Category: Climate chaos

Check out the Guardian article

Current approaches to deal with climate change are ineffectual, one of the world’s top climate scientists said today in a personal new year appeal to Barack Obama and his wife Michelle on the urgent need to tackle global warming.

With less than three weeks to go until Obama’s inauguration, Prof James Hansen, head of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, asked the recently appointed White House science adviser Prof John Holdren to pass the missive directly to the president-elect.

Obama spoke repeatedly during his campaign about the need to tackle climate change, and environmentalists fervently hope he will live up to his promises to pursue green policies.

The letter, from Hansen and his wife Anniek, is a personal plea to the first couple. It begins: “We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that will be inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born … Jim has advised governments previously through regular channels. But urgency now dictates a personal appeal.”

In a covering letter to Holdren, Hansen explains that he wrote the letter a few weeks ago while in London. His wife had suffered a heart attack (“fortunately we were near a very good hospital”) and while they waited for doctors to give the go-ahead to fly back to the US he decided to compose his petition to the new first family.

Hansen has been one of the most prominent advocates of action to tackle climate change since he first spoke on the issue at congressional hearings in the 1980s. His testimony to the senate featured in Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth and he has received numerous honours for his work on the issue, including the WWF’s top conservation award.

Hansen wrote that there is a “profound disconnect” between public policy on climate change and the magnitude of the problem as described by the science. He praised Obama’s campaign rhetoric about “a planet in peril”, but said that how the new president responds in office will be crucial. The letter contains a wish list of three policy measures to tackle global warming.

Hansen lambasts the current international approach of setting targets to be met through “cap and trade” schemes as not up to the task. “This approach is ineffectual and not commensurate with the climate threat. It could waste another decade, locking in disastrous consequences for our planet and humanity,” the Hansens wrote.

The letter will make uncomfortable reading for officials in 10 north-eastern and middle–Atlantic states whose carbon cap and trade mechanism – the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative – got under way today. The scheme is the first mandatory, market-based greenhouse gas reduction programme in the US and it aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector by 10% by 2018.

Hansen advocates a three-pronged attack on the climate problem – all measures he has promoted before. First, he wants a moratorium and phase-out of coal-fired power stations – which he calls “factories of death” – that do not incorporate carbon capture and storage.

“Coal is responsible for as much atmospheric carbon dioxide as the other fossil fuels combined, and its reserves make coal even more important for the long run,” the Hansens wrote.

Second, he proposes a “carbon tax and 100% dividend”: a mechanism for putting a price on carbon without raising money for government coffers. The idea is to tax carbon at source, then redistribute the revenue equally among taxpayers, so high carbon users are penalised while low carbon users are rewarded.

Finally, Hansen wants a renewed research effort into so-called fourth generation nuclear plants, which can use nuclear waste as fuel. “In our opinion [fourth generation nuclear power] deserves your strong support, because it has the potential to help solve past problems with nuclear power: nuclear waste, the need to mine for nuclear fuel, and release of radioactive material.”

Hansen argues that the current emphasis on reduction targets combined with carbon trading schemes make it too easy for countries to wriggle out of their commitments. He cites the example of Japan’s increasing coal use – the dirtiest fuel in terms of carbon emissions. To offset these increases in emissions Japan has bought credits from China through the clean development mechanism – an instrument set up by the Kyoto protocol – yet China’s emissions have continued to increase rapidly. China has now overtaken the US as the biggest polluter in the world.

“Nobody realistically expects that the large readily available pools of oil and gas will be left in the ground. Caps will not cause that to happen – caps only slow the rate at which the oil and gas are used. The only solution is to cut off the coal source,” the Hansens wrote.

With the target date for the Kyoto Protocol’s successor agreement still a year away, and a lame duck U.S. delegation in attendance, nobody expected a watershed moment at the recently concluded climate change conference (COP-14) in Poznan, Poland. While delegates made modest progress on some key issues, the real stuff happened outside the negotiations, as the leaders of some of the highest-emitting and fastest-growing economies pledged to reduce their countries’ greenhouse gas emissions.

