Environmental law after a year of catastrophe

The government is undertaking a review of one of our central pieces of environmental law, the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Protection Act. They have a facility for quick comments of up to 300 words, as well as traditional submission (thanks to the Australian Conservation Foundation for the link). Here’s my 300 words

The catastrophes that have afflicted Australia and the rest of the world over the last year, including coral bleaching, unprecedented wildfires and the coronavirus pandemic point up the need for a radical reconsideration of existing approaches to environmental protection.

Far from achieving a sustainable balance between economic, social and environmental values, recent Australian policy has focused on protecting sectional interests and amplifying second-order issues such as the effect of environmental policy on energy costs.

Read the story by John Quiggin - “Environmental law after a year of catastrophe.”

World Needs an Ambitious New Deal for Nature & People

From the fresh air we breathe to the clean water we drink, nature provides the essentials we all rely on for our survival and well-being. The loss of nature threatens these essentials. Loss of biodiversity is therefore not only an environmental issue, but also a developmental, economic, security, social and moral issue. It affects us all and all aspects of our lives.

We need a better deal for narture and people.

Yet, worryingly, a series of recent major intergovernmental scientific reports which will inform policy making all over the world from the IPCC, IPBES and others have issued a siren warning: Our natural world is now under unprecedented pressure. At the current rate of nature loss, we stand to face the extinction of an estimated 1 million species within decades and significant declines of food and water supplies and many other services that nature provides to us everyday, for free.

This is supported by WWF’s Living Planet 2018 report, which has found population sizes of wildlife decreased by 60% on average globally between 1970 and 2014.

Read the story from Medium by the Director General of WWF International, Marco Lambertini -  "World Needs an Ambitious New Deal for Nature & People.”

Ocasio-Cortez says we need World War II-scale action on climate. Here’s what that looks like

The Green New Deal resolution introduced last week by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) states that fighting climate change requires “a new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II.”

Rep.Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed
Markey (right D-MA) announce the Green new deal
legislation outside the U.S. Capitol early in February.

The world’s leading climate scientists agree. In 2015, for instance, they called for a sweeping mobilization — “a radical transition (deep decarbonization now and going forward),” as they described it — to avoid catastrophic impacts of climate change. And last October, the world’s nations unanimously agreed with our top scientists that preserving a livable climate requires “system changes” across the economy that “are unprecedented in terms of scale.”

Read the ThinkProgress story by Joe Romm - “Ocasio-Cortez says we need World War II-scale action on climate. Here’s what that looks like.”

It’s not too late to act on climate change

People engaged in the climate debate are often bewildered by society’s lack of response. How can we ignore such overwhelming evidence of an existential threat to social and economic stability?

The problems faced by polar bears because of the melting ice on
 which they are so dependent might seem remote and irrelevant,
but they are not - everything about climate change is interrelated.

Given human history, we should never have expected anything else. Humans have a consistent tendency that when change is uncomfortable we delay action until a threat becomes a crisis. The scale of the threat or the existence of powerful evidence makes little difference.

There are countless examples – personal health issues, a business’ declining success, or global financial and credit risks. Historically, though, World War II remains the best analogy.

The evidence of the threat posed by Hitler was overwhelming and the case for action crystal clear. However, many were still deeply resistant to acting. Only when the threat became overwhelming – until it was accepted as an imminent crisis – was Britain triggered into action. When it was, Winston Churchill led the critical shift in thinking, arguing that no matter how uncomfortable, expensive or challenging to the status quo, sometimes you just have to do what is necessary. Not your best, or what you can afford, or what’s “realistic” – but what is necessary. In his case, that was going to war and assuming victory was possible.

Read the opinion piece by Paul Gilding from today’s Age - “It’s not too late to act on climate change.”

Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year

Fossil fuels have two major problems that paint a dim picture for their future energy dominance. These problems are inter-related but still should be discussed separately. First, they cause climate change. We know that, we’ve known it for decades, and we know that continued use of fossil fuels will cause enormous worldwide economic and social consequences.

The major costs of fossil fuels are hidden.

Second, fossil fuels are expensive. Much of their costs are hidden, however, as subsidies. If people knew how large their subsidies were, there would be a backlash against them from so-called financial conservatives.

A study was just published in the journal World Development that quantifies the amount of subsidies directed toward fossil fuels globally, and the results are shocking. The authors work at the IMF and are well-skilled to quantify the subsidies discussed in the paper.

Read John Abraham’s story on The Guardian - “Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year.”

Left Renewal: since when has taxing the rich and saving the planet been so controversial?

‘There is no question that we can build the 21st
 century public solar and windfarms we need
 to end our reliance on coal.’

If you believe that unrestrained capitalism is the solution to our planet’s environmental and social challenges, or that democracy is enhanced by two major parties bickering about personality and management style, then you are currently well served by the Liberal, National and Labor parties and might choose not to read on. If you think there might be better ways to make the planet more sustainable, just, peaceful and democratic, then there is certainly a place for you in the Green.

