climate change, Lister suspects acceptance of the science and the ramifications is not well developed. Gore's visits are part of an educative process.

"There is a long way to go before people are willing to change on this stuff. There is a huge resistance. But someone with a profile standing up and saying this stuff, it gets coverage and people digest it and absorb it," he says.

Adam Morton is environment reporter.

Climate change most dangerous threat ever, says Gore

Adam Morton

The Age, July 13, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change-most-dangerous-threat-ever-says-gore-20090713-dhwx.html

Former US vice-president Al Gore has told a Melbourne breakfast that climate change is both the most dangerous threat and the greatest opportunity that civilisation has faced.

Calling on community leaders to take a stand, Mr Gore said the projections of climate change due to rising greenhouse gas emissions had worsened through four reports by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, yet political leaders had so far failed to act.

"We can see that we are standing in front of a fork in the road. We can take one of two different directions," he said.

"We can say to the scientists, `we don't want to listen to you. We would prefer to seek out the one or two per cent of the naysayers who stand against this growing and building consensus'.

"If we continue on that path it leads to a catastrophic outcome. It is difficult to ignore that the cyclones are getting stronger, that the fires are getting bigger, that the sea level is rising, that the refugees are beginning to move from places they have long called home."

He called on the 1000 community leaders at the breakfast for the launch of non-governmental organisation Safe Climate Australia to take a stand and push for change. He said people must respond not only to the danger, but the opportunity.

"The economists tell us the obvious response is to find opportunities to invest sensibly in the building of new infrastructure that can make our countries stronger and put people to work and give them money that they can spend to the the economy moving again," he said.

Mr Gore, who broadened concern about climate change with his 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth, said the world had everything it needed to solve the climate crisis "with the possible exception of political will".

"But in the United States and Australia we know that political will is a renewable resource," he said.

Mr Gore had earlier said he chose "to be very optimistic" about negotiations towards a new climate treaty due to be signed in Copenhagen, despite concern little progress has been made.

Mr Gore praised Safe Climate Australia for planning to develop a practical transition plan towards a low-carbon economy.

The launch included an announcement that emergency service workers would volunteer in November to run 6000 kilometres from north Queensland, down the east coast, along the Murray River and finishing to Melbourne along the Great Ocean Road to raise awareness about climate change.

A small group of climate sceptics protested outside the Docklands venue.

Forest Fire Prevention Efforts Could Lessen Carbon Sequestration, Add To Greenhouse Warming

ScienceDaily (July 12, 2009) 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090708132810.htm

— Widely sought efforts to reduce fuels that increase catastrophic fire in Pacific Northwest forests will be counterproductive to another important societal goal of sequestering carbon to help offset global warming, forestry researchers at Oregon State University conclude in a new report.

Even if the biofuels were used in an optimal manner to produce electricity or make cellulosic ethanol, there would still be a net loss of carbon sequestration in forests of the Coast Range and the west side of the Cascade Mountains for at least 100 years – and probably much longer, the study showed.

"Fuel reduction treatments should be forgone if forest ecosystems are to provide maximal amelioration of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the next 100 years," the study authors wrote in their conclusion. "If fuel reduction treatments are effective in reducing fire severities in the western hemlock, Douglas-fir forests of the west Cascades and the western hemlock , Sitka spruce forests of the Coast Range, it will come at the cost of long-term carbon storage, even if harvested material are used as biofuels."

The study raises serious questions about how to maximize carbon sequestration in these fast-growing forests and at the same time maximize protection against catastrophic fire.

"It had been thought for some time that if you used biofuel treatments to produce energy, you could offset the carbon emissions from this process," said Mark Harmon, holder of the Richardson Chair in the OSU Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society. "That seems to make common sense and sounds great in theory, but when you actually go through the data it doesn't work."

Using biofuels to produce energy does not completely offset the need for other fossil fuels use and completely negate their input to the global carbon budget, the researchers found. At the absolute maximum, you might recover 90 percent of the energy, the study said.

"That figure, however, assumes an optimal production of energy from biofuels that is probably not possible," Harmon said. "By the time you include transportation, fuel for thinning and other energy expenditures, you are probably looking at a return of more like 60-65 percent. And if you try to produce cellulosic ethanol, the offset is more like 35 percent."

"If you take old, existing forests from these regions and turn them into almost anything else, you will have a net loss in carbon sequestration," Harmon said.

That could be significant. Another recent OSU studied concluded that if forests of Oregon and northern California were managed exclusively for carbon sequestration, they could double the amount of sequestration in many areas and triple it in some.

The new study found that, in a Coast Range stand, if you removed solid woody biofuels for reduction of catastrophic fire risks and used those for fuel, it would take 169 years before such usage reached a break-even point in carbon sequestration. The study showed if the same material were used in even less efficient production of cellulosic ethanol, it would take 339 years.

The researchers did not consider in this analysis how global warming in coming years might affect the increase of catastrophic fire, Harmon said. However, "fire severity in many forests may be more a function of severe weather events rather than fuel accumulation," the report authors wrote, and fuel reduction efforts may be of only limited effectiveness, even in a hotter future.

"Part of what seems increasingly apparent is that we should consider using west side forests for their best role, which is carbon sequestration, and focus what fuel reduction efforts we make to protect people, towns and infrastructure," Harmon said. "It's almost impossible anyway to mechanically treat the immense areas that are involved and it's hugely expensive. As a policy question we have to face issues of what approaches will pay off best and what values are most important."

The report was just published in Ecological Applications, a professional journal. The lead author was Stephen Mitchell, who conducted the work as part of his doctoral thesis while at OSU, and is now at Duke University. Among the findings:

• Fuel reduction treatments that have been proposed to reduce wildfire severity also reduce the carbon stored in forests;
• On west side Cascade Range and Coast Range forests, which are wetter, the catastrophic fire return interval is already very long, and the additional levels of fuel accumulation have not been that unusual;
• A wide range of fire reduction approaches, such as salvage logging, understory removal, prescribed fire and other techniques, can effectively reduce fire severity if used properly;
• Such fuel removal almost always reduces carbon storage more than the additional carbon the stand is able to store when made more resistant to wildfire, in part because most of the carbon stored in forest biomass remains unconsumed even by high-severity wildfires;
• Considerable uncertainty exists in modeling of future fires, and some fuel reduction techniques, especially overstory thinning treatments, could potentially lead to an increase in fire severity.

The study authors concluded that fuel reduction may still make more sense in east-side Cascade Range and other similar forests, but that the west-side Cascades and Coast Range have little sensitivity to forest fuel reduction treatments – and might be best utilized for their high carbon sequestration capacities.

"Ultimately, the real problem here is global climate change," Harmon said. "Insect epidemics are increasing, trees are dying. There are no quick fixes to these issues."