Brazil announced it would reduce its deforestation rate over 50 percent from recent levels by 2017, avoiding an estimated 4.8 billion tons of CO2 emissions. Mexico pledged to halve its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, employing a “cap-and-trade” policy like the one recently considered by the U.S. Congress. South Africa presented a detailed plan to peak their country’s emissions by 2020. And while China—now the world’s largest source of annual greenhouse gas emissions—made no new announcements in Poznan, it is on track to reduce its energy intensity 20 percent by 2010. In 2007 alone, China closed over 1,000 inefficient factories.

These developments are significant for two reasons. First, these four countries collectively account for nearly a quarter of global emissions. More importantly, China, South Africa, Brazil and Mexico are all developing countries—”non-Annex I countries” in the parlance of the Kyoto Protocol. Critics perennially complain that international efforts to address global warming won’t work unless developing countries—which account for just over half of all global greenhouse gases—take action to reduce their emissions. For their part, developing countries have resisted emissions targets, arguing, legitimately I think, that developed countries have contributed the lion’s share of emissions so far, and should lead in making reductions. In any case, the argument that developing countries are taking no action is wrong. This month’s pronouncements signal a growing urgency on the part of emerging economies to shift their own development to a more sustainable path.

While the new targets are politically significant, their impact on emissions and domestic policy remains to be seen. Brazil’s plan, for example, has come under fire by local environmental groups, who charge that it lacks ambition (the first phase of its target was largely achieved before the plan was even announced) and means little without an implementation plan. There is no doubt that China’s plans are being implemented, but as long as China’s economic growth outpaces its intensity targets, they will not result in absolute emissions reductions. Per-capita Chinese energy consumption is still well below that in the United States, so reducing emissions intensity is a reasonable near-term goal. Ultimately though, we will need absolute reductions in China as basic energy demand is satisfied and new technology options materialize.

Developing countries have come a long way since the US Senate refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol because it did not require them to act. President-elect Obama has stated that his administration will seek deep emissions cuts in the U.S., but Congress will no doubt have an eye on China as it considers what policies to enact. A clear understanding of developing country climate and energy policies will be key to fostering confidence that emissions reductions at home will not be negated by unconstrained growth abroad.

For their part, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa have made at least some of their efforts contingent on outside support, and the Chinese used their program to call on developed countries for greater action. Mexican environment minister Juan Rafael Elvira said that his country’s target was meant to spur other countries to reduce their own emissions—and to help Mexico attract investment to make its reductions. South Africa has divided its plan into low- and no-cost efforts it can tackle alone and additional efforts it could undertake with international assistance.

As the Obama administration takes up the negotiating reins, it will be navigating a very different terrain than the one in which the Kyoto Protocol was agreed in 1997. Developing countries have presented a range of initiatives that they are prepared to take forward either unilaterally or with international support. The U.S. must now act quickly to pass strong legislation to spur an economic recovery while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Internationally, the U.S. must seek a fair and effective agreement that supports the initiatives already underway in developing countries. A significant part of the global community is ready to do its part. So must the United States.

From Australian Geo Science

The Asia-Pacific region experiences some of the world’s worst natural hazards-frequent earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, cyclones and annual monsoons. It also includes many of the world’s megacities-those with more than 8 million people-so the number of people exposed to hazard risks in the region is very high.

There is abundant evidence that natural disasters disproportionately affect developing countries. Between 1991 and 2005, more than 90% of natural disaster deaths and 98% of people affected by natural disasters were from developing countries (OFDA/CRED International Disasters Database EM-DAT). Moreover, disasters are increasing in number and size every year due to a number of factors including rapid population growth, urbanisation and climate change.

