The G20’s new guidelines will help investors tackle climate change

New guidelines being presented to the G20 this weekend will change the way individuals, companies, investors and regulators manage the financial risks of climate change. These risks include physical events, such as changing weather patterns and natural disasters, as well as new technologies and regulations.

Rosemary Sainty - G20 guidelines will help
investors manage climate change risks.

As big investors adopt the guidelines, the companies in their portfolios will be pressured to report on climate change. This will make it easier for investors of all kinds to understand the impacts of climate change on their portfolios, and to assess new opportunities, such as new products and services that will be required and developed.

Companies like BHP have already begun reporting on how climate change will affect their businesses. But, until now, corporate disclosure on climate change has been patchy, shallow and not always financially relevant.

Read the piece on The Conversation by the Scholarly Teaching Fellow at the UTS Business School from Sydney’s University of Technology, Rosemary Sainty -  “The G20’s new guidelines will help investors tackle climate change.”

Nature and wildlife need a seat at the table

Whether we consider wild weather, unprecedented Arctic melting and global temperatures, or the Great Barrier Reef, the global environment is generating alarming news. Predictions of multi-metre sea level rises, the collapse of marine biodiversity and food chains, and global warming far beyond 2℃ are equally concerning. Is our system of global environmental law and governance adequate to this crisis?

Our short answer is “no”, but what should be done? We believe new international institutions and laws are needed, with one fundamental purpose: to give a voice to ecosystems and non-human forms of life.

We say this knowing that the current global system is inadequate to respond to many human crises, but with the conviction that environmental justice often overlaps with social justice.

It is tempting to believe that we can muddle through with the existing system, centred on the United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change and Convention on Biological Diversity. But these are not integrated with each other, and are also kept separate from global economic and trade institutions like the World Trade Organisation, the G20 and the World Bank, and from global security institutions like the UN Security Council. The latter has never passed a resolution about the environment, despite growing warnings from military strategists of the potential for climate-catalysed conflict.

Read the piece on The Conversation by the Associate Professor of International and Political Studies at the University of NSW,  Anthony Burke, and an Assistant Professor from the University of Alabama, Stefanie Fishel -  "Politics for the planet: why nature and wildlife need their own seats at the UN.”

Definitive document, flexible principles

The sight the greeted G20
delegates telling them how
wonderful mining was in
Australia.

Participants in the recent G20 Summit in Brisbane were invited to Australia under the premise that they were to talk about growth, and they did.

Part of their welcome pack was a glossy brochure of more than 150 pages in which Australian Government leaders from the Prime Minister down clearly articulated that the summit would be unalterably about growth.

The G20 Brisbane 2014 “Delegate Publication” left little doubt in the minds of world leaders when Pages two and three combined for a double-page picture of three fully laden coal ships sat above the words: “Australian Mining – Australia’s $210 billion export powerhouse”.

The Minerals Council of Australia sponsored advertisement illustrated unequivocally that Australia’s future was linked to coal, emphazing recent observations from PM Tony Abbott that coal is good for humanity.

The final communique from the summit reflected the Australian treasurer Joe Hockey’s year-long plea for at least a two per cent growth in international gross domestic product.

The 150 page plus
brochure that all
delegates to the recent
 G20 Summit received.

Arrival at that final point was not, as it turned out, without its dramas, distractions and disruptions as the push for growth was for a moment almost obliterated when China and the U.S. announced on the eve of the summit they had made a game changing announcement about their intentions to actively mitigate circumstances that injure the world’s environment and so lead to climate change.

Climate change was never seen by the Australian Government as a legitimate issue for inclusion in summit discussions, although many nations understand and so realised that a benign climate was integral and necessary part of a the world’s economy.

Mr Abbott, who has been described as a former boss when he worked as a press secretary, as having ”very flexible principles” obviously talked with many world leaders over the last week or so and in today’s Melbourne Age said climate change was an important subject.

And so, it seems, our PM has gone from describing climate change as “crap” to seeing it as an “important subject.” Yes, he has “very flexible principles”.

This quite remarkable, and somewhat hard to believe change of heart came after discussion with French President François Hollande and that was reported by The Age in a story headed: “Abbott finds his French Connection on emission controls.”

Many world leaders face an intellectually impassable chasm

Many of the world leaders understand, but to the Abbott-led Australian Government it appears to be an intellectually impassable chasm.

Herman Daly's book has
been around since 1977
and it is long past time
it was read and taken
seriously by world leaders.

Climate change is rooted in complex science, but its impacts are real and understandable and its mitigation and processes of arrival at that are equally real and understandable.

The difficulty that many face, particularly the Abbott-led coalition, revolves around a new understanding of growth, making a lie of the goals at the present Brisbane G20 Summit.

Prime Minister Abbot and his principal cheer leader, Treasurer Joe Hockey, want the Brisbane G20 to agree on two per cent in the gross domestic product (GDP) for the world.

Sounds good, but defies all clearly understood mathematical realities of trying to achieve infinite growth in a finite world.