Journal reference:

1. Stephen R. Mitchell, Mark E. Harmon, Kari E. B. O'Connell. Forest fuel reduction alters fire severity and long-term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Ecological Applications, 2009; 19 (3): 643 DOI: 10.1890/08-0501.1

Adapted from materials provided by Oregon State University, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

Feuding climate camps seek Gore blessing

Michael Bachelard

Sunday Age, July 12, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/feuding-climate-camps-seek-gore-blessing-20090711-dgrn.html

WHEN climate change guru Al Gore arrives in Melbourne today, he will find a conservation movement in vitriolic disagreement with itself.

A split has developed between the country's pre-eminent environmental organisation, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), and a bloc of other green lobbyists over the foundation's public support for the Rudd Government's carbon trading scheme.

Both sides will be looking to Mr Gore for any sign that he endorses their position.

ACF chief Don Henry, along with the Climate Institute and WWF, gave public endorsement to the Government's scheme in May, applauding its 25 per cent conditional target for emission reduction. Their comments were promoted by Kevin Rudd and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong.

Mr Henry argued it was "an acceptable starting point" in this year of international climate change negotiations.

But Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Wilderness Society and state-based conservation councils were angered at what they saw as a cynical political compromise. They argue 25 per cent is far too little and, in any event, will never be achieved given the conditions placed by the Government.

They recently launched their "plan B", which included a series of carbon reduction ideas but not a trading scheme, which is the centrepiece of the Government's policy.

The ACF lost members over its stance, including prominent former employee Dr Mark Diesendorf, who said the group had made "a terrible mistake".

Until now, rival organisations have been reluctant to publicly express their anger because of an unspoken agreement that they be polite to each other. But climate campaigner Clive Hamilton has declared the end of that agreement. He told The Sunday Age that Mr Henry and ACF president Ian Lowe were used by Mr Rudd and Senator Wong, that the ACF had been "done over" and had made a "serious strategic error" that would allow the Government to lock in bad policy for decades.

Mr Henry said it was the first time he had ever heard personal criticism of his position.

Mr Gore, a Nobel Prize winner and former US vice-president, is addressing two groups during his flying visit — the ACF's "climate summit" and a new think tank called Safe Climate Australia.

Mr Gore will launch Safe Climate Australia at an invitation-only Docklands breakfast tomorrow in front of a 1000-strong crowd from the investment, science and political communities. The group will not buy into the political debate as it tries to raise $1.5 million a year to find ways to "de-carbonise" the Australian economy.

In the political context, though, Mr Gore's every utterance will be closely watched.

Mr Henry, who is close to Mr Gore, wrote in a May email to members that "Al Gore has let me know that he thinks it is 'great news' that Australia has moved to the 25 per cent target".

But Mr Hamilton, author of Scorcher, the Dirty Politics of Climate Change, said he hoped to see Mr Gore "seriously criticise" the Government's target, though he conceded he was more likely to avoid the topic altogether.

Mr Gore has been dancing around a similar split in the US over its carbon trading legislation, the Waxman-Markey Bill. He has supported that law, which includes a 23 per cent emissions cut, despite the complaint that it lacks ambition and includes too many compromises.

Amplifying these splits is a broader argument over what carbon target the world should be aiming for. Whereas political forums, including Copenhagen later this year, aim at best to stabilise atmospheric carbon dioxide at 450 parts per million, an assertive group of scientists and activists argue that the planet can afford no more than 350 parts per million.

The atmosphere currently contains 385 parts per million, and growing. A 350 target means creating a zero-emissions economy almost immediately — the cessation of coal-fired power, finding an alternative to fossil fuel for transport, refitting buildings and industry for energy efficiency, and reinventing agriculture. Hence the need for a Safe Climate Australia think tank to work out how to get there.

The 350 argument is moving into the mainstream. Mr Gore is a "350 man", and even the ACF has now adopted it as a target, though other activists are puzzled at how they reconcile this with their agreement with the Government.

Mr Henry said the fight was over tactics, not policy.

But Mr Hamilton and others, such as the author of Climate Code Red, David Spratt, say Mr Henry's position is a betrayal. Mr Spratt has described the deal with the Government as a "political strategy that will lead to disaster", while Mr Hamilton says the ACF has been a political patsy. "When the election comes along, the Rudd Government is going to use the ACF endorsement of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme for all it's worth."

Developing countries urge G8 to impose 40% emissions cut by 2020

Diplomat says developing nations 'will commit once they have certainty that developed countries are commiting themselves'

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/10/developing-countries-emissions-cut-g8
• Patrick Wintour in L'Aquila
• guardian.co.uk, Friday 10 July 2009

Developing nations are prepared to make concessions on climate change targets if the G8 fulfils its side of the bargain in the run-up to the climate change talks in Copenhagen in December, a key negotiator told the Guardian today.

The developing countries want the G8 nations to sign up to a 40% cut by 2020, but that figure is off the radar of the EU and, given the unwieldy legislation laboriously passing through the senate, not a possibility for the US.

In important forward steps this week, the G8 agreed to cut its emissions by 80% by 2050 and said worldwide emissions should fall 50% by the same date.

However, the value of this pledge has been reduced by the lack of an agreed start date from which the emission cuts should be measured, making it a distant promise.

Luis Alfonso de Alba, the lead co-ordinator on climate change for the developing countries at the G8, told the Guardian that their call for a 25-40%cut in developed nations' emissions by 2020 was based on what UN climate change scientists had recommended.

The Mexican diplomat gave some ground, saying: "It does not have to be a specific target of 40%.

"That is what we hope to achieve, but this is a process of negotiation."

He said a G8 commitment to a 2020 target was "fundamental", adding: "It is logical that developing countries will commit once they have certainty that developed countries are commiting themselves.

"We need to see the mid-term targets go much higher, and we want to see all the developed countries, including the US, move at the same pace.

"We still need to see numbers. We respect the internal debate in the US, but it is important for the US to understand that this is a global issue and a multilateral negotiation."

He said developing nations could not "just sit and wait to see what the internal debate in the US resolves". He insisted the meeting chaired by Barack Obama under the aegis of the Major Economies Forum this week had made progress in accepting common responsibility for the crisis and for the need for carbon emissions to peak.

"Climate change is no longer seen as a north-south issue," he said. "It is no longer a donor recipient relationship.

"The most important message is that assuming individual responsibilities to fight climate change can start immediately, and by doing it immediately it will be easier to reach an ambitious agreement at Copenhagen."

De Alba said Mexico had already come up with its own carbon reduction programme, and he expected other developing nations to do the same over the coming months.