Implications for international aid programs

The high risk of natural disasters in developing nations has considerable implications for international aid programs. Natural disasters can significantly compromise development progress, reduce the effectiveness of aid investments, and halt or slow progress towards the achievement of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). For example, progress MDG 1—halving poverty and hunger by 2015—may be halted or reversed during a natural disaster. Furthermore, aid resources may be diverted to humanitarian and emergency responses which can impact on development programs in areas not directly affected by a disaster.

Natural hazard risks also influence the type and scale of disaster relief and humanitarian response required of aid agencies. Relatively infrequent, high-magnitude, natural disasters, such as the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, are most likely to overwhelm the capacities of local and national governments and to require significant international humanitarian assistance.

With increasing recognition that disasters erode hard-won development gains, international policymakers have focused on disaster risk reduction (such as the Hyogo Framework for Action). In line with this trend, the Australian Government, through the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), has placed greater emphasis on the reduction of natural hazard risk in developing countries.

Improving our understanding of the frequency, location and magnitude of sudden-onset natural disasters will help the Australian Government and AusAID plan and prepare for natural disaster response (for example, through the strategic placement of emergency supplies). Recognising the impact of disasters on the progress of development, the Australian Government decided in 2007 to enhance the humanitarian response, preparedness and capacity of partner governments. In particular, that decision recognised a need for better natural hazard risk assessments.

Figure 1. Countries included in this study, colour-coded according to the priority their natural hazard risk was given for the study. Primary focus countries are highlighted in red, countries of interest in orange, and secondary focus countries in pale yellow. (Larger image GIF 260kb]).

In 2007, as part of this strategic approach, Geoscience Australia’s Natural Hazard Impacts Project conducted a broad hazard risk assessment of the Asia-Pacific region for AusAID. The assessment included earthquake, volcanic eruption, tsunami, cyclone, flood, landslide and wildfire hazards, with particular attention given to countries the Australian Government considered to be high priority, of interest or of secondary focus

Energy Secretary of the United Kingdom, Ed Milibrand,  told the Financial Times on December 21^st that the government would not ban new coal fired power stations if such a ban threatened the energy security of the island nation. The UK Climate Change Act 2008 commits the nation to a 20 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, a minimum of 15 percent of energy to be renewable and feed-in tariffs to reward householders and business who install grid interactive power generation. The coal industry has been lobbying for recognition of its investment in carbon capture and storage technologies. It claims that clean coal can be part of a low carbon future. Lobbyists for clean coal in the United States are spending millions of dollars on a campaign to redefine the term

See the full NOOA report  or read this summary

Indo-Pacific Bleaching Outlook:

The area most likely to suffer thermal stress with the potential for severe bleaching during the next 15 weeks is a region spanning Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and the Far Northern section of the GBR. Less severe thermal stress is expected in a broader region including all of the Cairns section of the GBR. To the west, the model currently predicts a threat of moderate levels of thermal stress from southern Borneo across through Timor-Leste to southern Papua New Guinea and Torres Strait. This level of potential stress then picks up in the central GBR and east extending across Vanuatu and New Caledonia to the east-southeast of Fiji. Some mild stress may be seen around Madagascar. The greatest warming is expected to begin from late January through February.

Last Christmas, Rudd visited Australian troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; back in Canberra for his first Christmas Day at the Lodge, he visited a homeless shelter as part of his deep commitment to doing something about homelessness.

This week he saw the Australian troops in southern Afghanistan and, as he wings his way back to Canberra, is planning to meet his promise, just, of releasing a report on homelessness before Christmas.

As Labor’s first Prime Minister in 12years and only the third elected from Opposition since World War II, Rudd was hell-bent on keeping his promises. It was part of a determination to deliver what he said he would, to ensure the electorate did not lose faith in his word, and to compare favourably with other incoming administrations that junked election promises once in office.

Overall, the Rudd Government has delivered on its specific promises, particularly in the budget, and Rudd and Wayne Swan have declared, rightly, that they have kept faith with the electorate. The early emotional high points were the ratification in Bali of the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions only days after the election, the delivery of a parliamentary apology to the Stolen Generations, the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and this week’s unveiling of an emissions trading scheme.