Also, the type of growth advocated by Australia’s PM and Treasurer flies in the face of what is needed if the world, and Australia, is to play a real and influential role in climate change mitigation.

Rather than advocating for growth as it is understood by his contemporary counterparts, Mr Abbott should be encouraging his fellow G20 participants to first read the work of Herman Daly who wrote in 1977 about the world’s need of steady-state economics and then talk about how they should shape business in the world.

Not everyone is as remote from the realities the world faces as Turkey's prime minister has described climate change in he Melbourne Age today as "the biggest challenge to all humanity today" and outlined a much broader and more inclusive agenda for when his country succeeds Australia as chair of the G20 next month.

Good sense cannot combat hardened philosophical beliefs

When people make statements and adopt a philosophical position it becomes almost impossible to change their mind and any attempt to do so only sees them harden their beliefs.

And that strengthened belief is not only defiant of good sense, but frequently puts important relationships at risk.

An example of that can be seen at next G20 forum in Brisbane at which Australia’s Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, first refused to even discuss climate change and now, despite international calls, will not commit Australia to any support for a climate change fund.

The Guardian tells readers that Europe and the US argue strongly that leaders should back the need for contributions to the Green Climate Fund, which helps poorer countries prepare for climate change.

That story headed: “G20: Australia resists international call supporting climate change fund” explains Australia continues to resist this last ditch effort to have it participate in the Green Climate Fund.

Prof. Williams tells of the need to discuss climate change at the G20 Forum

Prof Jeremy Williams.

The G20 economies generate 80% of the world’s carbon emissions.

Representatives of nations responsible for those emissions will be in Brisbane next month for the annual G20 Forum and yet Australian PM Tony Abbott has declared the manifestation of those emissions, climate change, will not be discussed.

Yet U.S. President Obama’s deputy national security adviser for international economics, Caroline Atkinson, has made the point that the group should give a political push to “specific steps” to address climate change.

Writing on The Conversation the director of the Asia Pacific Centre for Sustainable Enterprise Griffith University, Professor Jeremy Williams, said climate change is actually good for a nation’s GDP.

In a story headed: “Abbott’s G20 agenda: climate still the elephant in the room” he said, “Expenditure of this kind, however, is preserving and defending our well-being, not enhancing it”.

'Shorthand' confuses Australia Prime Minister

Tony Abbott is confused about many things, among them what growth is really “shorthand” for.

According to Australia’s PM, “…. economic growth is really just economists' shorthand for more jobs, higher pay, new industries, and the better life that only greater wealth can provide."

It’s not. It’s actually shorthand for a worsening of what he has called “darkening times”.

Economic growth, despite his optimism, is simply about inequality and the strengthening of a social malaise that favours less than one per cent of the world’s population and, critically, further disrupts the world’s deteriorating climate.

In today’s Mark Kenny story in The Age, Mr Abbott said, "Our G20 goal is to boost output by an extra 2 per cent over the next five years to create millions of jobs and to generate trillions in wealth right around the world.”

"Likewise the post-2015 Development Agenda should focus on economic growth because growth makes every other social goal, even tackling climate change, easier to accomplish,” he said.

Discuss climate at G20 forum - Ross Garnaut

Ross Garnaut at last night's
 University of Melbourne lecture.

Climate change needs to be among discussions at his year’s G20 forum according to economist and expert climate policy analyst, Professor Ross Garnaut.

The Melbourne based economist, who was an adviser to the former Labor Government, argued for the G20 discussions when answering a question from the floor after a public lecture at the Carillo Gantner Theatre at the University of Melbourne last night.

Age environment editor, Tom Arup, reported on the lecture in a story headed: “Climate hope in China coal turnaround: Ross Garnaut”.

Arup wrote: “The international goal of halting global warming at 2 degrees is now within reach because China has slowed the growth of its coal use, despite continuing to economically develop, climate policy expert Ross Garnaut says”.

Professor Garnaut said, according to Arup’s story, that the fall in the emissions intensity of Chinese economic growth was the result of new development policies pursued by Beijing over the past six years, which could serve as a model for other developing nations.

Climate change warrants top billing at G20 Forum

-      Robert McLean

A few weeks ago I wrote a potential newspaper column about the importance of climate change being on the G20 agenda, but sensing a decided reluctance from my editor about further columns mentioning the climate dilemma, it has simply languished among unused and unpublished items.

Labor Leader, Bill Shorten - he
believes climate change
should be discussed at the G20.

 

Seeing this piece (link follows) from Michelle Grattan discussing the similar idea being suggested by Labor Leader, Bill Shorten encourages me to submit it.

This is what I wrote recently:

 

Climate change should be the first order of business at the November G20 forum in Brisbane.

Consideration of climate change would allow those at the forum to make informed and reasoned judgements about economic cooperation and decision making.

Any decisions made without first recognising and allowing for the differences climate change will bring to our market-driven society are irresponsible.

Economic growth, as understood by most, is entirely dependent upon a benign climate and the uninhibited access to the earth’s finite resources; resources that have taken billions of years to accumulate.