It was acknowledged at the summit that science dictates world temperatures must not rise more than 2C degrees above pre-industrial levels.

The negotiators hope this acknowledgement will drive the coming negotiations in the run-up to Copenhagen.

The talks include three UN sponsored meetings in Bonn, Bangkok and Barcelona as well as another meeting of the G20 in September.

G8 leaders 'should have done better' on carbon cuts

ABC News Online, Fri Jul 10, 2009

• http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/10/2622523.htm?site=news
• Video: G8 emissions targets 'not enough' (ABC News)
• Video: UN chief critical of G8 emissions targets (ABC News)
• Video: Rudd says the world needs short term targets (ABC News)
• Video: How meaningful are the G8 discussions? (ABC News)
• Related Story: G8 leaders back 2-degree warming limit
• Related Story: Wong welcomes G8 climate deal
• Related Story: Rudd takes centre stage in climate talks

Greens Leader Bob Brown says world leaders meeting in Italy should have made more progress on setting firm targets for cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.

Leaders at the G8 summit in Italy have agreed to limit global temperature rises to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

But the Major Economies Forum has failed to sign off on targets for the emissions cuts needed to meet that goal.

Senator Brown says that is extremely disappointing.

"It's amazing to get a group of leaders together to deal with the biggest environmental threat to the planet, which includes the economic wellbeing of the planet, unable to come up with any statement of any substance with any targets at all just a few months out from the Copenhagen meeting," he said.

"They should have done better than that."

There is little detail but it is reported developed countries will aim for the biggest emissions cuts - 80 per cent - while developing nations will be required to reduce their emissions by 50 per cent by the target year 2050.

Despite G8 backing for a 50 per cent cut in emissions globally, a broader group of major polluters, including many developing countries such as China and India, dropped a pledge earlier to halve their pollution by 2050.

Keeping an eye on real targets

Adam Morton

The Age, July 11, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/global-warming/keeping-an-eye-on-real-targets-20090710-dg4b.html

WHEN the highlight at climate talks is a re-announcement - of Kevin Rudd's much-lauded global carbon capture and storage institute - you know it hasn't been a great week.

There was some progress: the agreement by the G8 industrialised powers as well as the 17-member Major Economies Forum that global warming should be limited to 2 degrees is a significant step forward. Now we need policies to back it up.

In truth, the temperature target is a necessary minimum: given the worsening climate science data, anything less would have been seen as abject failure. The same goes for G8 countries saying they should cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

Of course, setting 2050 targets is easy - who in L'Aquila this week will be around to be held responsible if they are not met? There was no movement on the strong 2020 targets that will be vital for an ambitious treaty to be secured this year.

Over at the Major Economies Forum, emerging giants including India and China refused to support a draft statement that global emissions should be cut in half by 2050.

Not unreasonably, the developing world doesn't want to give ground until they see evidence that the wealthy nations responsible for the bulk of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will commit to the significant short-term cuts needed. And they maintain poverty eradication must be the first priority. The flipside to this is concern that countries such as India and Russia "just don't get it". Certainly, they show little sign of urgency.

If this sounds gloomy, analysts close to the climate negotiations were surprisingly, and tentatively, upbeat yesterday. The leaders of the 17 major economies agreed they all must take transparent steps to limit emissions, and jointly come up with a global goal for 2050 before the all-important Copenhagen summit in December.

They promised to devise a plan to tap into low-carbon technologies by November, and G20 finance ministers have been told they have until September to come up with a formula for meeting the extraordinary cost - $US100 billion ($A129 billion) a year, according to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown - of combating climate change.

Such promises are just words, but, if followed through, they could give the faltering United Nations negotiations a kick along. Now, about those targets …

Don't leave sacrifices to us, says India

Matt Wade, New Delhi

The Age, July 10, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/global-warming/dont-leave-sacrifices-to-us-says-india-20090710-dfna.html

FOR many Indians, the global debate on climate change is all about justice. There is a perception that rich countries are pushing for a carbon emissions deal that will let their people live in relative affluence, while tens of millions in countries like India remain trapped in relative poverty.

When the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, unveiled his country's climate-change action plan last year he said everyone in the world deserved "an equal share of the planetary atmospheric space" and a "convergence" of per capita emissions was the only equitable basis for a global compact. The average Indian is responsible for a fraction of the greenhouse gas emissions of the average Westerner.

A story on the front page of The Times of India recently shows why many Indians are suspicious when rich countries push New Delhi to agree to greenhouse gas emission targets. It reported a forthcoming World Bank study which found that if the US replaced all its gas-guzzling four-wheel-drives with small, fuel-efficient cars, 1.6 billion poor people now living in the dark could get electricity without an increase in the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.

It is a comparison that resonates in a country where about half the population - more than 500 million people - do not have access to power. There is a strong political disincentive for the Government to commit to targets at this stage because it might appear to lock the average Indian into a lower standard of living than the average Westerner.

The most tangible target Singh has offered is to pledge that his country's per capita CO2 emissions will never exceed the average of developing countries. This is more of a challenge than a commitment because it puts the onus on Western countries to make huge per capita cuts before India has to do anything.

Chandra Bhushan, of the Centre for Science and Environment in Delhi, says that the Government has undertaken to implement an ambitious domestic plan for the mitigation of climate change, introduced a year ago, no matter what other countries do. But any additional international commitments will have to be supported by finance and technology from developed countries.

"India is saying that we are doing everything we can domestically to reduce CO2 emissions with our own resources but any international commitment that India has to take that deviates from business as usual has to be funded by developed countries," he said.

Bhushan believes unconvincing commitments and promises made by the word's richest countries mean India does not feel under much pressure to do more.

"Expecting India to puts its cards on the table does not make any sense," he said. "If developed countries really took the lead and announced big binding cuts in emissions by 2020 it would put a lot of pressure on developing countries to do more but right now that is not happening."

UN chief: G8 must go further on emissions

Ban Ki-moon attacks climate change deal

By Andrew Grice, Political Editor, in L'Aquila 

The Independent, Friday, 10 July 2009

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/un-chief-g8-must-go-further-on-emissions-1740225.html

Developing countries agreed last night to limit the rise in global temperatures due to climate change but rejected pleas by rich nations to sign up to a specific target to cut their carbon emissions.

A day after G8 leaders agreed to reduce their emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, nine developing nations, including China, India and Brazil, made clear a long, hard negotiation lies ahead if a new global deal on climate change is to be struck at crucial talks in Copenhagen in December.

At talks with the G8 leaders chaired by the US President, Barack Obama, the nine developing nations endorsed the G8's call for the average rise in global temperatures to be limited to 2C. But they stopped short of matching the G8's decision by agreeing to halve their emissions by 2050. Instead, they promised to discuss firm emissions reduction targets in the run-up to Copenhagen.