The Greens party was founded on four broad principles of ecological sustainability, social justice, participatory democracy, and peace and nonviolence. Over the past 20 years those principles have guided the party in campaigns as diverse as ending the logging of native forests, defending and participating in local government, tackling climate change, opposing war and promoting more progressive policies on public education, industrial relations, taxation and welfare.

However the principles don’t answer every political issue by themselves. They don’t tell us the best way to reduce carbon emissions, they don’t endorse or condemn capitalism, they don’t say if we should have an inheritance tax and they don’t tell us how to end animal cruelty. These are all issues where there is room for debate within the Greens. From forest defenders to middle-class doctors and student activists, the Greens party is a broad and accepting social movement that has always celebrated its diversity.

Read the opinion piece on The Guardian by David Shoebridge and Lee Rhiannon -“Left Renewal:since when has taxing the rich and saving the planet been so controversial?

Climate change doesn't rate as a threat according to WSJ

Interestingly, this story from The Wall Street Journal, as comprehensive as it might be, makes no reference to the certain economic, social, physical, and emotional threats linked to climate change.

The ravages of climate change will most certainly make all those threats mentioned here seem inconsequential.

“Australia,” the story notes, “is enjoying the longest economic expansion in the developed world—24 years and counting.

“But now the commodity boom that underpinned its growth is ending. Other resource-reliant economies are tumbling into recession. Can Australia defy the odds?" it asks.

Australia was one of the chief beneficiaries of the world's rising demand for raw material and so as deeply implicated manufacturing and consumerist world that drove the worsening of climate change.

Read “The Risks to Australia’s Economic Miracle.”

IKEA spends big to help poorer nations with renewable energy, climate change

I

KEA, the world's biggest furniture retailer, plans to spend 1 billion euros ($1.13 billion) on renewable energy and steps to help poor nations cope with climate change, the latest example of firms upstaging governments in efforts to slow warming.

Chief Executive Peter Agnefjall said the measures would "absolutely not" push up prices at the Swedish group's stores. The investments will be "good for customers, good for the climate and good for IKEA too," he told Reuters.

He said the plan was motivated by a desire to tackle climate change, rather than to court favourable publicity. "Getting that message out to the customers is secondary," he said.

An internal review last year showed only 41 percent of its customers see IKEA as a company that "takes social and environmental responsibility", below its goal of 70 percent by 2015.

Read The New York Times report - “IKEA Pledges 1 Billion Euros to Help Slow Climate Change”.

Social concerns will imprint climate change urgency

Social concerns are what will imprint the urgency of attending to climate change on the minds of most.

And that urgency is happening in California.

A drought of unprecedented proportions for the U.S. state is now among residents’ biggest concerns.

The Huffington Post reports that 29 per cent of people are most concerned about their jobs, while twenty-six per cent of residents named water and drought as the most important issue facing Californians.

In the story headed: “For Californians, The Drought Is Almost As Big Of A Concern As Their Jobs” the post reported the residents wanted more action on drought preparedness and water security.

Solutions to climate change are fundamentally social and behavioural although practicalities such as a wider and deeper understanding of water will play an equally important role.

Sixteen essays tell us about plausible and serious threats to our future

The sixteen essays in this anthology have forthrightly identified a range of plausible and serious threats to the future, not only for Australia, but for human civilisation.



They represent the view of the individual authors, but were assembled by Australia21 and point, conclusively, toward rather challenging times ahead for Australians and the broader human project.



The essays can be accessed by through “Placing global change on the Australian election agenda” mentioned in the story “Garnaut reconciles economic growth and conservation”.

“Australia21’s conclusion is that we must find ways to engineer change in the way our social and political structures engage with the future.

Most importantly, we must develop a new narrative about human society and its relation to the limited resources of the planet and restructure our economy and society accordingly.” - Paul Barratt AO Chair Australia21

Responding to climate change

(One fellow considering how we should respond to our human induced changing climate had these thoughts - )

   

     I find the whole issue of appropriate response to changing climate a complicated one but this perhaps doesn't have to be the case. 

   One of the main problems that appears to me is that we are expected to tackle the problem ourselves as individuals not because we want to but because we should. We are then left as individuals working out what size environmental footprint is acceptable which if the quest for minimal impact is taken to its logical conclusion leaves us as individuals wondering about our very existence.

   This isn't helpful and probably not even very productive. This sort of 'we must because we should' approach is probably best coming from a concept of what society in general describes as acceptable wether that be through elected bodies or from a general consensus of the population. I'm not suggesting individuals don't have personal ethical standards but that this is often not a main driver of everyday decisions in modern Australian culture. 

    As individuals we are driven by what we want to do and strive to those ends. If a social climate prevailed where individuals wanted to live in a more sustainable way then people would strive to do so, the breaks would be 'off' so to speak and individuals would be heading to a different set of goal posts. I am quite positive that we have the knowledge, equipment and resources for such a change the only change required being a social one. 

    As an individual I don't want to stop doing the things I enjoy, who does? I like flying, riding motorbikes, driving in air conditioned comfort, eating out and all those other things so for me the best solution is to either make these things more efficient with minimal pollution and energy input or give me something else just as exciting as a substitute. Our job as people advocating change is perhaps simply to describe that new world.