Focusing on how individuals can stop climate change is very convenient for corporations

What can be done to limit global warming to 1.5°C? A quick internet search offers a deluge of advice on how individuals can change their behavior. Take public transport instead of the car or, for longer journeys, the train rather than fly. Eat less meat and more vegetables, pulses and grains, and don’t forget to turn off the light when leaving a room or the water when shampooing. The implication here is that the impetus for addressing climate change is on individual consumers.

id

Pressure is on individuals to change their behaviour, but
the real difference can be made by the corporations. 

But can and should it really be the responsibility of individuals to limit global warming? On the face of it, we all contribute to global warming through the cumulative impact of our actions.

By changing consumption patterns on a large scale we might be able to influence companies to change their production patterns to more sustainable methods. Some experts have argued that everyone (or at least those who can afford it) has a responsibility to limit global warming, even if each individual action is insufficient in itself to make a difference.

Read the story from Fast Company by Morton Fibieger Byskov - “Focusing on how individuals can stop climate change is very convenient for corporations."

Labor pushes for federal investigation into Adani

Labor is pressing the Turnbull government for a federal investigation into Adani, arguing the Commonwealth has responsibility for sensitive wetlands contaminated near the Great Barrier Reef after Cyclone Debbie.

Opposition says commonwealth has responsibility
 for sensitive wetlands contaminated near Great Barrier Reef

Guardian Australia revealed last week concerns that Adani submitted an altered laboratory report while appealing a fine for contamination of the Caley Valley wetlands on the Queensland coast.

The wetlands were blackened by coal-laden water released from the Abbot Point port after Cyclone Debbie’s torrential rains inundated its coal storage facilities in March 2017.

Read Katharine Murphy’s story from The Guardian - “Labor pushes for federal investigation into Adani.”

Another e-flow - but do we need it?

We're on the river most days, so we were watching for the environmental flush due to start on Saturday. By Sunday morning it was creeping over the sandbar and The Boss wasn't all that happy about it.

The next environmnental flow is happening but you can see
a dark strip low along the far bank, still damp from the last one....

He reckons the south- and east-facing banks are still damp from the last e-flow, which happened over a month in June to late July. That followed an autumn flush back in February for a month - now there's this one for 23 days and another one planned for November.

There's a few fingers in the e-flow pie: the water is owned by the Commonwealth Government after its program of buy-backs to meet the targets of the Murray Darling Plan and the responsibility for that water rests with the Environmental Water Holder.

Our Catchment Management Authority then works with the Water Holder to schedule the flows appropriately and Goulburn Murray Water, which runs the storages, actually releases it and warns its irrigators with pumps on the river that a flush is coming.

Read the story by The General on Country News - “Another e-flow - but do we need it?”

Climate threatens Australia's security in unexpected ways

When President Donald Trump became the commander-in-chief of the US Armed Forces, he accepted the responsibility to protect my country against enemies, foreign and domestic. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull shares the same responsibility to protect Australians.

A girl carries a toddler in Bangladesh.
A one-metre rise in sea level would
submerge one-fifth of the country,
displacing 30 million people. 

Do these leaders understand that a key component of national security and global stability is climate change and the instability it is already causing around the world? The intersection of these two issues is already striking the world in unexpected ways, as climate change interacts with other pre-existing problems to become an accelerant to instability. The consequences include overwhelming humanitarian crises, forced migrations like those we are witnessing around the Mediterranean, and a breakdown in the human systems that make our societies work.

Read Sherri Goodman’s story in The Canberra Times - "Climate threatens Australia's security in unexpected ways.”

Greens push for electricity crisis to be taken out of politicians' hands.

The cost of solar power generation
has come down rapidly. 

The Greens are pushing for a new public authority to take responsibility for Australia's beleaguered electricity system out of politicians' hands.

It follows several organisations, including energy company Origin, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and ClimateWorks, calling for an independent body, similar to the Reserve Bank, to manage what has been described as an energy crisis.

Read Adam Morton’s story in today’s Melbourne Age - “Greens push for electricity crisis to be taken out of politicians' hands.”

Feeling financially the impact of climate change

A man brings French baguettes to his
 mother's flooded house in
Chalette-sur-Loing Montargis, near
 Orleans, France on June 1, 2016.

Many argue that climate change will not be understood or accepted by many until they begin to feel its impact financially.

Well, whether we can personally see it or not, financially feel it or not, the world it paying dearly for what is a human-induced difficulty.

Some of the costs the world community are incurring are obvious natural disasters (some do argue, however, that some of those “natural disasters” are brought on by human activities), but human-induced climate change bears responsibility for many clearly identifiable and human-induced .

Read the ABC story -“Disasters cost world $92b in first half of 2016, Swiss Re says.”

Looking to scientists to help us confront a global crisis

Dan Cass.

Whose responsibility is it to advocate the importance of an individual or community response to climate change?

Is it that of the world’s climate scientists, who best understand what is happening, to lead the charge for change or do others, may you or me, step into the spotlight and progress the discussion?

The issue is discussed by Dan Cass in a story in The Guardian headed: “Scientists have a moral obligation to take action on climate change”.

He suggests it is wrong to call on climate scientist to refrain from public advocacy and leadership, pointing out that we are in a global crisis in which the scientific fraternity has an ethical obligation to act.

However, Cass does note that most climate scientists are probably right to follow their current strategy, which is to keep calm and carry on.

“They are,” he said, “expanding our knowledge about the climate, doing what they are best at and which the rest of us are unable to do”.