Mr Obama hailed the 17-nation agreement as an "unprecedented commitment" but admitted: "I am the first one to acknowledge that progress on this will not be easy." He added: "We did not expect to solve this problem in one summit, but I believe we have made some important strides forward.... We can either shape our future or we can let events shape it for us."

Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary General, criticised G8 leaders for not going further by setting interim targets for 2020 and to finance efforts by developing nations to embrace low carbon technology. He said: "The leaders of G8 must be aware of their historical responsibility for the future of humanity. There must be bold and ambitious targets so we can seal the deal."

The G5 nations – China, Brazil, India, Mexico and South Africa – yesterday called for developed countries to cut emissions by 40 per cent by 2020. With 150 days to go to the Copenhagen summit, a crucial meeting will be held by the UN in New York on 22 September.

Gordon Brown struck a more upbeat note. He described yesterday's talks as "a significant moment on the road to Copenhagen", adding: "We have made huge progress."

Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said: "This is a very important step forward and shows politics catching up with the science of climate change. This will define the way governments have to deal with climate change not just in the coming months but for future generations."

But green groups expressed disappointment. Tom Picken, international climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "Despite their pledge to limit global warming to 2C, the [17-nation] Major Economies Forum [MEF] has one arm tied behind its back because rich countries meeting at the G8 failed to show leadership by slashing their own emissions first and fastest."

Phil Radford, Greenpeace USA's executive director, said: "The failure is one of leadership from the G8.When they try to blame China and India for the failure, their excuse will be hollow. It is hard to believe that any of the G8 heads of state had the audacity to look the leaders from the developing world at the MEF in the eyes and talk about joint action to protect the climate."

On its final day today, G8 leaders will approve a $15bn (£9bn) package to tackle hunger in the world's poorest countries as they agree to switch aid programmes from emergency relief to long-term agricultural projects.

Yesterday they set a deadline for a new global trade deal to be completed next year. Trade ministers will meet soon to try to kickstart the long-delayed Doha round. But such deadlines have been set before and not been met.

The Big Question: Will it really be possible to meet the G8's climate change targets?

By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor

The Independent, Friday, 10 July 2009

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-big-question-will-it-really-be-possible-to-meet--the-g8s-climate-change-targets-1740136.html

Why are we asking this now?

Because the leaders of the rich countries, at their meeting in Italy, have just made a great headline-grabbing pledge to cut their emissions of carbon dioxide, in the fight against climate change, by 80 per cent by 2050.

Related articles

• Obama plans nuclear talks to lift threat of proliferation
• UN chief: G8 must go further on emissions
• Berlusconi accused of bugging talks
• 'Yes we camp': protests greet wives in quake zone
• Erick Kabendera: What Africa wants from Obama

Why shouldn't that be realistic?

Because it is not at all clear what "80 per cent" means; it sounds like a terrific reduction, but 80 per cent of what? It might be taken to mean cutting emissions back to 80 per cent of what they are today, or what they were in 2000, say; while what UN climate scientists and environmental campaigners think is necessary, is to cut them back to 80 per cent of what they were in 1990, and that's a much tougher call (though it should be said that Britain has pledged to do this). Have a close look at the wording of the G8 communiqué issued after the agreement.

So what is the key part of the communiqué?

The leaders say in paragraph 65: "We also support a goal of developed countries reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in aggregate by 80 per cent or more by 2050 compared to 1990 or more recent years [our italics]." Those last four words, put in to keep all parties happy, especially the more reluctant ones, and make sure agreement was reached, in effect render the commitment so imprecise as to be meaningless.

How so?

Since 1990 global CO2 emissions, especially in the US, have soared, and the difference between a cut on a 2009 baseline and a cut on a 1990 baseline is enormous – hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO2. To be fair, the communiqué also says that for countries making reductions, "efforts need to be comparable". Yet at the moment the G8 does indeed have a big headline-grabbing target, but nobody knows what it really is.

Is there anything else that's unrealistic about it?

Yes. There are no interim targets, no steps marked out along the way. It's the easiest thing in the world for politicians to get together and promise to do something 41 years from now; none of them will be around to take the blame if it doesn't happen (there's a good acronym for it – Nimtoo, or Not In My Time Of Office). Pledging to reach a certain stage along the way by a certain date not very far in the future, on the other hand, is much more demanding and much more of a hostage to fortune, and perhaps it is no surprise that the G8 leaders have shied away from it.

So what are they saying they will do?

They promise to undertake "robust mid-term reductions", but they don't say what or when. This has not only attracted criticism from the environmental lobby, but more importantly, it is also being seen as a lack of good faith by the developing countries led by China and India, whose own emissions are growing enormously, but who will only agree to cut them if they are convinced that the developed world is showing the way.

But can targets ever be precise?

Yes: the European Union has agreed to cut its emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, rising to 30 per cent if a global deal is secured at the major climate conference in Copenhagen in December, while Britain has agreed an interim target by 2020 of 34 per cent, which may rise to 42 per cent after a deal; this is currently the most ambitious climate target of any country in the world. But not so the G8.

So are the G8's climate pronouncements just so much hot air?

No, they're not; they mark a welcome step forward. The wealthy countries have come together to recognise the desirability of holding global warming to two degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level – this is the first time that this has been done, and was never possible, for example, while George W Bush was US President.

Barack Obama has made the difference, and the mood music is changing, which is a hopeful sign that a serious agreement may eventually be possible. The agreement to cut emissions "by 80 per cent" is also an important part of that mood music: it's just important to be clear-eyed about exactly what it means.

How would we go about an 80 per cent C02 reduction once it was properly agreed?

This will be the greatest common enterprise on which humanity has ever embarked. To bring it about you might instinctively think windfarms, or solar panels, or electric cars, and they're all on the way and important, but the basic tool is really a more abstract one: the price of carbon, as determined by markets such as that of the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

Why is that so important?

Nicholas Stern, in his groundbreaking report on the economics of climate change, said that global warming represented the greatest market failure in history: the true cost of emitting carbon dioxide was not remotely reflected in its price. As the governments in the ETS (and later, we hope, the US and elsewhere) squeeze the amount of CO2 companies are allowed to emit each year, the rising price of permits will drive the efforts to do without it, throughout society; it will drive the necessary behaviour changes by consumers, from transport, to heating choice, to diet (Oxfam points out, for example, how large is the carbon footprint of a steak compared to the same amount of calories produced from vegetarian sources).

Behaviour change is one of the two ways forward, yet despite the fervent hopes of "deep greens", it will need state or market intervention to make most people change their ways. The ultimate (and fair) way of doing it would be to give everyone the same personal "carbon allowance" which they can use as they wish; this is a long way off in practical terms, but as global warming gets worse, it may yet appear on the agenda.

