Academics report on 'exuberance and euphoria' of Paris

Cathy Alexander saw the Paris
agreement as a "game changer"
but could not foresee what the
Australian Government was about
to do in plumping for fossil fuels.

Our first Climate Conversation seminar for 2016 kicked off with a robust discussion from our academic delegates who attended the Paris COP21 climate conference.

 “There was exuberance, dancing on the stage, a sense of euphoria”, is how Peter Christoff describes the ambience when the gavel went down at the 2015 climate negotiations in Paris. The focus of Tuesday’s Climate Conversations, the first in MSSI’s 2016 schedule, was to reflect on the outcomes of the Paris conference and to dissect what was really achieved, what it means for Australia and the world, and how to progress from here. The expert panel consisted of four MSSI members, all of whom were on the ground in Paris, representing the University of Melbourne: Peter Christoff, Robyn Eckersley, Cathy Alexander and Don Henry. This post is a summary of the key issues raised by the panel.

Read the piece by Anita Talberg,  of the Australian-German Climate and Energy College, written for the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute - “After Paris—what now for climate policy and research?”

 

 

(“If you’re sniffing the wind, the trend of history is heading towards stronger climate action”. This was Cathy Alexander’s key message to Australian politicians.

She saw, “the Paris Agreement is a game changer for Australia, albeit a slow-burning one”, but she was not able to foresee the events of this week when the Australian Government retreated to its bunker and plumped for the fossil fuel industry.

The Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Christopher Pyne, announced creation of the Energy Resources Growth Centre aimed at driving innovation, competitiveness and productivity across the oil, gas, coal and uranium sectors.

The events and jubilation of Paris are worse than a fading memory, they have been totally forgotten – Robert McLean).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many confused about two degree limit, preferring the warmth to the cold

T

he idea of what is and isn’t a safe temperature for humans is confusing for most people who prefer the warmth rather than the cold.



PhD candidate, Australian
German Climate and Energy
 College at University of
Melbourne, Kate Dooley.

Talking recently with a friend about a particularly hot day he said, “Bring it on, I love it!”

Therein is the difficulty as most people make judgements on the basis of “now” and their historical experience of the weather and not connect what’s happening to the climate.

And so while many people are openly comfortable about a two degree increase, few understand what it means in the broader picture of a seriously disrupted climate that will equally seriously disrupt their lives.



Associate Professor
at University of Melbourne,
Peter Christoff.

To tell them that what they see as a marginal change in temperatures could unsettle much of their life is met with wonderment and quizzical thoughts about your sanity.

Associate Professor at University of Melbourne, Peter Christoff, and a PhD candidate, Australian German Climate and Energy College at University of Melbourne, Kate Dooley, have written about the two degree discussion on The Conversation.

Their story - “A matter of degrees: why 2C warming is officially unsafe” – argues for a tougher 1.5C warming limit in the new climate agreement expected in Paris in December this year.

The obvious officially ignored, but unofficially it was everywhere

University of Melbourne’s
Associate Professor
Peter Christoff

What was obvious for most was officially ignored at Brisbane’s recent G20 Summit.

The world’s twenty most influential economies gathered at Brisbane to talk about growth when even those not paying attention must have realised that such discussions were intimately dependent upon a benign climate.

Save just one small paragraph, the final communique focussed almost entirely on growth, apparently blind to the complications inherent in driving for infinite growth on a finite planet.

Worsening this pointless rush for growth was the apparent ignorance, wilful or otherwise, that the much cherished growth is wholly dependent on the state of earth’s climate.

University of Melbourne’s Associate Professor Peter Christoff wrote on “G20 Watch” about the “Dangerous separation of economics and climate persists”.

Dr Christoff, who teaches and researches climate politics and policy in the Department of Resource Management and Geography, said, “Attempts by Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott to keep climate change off the G20 agenda fizzed - like his much-hyped 'shirt-fronting' of Vladimir Putin, who ended up only wearing a docile koala”.

If a formal sense, climate change was kept well away from discussions, or so it appeared, but informally that appeared to be the focus of a whole event.

We are heading for a four degree world

Earlier this year a Melbourne auditorium was nearly filled for the launch of the book, “Four Degrees of Global Warming: Australia in a Hot World”.

The book, edited by Dr Peter Christoff, who teaches and researches climate politics and policy in the Department of Resource Management and Geography at the University of Melbourne, discussed the possibility of Australia’s temperature increasing by four degrees.

A show of hands illustrated that most in the auditorium agreed that Australia was heading to a four degree increase.

And now The Guardian has written a story headed: “World on track to be 4C warmer by 2100 because ofmissed carbon targets” that explains why such an increase will become a reality.

The Guardian wrote: “Global ambitions to reduce emissions are becoming a bit like the resolutions we make to give something up at new year: the intention is sincere, but we don’t always deliver”.