The parliamentary apology remains the apogee of Rudd’s first year, a symbolic act that not only satisfied and pleased his supporters but also gained credit from those who were originally opposed to it. Thanks to the support of Brendan Nelson, the apology became bipartisan, common political ground, bringing strong and enduring credit to Rudd well beyond party lines.

But while keeping the first two promises, on Kyoto and the apology, met with unashamed acclaim, the last has been greeted with a good deal of shaming condemnation from those who most vigorously supported Labor’s promises on climate change in Opposition. The disappointment from environmental groups on the detail of the emissions trading scheme is the first real dissension to appear over Labor’s promises and the public’s expectations, yet it is only one of several areas where Labor has failed to deliver, has provided only sham commitments, has not filled the gap between rhetoric and reality or has falsely claimed a mandate for changes that go beyond its election promises.

There is also an underlying danger – notwithstanding the genuine threat of the global financial crisis – that Rudd’s natural bias towards a big-spending, nation-building government is coming to the fore as he moves away from his crucial characterisation as a fiscal conservative.

Apart from the bringing forward of billions in infrastructure spending and assisting the states to borrow billions more, the compensation element of Rudd’s emissions trading scheme looks more like a wealth-shifting exercise than a scheme designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Of course, the biggest problem for Rudd with his climate change policy is the gap between expectations and the reality of delivery. John Howard was accused of being in the pocket of big business, only interested in old king coal, not caring for the Great Barrier Reef and not accepting the science of man-made climate change. After his low-impact, high-compensation – and as industry-friendly as possible – emissions trading scheme, Rudd is being accused of exactly the same environmental crimes. However, when compared with some of the pea and thimble acts on other promises and expectations, the emissions trading scheme is notable not for being a failed promise but for being the first to engender real disappointment.

The most spectacular failure to deliver on a straight election promise has been Labor’s inability to meet its undertaking to provide high-speed broadband services for more than 98per cent of Australians beginning this year. This was a core Labor promise, put up with Telstra’s backing as an alternative to the Coalition’s scheme, and its largest single infrastructure commitment.

Even in March Communications Minister Stephen Conroy was repeating the election promise of having tenders let for a new system and for construction to begin before the end of the year.

“I expect to be able to give final government approval by the end of August or early September, and hope construction will commence before the end of the year,” Conroy said.

That promise is now officially a dud. The tender process is a mess and the prospects of legal wrangling and commercial brawling threaten to derail and delay the entire process.

This slippage has been occurring for a while but it is clear that the broadband failure – not the low-start, Howard-lite emissions trading scheme – is Labor’s biggest, clearest failure to deliver on a promise.

The other key area of broken faith with the electorate is within the area of industrial relations and this will become more apparent as Julia Gillard’s Fair Work Bill is examined in the Senate next year as a rise in unemployment takes hold. This is a broken promise because Labor said it would not go beyond the return of union power set out in its policy document.

We know from polling before and during the election campaign that the public intensely disliked the Howard government’s Work Choices legislations, especially the unfair dismissal laws, but we also know there were realconcerns about empowering union officials.

The provisions on right of entry for union officials are a breach of Labor’s faith on industrial relations changes.

Rudd has slipped past responsibility for other failures by suggesting they never were official promises, that he can’t be held responsible for the electorate’s expectations, or by carrying out pointless exercises that enable him to tick a box on promises kept. The $2million in wasted taxpayers’ funds over the pointless pursuit of the Japanese whaling fleet, the ignominious retreat on international court action over Iran’s rogue leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the agitprop solutions to rising petrol and food prices of FuelWatch and Grocerychoice all failed to match the rhetorical promise.

Rudd previously has failed to meet his election undertakings, but it has taken the disappointment of those supporters expecting him to be less like Howard on emissions trading to make it an issue.