What's the other way forward?

Technological fixes. Nuclear power and the coming technology of carbon capture and storage may – stress the "may" – mean we can carry on with our electricity-based lifestyle while slashing our emissions, as renewable energy on its own is unlikely to be sufficient. Electric motors and hydrogen fuel cells may allow us to maintain private car mobility, carbon-free, on the roads.

Aviation is a lot more difficult: the aviation industry sees biofuels as its get-out-of-jail card, but their expansion shows every sign of drastically pushing up food prices, never mind wrecking the rainforest. Getting aviation emissions down may ultimately mean restricting people's ability to fly, a very difficult job for any politician to undertake. It is becoming obvious that technological fixes are much preferred by politicians to asking people to change their behaviour; it is dawning on them that no one ever got elected by asking voters to make do with less.

Is an 80 per cent cut in emissions just pie in the sky?

Yes...

* It's not realistic until we know precisely what it means – an 80 per cent cut of what baseline?

*It's hardly realistic if there are no interim targets. Without those, action is easily deferred

* Emissions are growing so fast that such a huge cut becomes harder every year

No...

* The world already has the technology to do it; all that is needed is the political will

* New low-carbon technologies will increasingly come on stream, easing the task for us all

* The pressure to cut emissions will increase as the impacts of global warming become more severe

Rudd takes centre stage in climate talks

ABC News Online, 10 July 2009

• http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/10/2621884.htm?site=news
• Video: Rudd, Obama lead climate fight (ABC News)
• Video: Rudd meets the Pope (ABC News)
• Video: Tent city star (ABC News)
• Video: Clarke and Dawe join Rudd in Rome (7.30 Report)
• Related Story: G8 leaders back 2-degree warming limit
• Related Story: Wong welcomes G8 climate deal

US President Barack Obama has used a press conference with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to announce the creation of a new global partnership to drive the development of clean energy technologies to help fight global warming.

Speaking at the 17-nation Major Economies Forum in Italy, Mr Obama said the partnership aimed to double the amount of investment in research and development needed to make alternative technologies viable.

The focal point of the partnership will be Australia's Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.

The President announced the creation of the partnership in a joint press conference with Mr Rudd, who is attending the summit as part of his ongoing overseas trip.

"Australia, for example, is creating a new centre which Kevin will be introducing shortly which points to the ability for us to pool our resources in order to see the technological breakthroughs necessary in order for us to solve this problem," Mr Obama said.

Mr Rudd first announced the formation of the Institute in April but used the meeting in the Italian town of 'L'Aquila to relaunch it.

Mr Rudd says 23 governments and more than 100 companies are now backing the Australian institute.

"It's mission is clear," he said.

"It's to get large-scale carbon capture and storage projects done around the world, not just discussed.

"Unless we do these projects we will not have an effect in bringing down those huge numbers of energy production I referred to before coming from coal, and their greenhouse emission impact."

Speaking to ABC's AM program after the announcement, Mr Rudd said the re-launch of his initiative was necessary in order to take a global approach to carbon capture.

"It was important to launch this institute globally because it has to be global in its scope," he said.

"If we're going to make a difference with coal-fired electricity generation and the greenhouse gases emitted from that generation process, carbon capture and storage must occupy centre place."

The Major Economies Forum is being held on the sidelines of the G8 meeting in L'Aquila.

Meanwhile United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-moon says the G8's new commitments on cutting carbon emissions do not go far enough.

The world's leading industrialised nations have agreed to an 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, but Mr Ban says cuts are also needed in the short-term.

He said the countries represented at the G8 account for 80 per cent of emissions.

He warned if they fail to act this year they will have squandered an historic opportunity that may not come again.

PM Rudd shares centre stage with US President Obama

Paola Totaro in L'Aquila, Italy

July 10, 2009 - 7:07AM

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/pm-rudd-shares-centre-stage-with-us-president-obama-20090710-dezn.html

The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, shared centre stage with US President Barack Obama yesterday for the global launch of Australia's pioneering Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.

Flanked by the Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, Mr Obama said the Australian initiative would help speed up the development of technology critical for reducing carbon emissions and welcomed a step forward in climate change negotiations.

Mr Obama and Mr Rudd said the decision by the 17 member Major Economies Forum (MEF), including China and India, to accept a two-degree celsius cap on global temperature rises was significant, despite their failure to thrash out what the baseline temperature should be - or even its starting point, saying only that it should be "1990 or later."

Mr Obama conceded the road would be long and hard before the Copenhagen climate talks but that there had been a ``surprising concurrence'' among the MEF nations about the need to contribute to solutions to climate change.

"While we don't expect to solve this problem in one meeting or one summit, I believe we made some important strides forward as we move towards Copenhagen. This is very, very positive and we are hoping that we can all come to some precise limits,'' Mr Obama said.

"Ice sheets are melting, sea levels are rising, our oceans are becoming more acidic and we have already seen its effects on weather patterns, our food and water sources, our health and our habitats.

``Every nation on this planet is at risk and just as no one nation is responsible for climate change, no one nation can address it alone.

Mr Rudd, who shared the stage with Mr Obama in an auditorium filled with nearly 1000 of the world's press, said the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (CCS) would now be an international initiative led by Australia - which will act as a clearing house for research of new technologies, legislation to pave their path and as a vehicle to streamline funding.

"The practical challenge we face...is what do we do about the problem, the challenge, of coal. There are practically no large carbon capture and storage projects under construction now,'' Mr Rudd said.

``Australia in the last 12 months has decided to work with other major economies, and all the major energy companies, on the establishment of a Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute. That is what we are here launching today."

He said carbon capture and storage, which captures CO2 and injects it in safe stores deep underground, is an important weapon in the battle against global warming.

Mr Obama said the creation of new global partnership to drive the development of clean technologies around the world would also include a plan to double the funds provided for research and development.

``Despite the growth of renewable energy, fossile fuels, especially coal will continue to be a major source of energy for some time to come,'' he said.

``Without global action like CCS, fossil fuel emissions are forecast to increase by 130 per cent by 2050.''

Symbolic pledge on climate cuts

Adam Morton and Paola Totaro

The Age, July 10, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/symbolic-pledge-on-climate-cuts-20090709-deox.html

AN HISTORIC agreement by eight industrialised powers that global warming should be limited to 2 degrees has been undermined by their inability to convince developing nations to support the aspirational target.

The G8 on Tuesday agreed they should cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 as part of a global cut of 50 per cent.

It is the first time the US has joined other rich nations in recognising scientific warnings that temperatures must be kept within 2 degrees of pre-industrial levels to give the world a chance to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd cautiously welcomed the non-binding agreement, but warned real results hinged on breaking the deadlock in negotiations with developing nations including China and India.