That ageless resource is now so depleted and subsequently becoming so scarce and expensive that to enhance a process depending on unlimited “everything” is not only reckless, but maybe even a crime against humanity.

Strong words: words that elicit thoughts of the Yeats poem, “The Second Coming” in which he writes: “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”.

The equations that will drive our ultimate demise are not complicated and to understand and accept them requires little more than primary school mathematics and nothing of the arcane, convoluted and bizarre intellectual trickery the will prevail at Brisbane in November.

Our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, one who stands among those who deny global warming, has already declared that climate change will not be allowed to interfere with the “important” talks at the Brisbane forum.

Taken from its own website, the G20 says:

“Strengthening growth and creating jobs is our top priority and we are fully committed to taking decisive actions to return to a job-rich, strong, sustainable and balanced growth path. … We will identify the remaining key obstacles to be addressed and reforms needed to achieve stronger, more sustainable and balanced growth in our economies”.

These obviously highly-intelligent people appear to be locked into fantasy-fuelled beliefs that technology will rescue humanity from this collision of economic chaos, resource depletion, over-population, governance disorder and seemingly endless military confrontation.

Meeting last year in St Petersburg, the G20 leaders said their immediate task was to break the cycle of low growth and diminished business and consumer confidence.

The G20 argues it is well placed to do this in Brisbane this year.

Should they be serious about global economic security then they must first consider the impact of climate change; restructure the global economy to ensure financial equality for all, end the hugely disparate earnings around the world; truly understand what “sustainable” means; ensure gender equality; invest heavily in building resilience in communities; and educate and help people understand how they can grow and provide much of their own food.

Organic growth, and resilience, will sprout from communities of a type sadly unlikely to be considered at Brisbane in November.

Quoting Yeats again: “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”.

And now Michelle Grattan has written on The Conversation about Labor leader, Bill Shorten arguing for the same thing,

Her story is headed: “Shorten urges climate issues be a priority at G20”.

Climate change off the G20 agenda

Foreign Minister,
Julia Bishop.

The November G20 summit in Brisbane is exactly the place at which climate change mitigation should be discussed.

An Australian Network News story headed: “No priority for climate change at G20: Australia” quotes Australian Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, who said climate change discussions will not be given any priority.

Conscious that the goals of G20 nations are actually the drivers of climate change, the head of World Vision Australia, Tim Costello, has said the G20 must address issues concerning climate change.

He said Pacific nations are not involved with G20, but the issues affecting their well-being, prime among them climate change, must be discussed at the Brisbane event.

PM chastised for 'backward' thinking

Australia’s Prime Minister simply doesn’t understand.

A story in today’s Melbourne Age headed: “Climate change ‘off’ G20 agenda” tells us that Tony Abbott has suggested that any discussion about climate change does not fit the meetings economic focus.

Greens Leader has chastised the PM for his backward thinking in not understanding the connection between climate change and economics.

G20 - naive, wilfully ignorant, actually ignorant, irresponsible or simply foolish?

by Robert McLean

Joe Hockey and his G20 counterparts don’t know about, don’t understand or don’t care about the indisputable facts spelt out in the 1970s by the Club of Rome.

Arising from their recent Sydney meeting was a pledge to develop “ambitious but realistic” policies to add more than $US2 trillion to global gross domestic product over five years.

That pledge, if you take note of the realities described by the Club of Rome in its 1974 book “Limits to Growth”, is not only unsustainable, but wholly irresponsible.

The late systems analyst, author, environmental scientist and teacher, Donella Meadows, examined and explained the finitude of earth’s resources, considered present and likely usage, population growth, wrote about her findings and warned the world of difficult times ahead.

Meadows’ work was acclaimed by those aware of the world’s unfolding social and resource difficulties, but subjected to a barrage of criticism from many.

Ms Meadows penned the book in the 70s and although there was then an understanding of the damage caused to our atmosphere by fossil fuels it was not until the eighties the American scientist James Hansen spelt the complications of human activities linking it irrefutably to market-driven growth.

Mr Hockey, his fellow finance ministers and central bankers have, in signing up to boost world growth have simply worsened difficulties the world already faces.

The G20 pledge is populist in that it fits neatly with what has become human nature to have more, but today we know that “more” in its modern sense equates with a damaged climate, manifested as weather foreign to what most are familiar with and upon which humanity depends.

Rather than align themselves with the brutality of unfeeling growth, those who attend such events as the recent G20, need to be considering how nations understand and deal with the certainty of contraction and a world in which resources will become rarer and subsequently more expensive.

Rather than exhorting people to seek solutions to what ails them through growth, they need to work at understanding the “Limits to Growth” and lead a discussion about how people of the world can find contentment through living a more restrained life.

Such a conversation is contrary to the urgings of the market-driven system, but it is a necessary one for if we continue with business as usual and such things as the G20 Pledge, humanity’s grip on this rather slippery slope will be weakened even more.

The courage to address such ideas is in short supply for it demands a break with what exists and a willingness to take society in a fresh and safer direction; a challenge that is beyond most world leaders who do nought but muddy facts through the proselytizing of fallacies.