Climate change claim questioned

I note the comments made by Federal Member for Nicholls Damian Drum (News, February 4) and would contest many of his facts and statements but none more than his contention that ‘‘Australia leads the world’’.

This claim couldn’t be further from the truth on the international stage where Australia has played a destructive role from Kyoto negotiations in 1997 to the most recent gathering of nations in Madrid last year, with its intention to use Kyoto ‘‘credits’’ to meet its Paris Agreement targets.

"Those credits are highly
contentious" - John Pettigrew.

These ‘‘credits’’ are highly contentious for two reasons: how they were achieved and the intention to use these credits to weaken Australia’s response to the Paris Agreement.

Australia’s Kyoto delegation was dominated by representatives of the fossil fuel industries and led by Coalition Environment Minister Senator Robert Hill.

Throughout these negotiations Australia demanded special treatment, despite being one of the most affluent of developed countries and the highest per capita emitter in the world.

Australia negotiated a target at Kyoto in 1997 which allowed an increase in Australia’s greenhouse emissions by eight per cent above 1990 levels, three per cent higher than other developed countries.

Not satisfied with this concession, the Australian delegation then demanded what is known as ‘‘the Australia clause’’, which allowed the inclusion of carbon emission credits from reduced land clearing.

This inclusion allowed Australia’s emissions from fossil fuels to potentially rise by 25 to 30 per cent above 1990 levels as land clearing (not occurring in other developed countries) had already reduced dramatically at the time.

The Howard Government then, after demanding these concessions and undermining global emission targets, refused to ratify the Kyoto Agreement.

Australia, in announcing its intention to use ‘‘surplus’’ Kyoto credits to achieve its modest Paris targets, has again put our country at odds with the rest of the world and is again holding back global action to reduce emissions.

The Coalition Government was elected with an emission reduction target of 26 to 28 per cent by 2030 on 2005 levels, a clear mandate.

However, the use of ‘‘Kyoto credits’’ was never mentioned before or during this election and cannot be seen in any way as being endorsed by the electorate.

In September last year, Prime Minister Morrison twice told Today our per capita emissions would fall by half between now and 2030: ‘‘We will reduce our carbon emissions per capita by half between now and 2030.

‘‘Our per capita emissions will fall by half over the next 10 years.’’

If, as Prime Minister Morrison insists, Australia will meet its Paris targets ‘‘in a canter’’, why would Australia continue to threaten the use of Kyoto credits?

Australia should drop any intention to use these dubious credits and join with nations of the world to ensure that realistic and ambitious carbon reduction targets are set and met.

Letter from John Pettigrew, Bunbartha, published in The Shepparton News - “Climate change claim questioned”

Heavy industry the winner under new carbon trading proposal

A government proposal to allow international carbon credit trading has buoyed the Australian manufacturing industry, but may have little impact on cutting energy sector emissions.

Manufacturers may invest in cheaper offsets,
rather than lower emissions technology. 

The manufacturing, smelting and energy sectors - some of the highest carbon-emitting industries in Australia - could look overseas to buy carbon credits to reduce their comparative emission levels without investing in higher-priced domestic carbon credits or lower-emissions technology under a proposal in the Turnbull government's latest climate change policy review. 

Read Cole Latimer's story in today’s Melbourne Age - “Heavy industry the winner under new carbon trading proposal.”

UN Climate Talks Wrap Up with World Leaving Trump Behind.

Two weeks of international climate talks in Bonn made only incremental progress toward resolving disputes that have been lingering since the Paris Agreement of 2015. The main achievement may have been cementing a firebreak to prevent the Trump administration from torching the whole process.

While protesters outside the UN climate talks urged an end to coal, a
broad range of climate supporters spoke up inside, including U.S. states,
 cities and businesses that support great global ambition to rein in climate change.

The strategy is to assert a broad new leadership among nations big and small, to bolster their resolve with high-profile commitments from American cities and states, to muster corporations and financial institutions in an attempt to kickstart renewable energy and assist poor countries, and to leave Washington isolated on the world stage.

It's a strategy pinned on the hopes—although diplomats would never put it so bluntly—that either Donald Trump will change his mind or that the United States will change its leader.

Read the Inside Climate News story by John H. Cushman Jr - “UN Climate Talks Wrap Up with World Leaving Trump Behind.”

Powering Past Coal Alliance: 20 countries sign up to phase out coal power by 2030

Twenty countries including Britain, Canada and New Zealand have joined an international alliance to phase out coal from power generation before 2030.

The Hazelwood power station in Victoria's La Trobe Valley.

The Powering Past Coal Alliance was unveiled at the COP23 climate talks in Bonn, Germany, which were working out the technical details of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

"I think we can safely say that the response has been overwhelming," Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna said.