Speaking ahead of the climate-focused meeting of the 17 members of the Major Economies Forum overnight, Mr Rudd said an agreement including the developed and developing world would not be possible at the talks in L'Aquila, Italy.

"There are 150 days to Copenhagen (climate summit in December) and we have got to give our negotiators fresh impetus, a fresh mandate, a fresh commissioning from their political leaders to try and forge an agreement because this will shape so much of the world's future," Mr Rudd said.

The G8 declaration was hailed as a symbolic victory, but included wriggle room: no clear baseline year against which emissions cut would be measured was nominated.

It has ramifications for Australia, which has a 2050 target of only a 60 per cent cut below 2000 levels. The Government has promised to boost this to 80 per cent after the next election if an ambitious climate treaty is signed in Copenhagen.

Climate groups welcomed the agreement, but said it fell short of the firm commitments needed. "We need urgent action on a strong 2020 emissions reduction target if we are going to achieve … 2 degrees," WWF Australia's Paul Toni said.

The G8 agreement was overshadowed by major developing nations rejecting even an aspirational goal for 2050. They wanted to see rich nations commit to emissions reductions of 40 per cent by 2020 before agreeing to a long-term goal.

Australia's proposed target range is 5-25 per cent.

A final draft declaration for the Major Economies Forum, representing countries that produce more than three-quarters of global emissions, removed an earlier mention of specific targets. Instead, it said only that a global goal should be identified in the next five months.

Yesterday the Federal Government also released a new report showing that climate change is happening faster than expected. The summary of recent scientific research found changes in ocean temperatures, sea levels and Arctic sea ice were all at or beyond worst-case forecasts.

As a result, Australia faces a greater risk of recurring severe droughts and more heatwaves, floods and bushfires.

Download the new report here: Climate Change 2009: Faster Change and More Serious Risks

Report: Climate Change 2009 - Faster Change and More Serious Risks

ANU

July 9th 2009

http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/content/news/report-climate-change-2009-faster-change-and-more-serious-risks/

Today the Australian Government Department of Climate Change released a new report prepared by Professor Will Steffen.  The report draws on the science of climate change since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report which was released in 2007.

Download the new report here: Climate Change 2009: Faster Change and More Serious Risks

US agrees landmark pledge to slash emissions

G8 Summit

G8 commits to cutting carbon output by 80% – and tells China and India to follow suit

By Andrew Grice, Political Editor, in L'Aquila

The Independent, Thursday, 9 July 2009

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/us-agrees-landmark-pledge-to-slash-emissions-1738047.html

The world's richest nations agreed last night to cut their carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 in a dramatic attempt to secure a new global deal to combat climate change.

Leaders of the G8 group of countries also agreed to set a limit of 2C on global temperature rises, the first time they have imposed such a ceiling. In return, they urged developing countries including China and India to cut their emissions by 50 per cent over the same period.

President Barack Obama cleared the way for what Gordon Brown called an "historic agreement" at the G8 summit in Italy by signing the US up to a firm emissions target for the first time – a complete contrast to the intransigence of his predecessor, George Bush. The G8 move is designed to revitalise United Nations-led talks on a global "son of Kyoto" agreement, which reach a climax in Copenhagen in December.In talks in L'Aquila today, President Obama will try to persuade nine non-G8 nations, including China and India, to "jump together" with the G8 countries by agreeing to halve their emissions by 2050.

But an immediate breakthrough in today's 17-nation negotiations is unlikely. The Chinese President, Hu Jintao, returned home from Italy abruptly after ethnic tensions increased in China's western Xinjiang territory. The developing nations want firm guarantees of subsidies from the rich nations' club to help them meet the cost of converting their industries to low-carbon technology. They also want the G8 members to be more specific about their interim targets for reducing emissions by 2020.

Another potential stumbling block is the baseline on which the G8's emissions cuts will be calculated. Their declaration left this unclear, prompting critics to describe it as a fudge. Britain backs a 1990 start date but the US favours a later one – meaning it would have to make a smaller reduction. However, officials hope the G8's gesture will draw developing nations into serious and ultimately successful negotiations by December. One said: "There's a long way to go yet. There will be setbacks along the way. But we now have a decent chance of getting there."

Mr Brown said: "For the first time the G8 has agreed [on] what I believe are vital decisions that take us on the road to Copenhagen and change the way we look at energy policy in the future. We have agreed for the first time that average global temperatures must rise by no more than 2C. That is an historic agreement. We have agreed as the G8 that we want to cut our emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 and we believe that this will allow the world to reduce its emissions by 50 per cent."

The Prime Minister has proposed a $100bn global fund to ease the path to a deal by helping developing countries become more energy efficient. There was no agreement on that last night, while some non-G8 members want a bigger fund.

José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, said: "We are not yet where we would like to be but I think things are [moving] in the right direction for Copenhagen."

But the breakthrough failed to satisfy green groups. While welcoming the G8's move, they criticised the group for failing to produce targets for 2020.

Antonio Hill, a spokesman for the charity Oxfam, said: "The G8 might have agreed to avoid cooking the planet by more than 2C, but they made no attempt to turn down the heat any time soon. 2050 is too far off to matter – poor people are being hit today. We must see emissions cuts of at least 40 per cent by 2020 and G8 money to help the poorest countries cope with climate chaos."

Tobias Muenchmeyer, Greenpeace International's political adviser, said: "While agreeing to keep temperature rise to below 2C without a clear plan, money or targets on how to do this, the G8 leaders will not have helped to break the deadlock in the UN climate negotiations."

Mr Brown scored a victory over the summit host Silvio Berlusconi by securing a shake-up of the G8's system of aid to the world's poorest nations to stop them backsliding on their promises. With Italy and France unlikely to deliver on pledges they made at the Gleneagles summit four years ago, Mr Brown and Mr Obama joined forces to try to prevent a repeat of the failure.

From now on, the G8 club will publish annual progress reports on the aid given by its members. A review next year, by when the Gleneagles promises were due to be kept, will lead to a "Gleaneagles 2" process so that the G8 can "catch up" by 2015, when the landmark Millennium Development Goals are due to be met. The Italian Prime Minister resisted Mr Brown's move for greater accountability over G8 aid commitments, but Japan and Canada joined the US to ensure that Mr Berlusconi was outmanoeuvred.

Greenpeace activists hijack Italian power stations

Protesters climb chimney and occupy conveyor belt at country's biggest coal-burning power station

• John Hooper in Rome
• guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 8 July 2009 15.06 BST
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/08/greenpeace-g8-protest-coal-italy

John Hooper in Rome

Greenpeace activists occuped four coal-fired power stations in Italy yesterday, as G8 leaders met in L'Aquila to discuss issues including action on climate change. More than 100 Greenpeace activists from 18 countries took part in the protests to draw attention to the group's campaign for action by world leaders on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

In Rome, activists from Oxfam International donned masks of world leaders and dressed up as chefs, stirring a mock Earth in a pot representing the planet's rising temperature.

The climate change protests came a day after anti-globalisation groups in the capital blocked roads and rail tracks and clashed with police in violent protests against the G8. Nearly 40 activists were detained.

One of the Greenpeace targets yesterday was Italy's biggest coal-burning power station, at Brindisi in the south-east of the country, where protesters climbed the chimney and occupied the conveyor belt carrying coal into the plant.

A local news agency quoted one of the demonstrators as saying the power station's management had started the belt while the Greenpeace activists were still on it. "At first, they didn't know we were on the conveyor belt", said Serena Bianchi. "Then we went to tell them, but even then we had some difficulty in persuading them to stop everything."

The organisation also occupied working plants near Venice and Genoa and staged a protest at an old oil-fired power station at Porto Tolle in northern Italy that is being converted to coal.

The UK activist Ben Stewart, who previously climbed the Kingsnorth coal power station in 2007 and today climbed a 160ft chimney at a site near Venice, said: "Politicians talk but leaders act. The G8 leaders must stop putting the interests of big coal and other climate polluting industries ahead of the planet and take strong, decisive leadership on climate change."

Three of the four power stations occupied today belong to Italy's biggest electricity generator, ENEL. A spokesman said the company had no comment to make.

Nasa satellites reveal extent of Arctic sea ice loss

Study - based on satellite measurements - among first to estimate the thickness of the Arctic ice, rather than surface area

• David Adam, environment correspondent
• guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 8 July 2009 13.33 BST
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/08/arctic-ice-ocean

The Earth is going thin on top. A new study has revealed that the Arctic Ocean's permanent blanket of ice around the North Pole has thinned by more than 40% since 2004.

Scientists said the rapid loss was "remarkable" and could force experts to reassess how quickly the Arctic ice in the summer may disappear completely. They blame the loss on global warming, which has driven temperatures in the Arctic to record highs and summer ice extent to recent lows.

The study, based on satellite measurements, is among the first to estimate the thickness of the Arctic ice, rather than just its surface area.

Ron Kwok, senior research scientist at Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, said: "Even in years when the overall extent of sea ice remains stable or grows slightly, the thickness and volume of the ice cover is continuing to decline, making the ice more vulnerable to continued shrinkage."

The study looked at measurements taken of the Arctic region by the Icesat satellite, launched in 2003.

Overall, the experts found that the ice, typically up to about 3m thick, thinned by 67cm over the last four winters.

Converting to ice volume, the scientists worked out the amount of so-called multiyear ice, which persists through Arctic summers, had decreased in the winter by up to 6,300 cubic kilometres since 2005 – a decline of more than 40%. The research is published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans.

Kwok said: "Ice volume allows us to calculate annual ice production and gives us an inventory of the fresh water and total ice mass stored in Arctic sea ice. Our data will help scientists better understand how fast the volume of Arctic ice is decreasing and how soon we might see a nearly ice-free Arctic in summer."

Earlier this year, scientists warned that sea ice volume reached a record low in 2008 due to an unusually high proportion of the thinner first year ice.

Donghui Yi, a scientist with Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland who worked on the study, said: "The main reason [for the ice thinning] is the growth in melting of the multiyear ice, which is caused by the warmer weather. More ice melts in summer and then you get less in winter."

The Arctic ice cap fluctuates with the seasons, growing in the freezing winter and shrinking over the summer. An important finding of the study is that the majority of Arctic ice no longer survives the summer. In 2003, this multiyear ice made up 62% of the region's total ice volume. By 2008, this was down to 32%. The remaining 68% was "first-year" seasonal ice, which was open water during the summer, so is thinner and more likely to melt away.

Yi said it would be dangerous to try to use the results to predict when the Arctic might be ice-free in summer.

"Some people might do that but I wouldn't like to do those kinds of linear predictions." More years of data are needed to make an informed judgement, he said.

Unfortunately, the Icesat's data gathering days are nearly over. Two of its three lasers, used to judge the sea ice height, have already failed and the third is on its last legs. Icesat2, the satellite's replacement, is not planned for launch until 2014.

G8 leaders back 2-degree warming limit

By Europe Correspondent Philip Williams and wires

ABC News Online, Posted 9 July 2009

• http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/09/2620762.htm?site=news
• Related Story: Pope pleads for G8 pledge on poverty
• Related Link: G8 meeting final declaration

Leaders of the world's major industrialised nations have reportedly agreed to carbon emission cuts that would limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

The leaders have been meeting at a G8 summit in the central Italian town of L'Aquila.

There is little detail but it is reported developed countries will aim for the biggest cuts - 80 per cent - while developing nations will be required to reduce their emissions by 50 per cent by the target year 2050.

Despite G8 backing for a 50 per cent cut in emissions globally, a broader group of major polluters, including many developing countries such as China and India, dropped a pledge earlier to halve their pollution by 2050.

"We recognise the broad scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees Celsius," the G8 leaders said.

"Because this global challenge can only be met by a global response, we reiterate our willingness to share with all countries the goal of achieving at least a 50 percent reduction of global emission by 2050," they added.

The 50 per cent target was first put in writing at the G8 summit in Japan last year, but according to Japanese Government spokesman Kazuo Kodama, the big eight leaders have struggled to convince major emerging economies to join in.

"You remember G8 achieved a consensus within G8 that G8 will embrace a long-term gas reduction target by 2050?" he said on the margins of the summit, speaking on behalf of Prime Minister Taro Aso.

"Our leaders tried hard to convince the emerging economies in the 'outreach five'. They didn't agree. This year we hoped the MEF countries as a group would also embrace this target but I haven't heard yet there's any agreement."

The Major Economies Forum (MEF) represents the G8 members plus the most important emerging economies, which all together generate 80 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

US President Barack Obama and other leaders face mounting pressure to make ambitious commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions with the clock ticking ahead of a key December meeting in Copenhagen to set international targets.

Swedish Prime Minister Frederik Reinfeldt, whose country holds the European Union's rotating presidency, stressed agreeing an over-arching target to limit global warming to 2C by 2050 would be crucial.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown says the G8 deal paved the way for agreement at the Copenhagen Climate conference later this year.

He said he was confident other non-G8 countries would support the agreement when they meet at the major economies forum at L'Aquila chaired by Mr Obama.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will be at that meeting.