The alliance, which isn't legally binding, was launched days after a pro-coal presentation by the Trump administration jarred with many ministers who wanted the talks to focus on cleaner energy sources.

Read the ABC News story - “Powering Past Coal Alliance: 20 countries sign up to phase out coal power by 2030.”

Climate Change and NATO: A New Study

This article summarizes findings from a recent journal article, Facing an Unpredictable Threat: Is NATO Ideally Placed to Manage Climate Change as a Non-Traditional Threat Multiplier?” published in the George C. Marshall European Centre for Security Studies’ “Connections: The Quarterly Journal.”

Climate change acts as multiplier of other threats to national and international security. The multiplier effects of climate change include stresses on the ability of families to provide for themselves (which can contribute to increased refugee and migration flows), a broader spread of diseases, potentially causing or exacerbating lethal pandemics, and other significant challenges to human security.

Climate change, and its attendant “threat multiplier” effects, also present challenges to militaries around the world. Increased temperatures, and the resulting negative effects, can have significant implications for military operations, personnel, and installations. For example, sea level rise and the increased incidence and severity of extreme storms directly affect military facilities, increase the cost of security, and impede the capacity of states and alliances to address traditional threats.

Read story by Amar Causevic on the Centre for Climate and Security page - “Climate Change and NATO: A New Study.”

People and the Earth

The publication ‘People and the Earth: International cooperation for the Sustainable Development Goals in 23 infographics’ delivers a storyboard of human-nature interdependency, using visual representations to communicate challenges and options for making progress towards the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 

Our knowledge, models and tools have been the drivers of a close cooperation between PBL and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs for enhancing international policies. 

We hope that this book will inspire and enlighten the discussion on present and future international challenges.

Learn about the publication - “People and the Earth.”

Trump’s climate snub: hold the outrage, we're just as bad

It's hard to put your finger on the most startling thing about Donald Trump's decision to give the one-finger salute to the Paris climate agreement, but one of its more incredible effects is that it finally knocks Australia off its perch as global climate pariah sans pareil. Which is quite extraordinary really, when you consider that the septuagenarian plutocrat currently passing for Leader of the Free World has only been officially meddling in global climate deals for 200-odd days, while we've been assiduously shirking our responsibilities and thwarting international negotiations for nigh on two decades.

If you can tear your gaze away, for a moment, from our woebegone chief scientist Alan Finkel – the singularly unfortunate fellow tasked with advising the Coalition on how to curb emissions without actually resorting to effective policies to do so – then think back to the heady days of Australia's first foray into disingenuous climate change negotiations: the Kyoto climate conference of 1997, where the Aussie delegation was 'stacked' with representatives of the fossil fuel industry and our negotiating tactics comprehensivelycheesed off the European Union. Was it because we wanted a free ride? Or was it that, after almost derailing the consensus in order to secure a special deal, we decided to stick it to the rest of the industrialised world by not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol after all? Hard to say.

Read Sarah Gill’s comment in today’s Melbourne Age - “Trump’s climate snub: hold the outrage, we're just as bad.”

Trump Budget Would Cripple U.S. International Climate Change Work

If President Donald Trump gets his wish, America will effectively stop funding international climate change programs next year.

The Trump administration's budget proposal includes
slashing all aid to international climate programs,
signaling a retreat from the Paris climate accord. 

The White House in its 2018 budget proposal released Thursday called for combined cuts of $10.1 billion, or 28 percent, to the two leading agencies on international climate work—the State Department and U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID). This is on top of even deeper cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency and other departments with domestic climate programs.

"It's clear that the administration intends to halt or reverse everything domestic and foreign related to addressing the challenge of climate change," said Kei Koizumi, a top budget official in the Office of Science and Technology Policy during the Obama administration. "It's breathtakingly consistent.”

Read Zahra Hirji’s story on Inside Climate News - “Trump Budget Would Cripple U.S. International Climate Change Work.”

Freeway labyrinth is about profit and not people

V

ictorian politicians are navigating their way through a labyrinth of troubles that focus on what is economic and ignore, completely, the environment.

Victorian’s voted in a Labor Government that recognized public transport, rather than privatized freeways were the way of the future, but it has been locked into last minute agreements made by the former Liberal Coalition Government.

Labor is now wrestling with complex financial agreements that are about profit for a few rather than what is best for most.

And now it has been reported that international governments have approached Australian embassies to voice their concern over the cancelling of Melbourne's East West Link.

This economic circus seems misplaced in a country that should be doing all it can to mitigate its carbon dioxide emissions and within that should be pushing toward emissions-cutting public transport rather than build infrastructure that encourages further private transport.

Meanwhile, the ABC reports: “France urges Australia to keep climate commitment ahead of UN summit”.