- ABC/AFP

Divided views over 'clean coal' pilot project

Adam Morton

The Age, July 9, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/divided-views-over-clean-coal-pilot-project-20090708-ddf5.html

AUSTRALIA'S most greenhouse-intensive power station is denting its carbon footprint by 25 tonnes a day — just 0.05 per cent of its total emissions — under a pilot project described as a potential future for coal-fired electricity.

The $10 million "clean coal" demonstration at Hazelwood power station in the Latrobe Valley is the biggest carbon-capture plant yet installed in Australia. It is also expensive, with green groups estimating it costs at least $1100 for each tonne of carbon dioxide captured. Backed by more than $5 million of state and federal climate change funding, the project extracts carbon dioxide and chemically converts it into calcium carbonate.

Victorian Energy Minister Peter Batchelor yesterday hailed it as "world-leading technology". He said it was one of seven carbon-capture plants in Victoria being used to find the cheapest way of reducing emissions from coal-fired power.

"It is technology such as this that will help Victoria and its coal-fired generation meet the climate change challenge," he said.

But Environment Victoria campaigns director Mark Wakeham said taxpayer backing for a project that did little to cut emissions was perverse.

He said the quarter of Victoria's electricity generated at Hazelwood could be replaced by cleaner gas-fired power within two years.

"This project probably has more to do with attempting to maintain Hazelwood's social licence to operate than reduce emissions," he said.

Mr Batchelor responded: "To say that this is money that has not been well spent is quite clearly irresponsible; it is against the environment and it is a bit silly really."

Carbon capture and storage — most often turning greenhouse gas into a liquid and burying it deep underground — is at least a decade away from being commercially proven.

It is opposed by some green groups but backed by industry and governments as a vital part of the solution to climate change. The Federal Government's $100 million Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute aims to set up 20 large-scale plants by 2020.

Neither Mr Batchelor nor the management of Hazelwood's majority owner, International Power, would say yesterday what the pilot project might mean for Hazelwood's lifespan.

Built in the 1960s, Hazelwood was due to be decommissioned in 2005 but controversially had its lifespan extended until 2031. It is estimated to emit 18 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.

International Power Australia executive director Tony Concannon said early results from the project were promising. "However, it will be some time before (the company) is in a position to determine if this technology is suitable to be rolled out to other Hazelwood generating units or, indeed, other fossil-fuel-fired power stations," he said.

Setback for hopes on emissions

Michelle Grattan

The Age, July 9, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/setback-for-hopes-on-emissions-20090708-ddf0.html

HOPES of a significant climate treaty in Copenhagen have been set back by developing-country officials refusing to sign on to a broad goal of cutting global greenhouse gas emissions in half by mid-century.

A meeting in Rome of climate ministers and officials of the 17 member countries of the Major Economies Forum, including Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, on Tuesday failed to agree to even aspirational targets to cut emissions by 2050.

It is a change from a draft text that arose from an earlier ministerial-level meeting that proposed that global emissions should be cut by 50 per cent by 2050, with rich nations reducing emissions by at least 80 per cent.

The numbers have been removed from text to be discussed today by the leaders of the major economies in Italy.

Chaired by US President Barack Obama, the meeting is on the sidelines of the annual meeting of the Group of Eight leading economic powers. The meeting brings together the countries responsible for nearly 80 per cent of global emissions and is seen as important to provide leadership to protracted United Nations negotiations due to culminate in December.

The draft to be considered by leaders, including Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, is believed to include a reference to limiting global warming to within 2 degrees, and nomination of a year by which global emissions should stop rising, or peak. The proposed year has been 2020.

Preliminary discussions were said to be good natured, but stalled when China and India said rich countries must be willing to cut emissions by 40 per cent by 2020 if they expected emerging economies to agree to long-term reduction goals.

US and European officials say nations such as China are doing a lot domestically, but must do more as part of a worldwide pact.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel last night warned that climate change limits were unlikely to be decided in Italy this week, sparking anxiety in Europe that the US may be at the heart of the stalemate and is negotiating directly with China.

Dr Merkel issued her call for caution during a joint news conference with Mr Rudd, after an hour-long meeting on the eve of the G8 talks.

Both leaders made it clear it would be difficult for the Major Economies Forum to clear the stalemate before Copenhagen.

Mr Rudd also appeared to hint at a stumbling block: "It is highly unlikely that anything will emerge from the MEF in terms of detailed programmatic specificity … but we as political leaders need to give our negotiators a fresh negotiating mandate, because we are running out of time between now and Copenhagen at the end of the year."

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has put Mr Rudd on the spot by declaring he has backed a proposal to create a $122 billion climate change fund for poor countries.

Mr Brown told a London briefing that he believed he already had Mr Rudd's "in principle" support for his fund plan.

Australian Government sources were surprised, believing the commitment by Mr Rudd had not been so specific.

Acting Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said yesterday that "at this point we have made no commitment to any specific proposal".

$10m Latrobe Valley carbon capture plant opens

ABC News Online, 8 July 2009

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/08/2620053.htm?site=news

International Power has officially opened its carbon capture and storage demonstration plant at its Hazelwood power station in the Latrobe Valley, in Victoria's south-east.

The $10 million project received funds from the state and federal governments to capture CO2 in a solid chemical form and store it above ground.

The project is one of the biggest carbon capture plants installed at an Australian power station.

Victorian Energy Minister Peter Batchelor launched the project today.

The process takes emissions from the power station smoke stacks, extracts CO2 and uses a chemical process to turn it into calcium carbonate.

The resulting solid can then be stored above ground or sold to industry.

Mr Batchelor says it is one of a range of options being investigated to store the power industry emissions.

"Where you produce a product, you quickly find a market but the really important task here is to recognise thath this is taking technology that's worked in the laboratory, in the research and development phase, and taking it to an industrial scale development," he said.

But Environment Victoria has labelled the project a waste of taxpayer funds.

A spokesman for the group, Mark Wakeham, says the plant will capture about 25 tonnes of carbon dioxide a day.

But he says the power station produces about 50,000 tonnes of CO2 for the same period.

"The power station is long past its use-by date," he said.

"To spend $2 million of taxpayers' money on this project, they could have achieved much larger emissions reductions by spending that money on energy efficiency and on clean energy generation in the Latrobe Valley."

Time's up for old industry

• Erwin Jackson
• The Age, July 7, 2009
• http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/times-up-for-old-industry-20090706-daeg.html?page=-1

OVER the past decade, investments and jobs in clean energy have been leaving Australia for countries such as Germany and China, which have strong policies to drive low-carbon growth. And further delay is costing jobs at home, as a friend of mine has just discovered. An adviser to business on how to make the most of low-carbon industry growth, she sent me an email the other day saying that she had lost her job. She had been laid off because of political wr