Kids out

There have been few demos during Covid time but I was hopeful about SS4C returning for a pre-election run.  Doubly so with the clarity of floods and GBR bleaching and +30/+40degC temperatures in Ant-Actic-a.  But it was not to be.  This event was at Kambri at ANU and there were as many enjoying the sun and eating pleasant lunchies while Grace railed and swore over the dangers of climate and the irresponsibilities of our woeful Federal Government.  Two reliable elders presented, both admirable and frequent speakers, Mark Howden, Director of ANU Inst for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions, IPCC author and more, and Tim Hollo, Greens Candidate.  They both gave short but strong speeches.  Grace returned with chants that I found too screechy.  Oh, well, it's civilisational collapse after all, not comfy and well deserving of anger even if it hurt my damaged ears.  But then, not concerning enough for many, young and old.  In fact, there may have been more retirees present than students.  This is often the way of demos these days.  We have seen demos ignored over recent times which goes some way to explain a lack of faith in community action.  '60s/'70s Moratoria had influence and thus a generation of marchers persist, but seeing the results of Bridge marches and more, I can understand youth taking a different path.  I just hope they are taking some path, rather than just mental anguish, which is so widely reported as growing.  As for the pollies, Labor is not perfect but they are not "all the same".  That's a myth that suits the Right.  Think Gillard-era climate policies then dismantled by Abbott, or even the Greens convinced not to support Rudd in his attempt.   I just can't understand Right intransigence on climate.  State capture, corruption, influence and the rest, yes, but this is big and quicker than we'd expected and will effect our own kids and, well, it's an end.  Apocalyptic religiosity, perhaps?  Surely not.  It should be criminal - it is acting against humanity - but the law isn't quite so clear cut.  As laws often are not.  So, I didn't manage so long at the SS4C event.  I had an afternoon tea to run to: the way of a foolish Australia with blinkers and none but today's worries. 

SS4C (School Strike for Climate) was held at Kambri at ANU.  Mark Howden, Tim Hollo, Grace ... and others spoke.  The next is the Election Climate Strike, Parliament House Lawns, 11am Fri 29 April.  That should be bigger.

Passed time to worry

It's time well passed to worry about Climate Change, although you wouldn't believe it listening to our dreadful politicians. They still don't get it or if they do they suffer internal machinations ones who don't - or they have just sold out. I've been just preparing a session for a discussion group today on "Death of democracy". Attending a discussion like this illuminates much. The Climate Change update 2018 was presented by Professor Mark Howden of the ANU Climate Change Institute. He's also Vice Chair, IPCC Working Group II and it's in this role that he is a Nobel Prize winner (with others). Of course, some say IPCC are the corrupt ones ripping us off for $billions according to the deniers (as I was told by a NZer recently, almost without prompting). But let's look at this summary of recent science: CO2 emissions rising; Methane rising; temperatures rising; Canberra temps rising; sea temps, levels and volumes rising; catastrophes rising; Australian greenhouse gases rising; heat stress rising. What's going down? Our time to act; not much else. Some startling factoids? Atmospheric CO2 352ppm(2006)>407(2017); CO2 emissions 1990-99 +1.1%pa>2000-2009 +3.3%pa; Sea level rise +2mmpa(1993)>+3.4mmpa(2017); World-wide climate-related catastrophes (Munich Re 2018) ~250(1980)>~720(2017); Perth's dam flows ~340Gl (1911-1971)>~40gL (2011-) . Mark's response to the denialist meme "It's all happened before" was "Rubbish". Who else is warning about climate? Oh, let's see ... Munich Re (reinsurer); Bank of England; APRA. And a day or so ago, so is the tourist industry on the Great Barrier Reef - finally they've got it - and the NFF. There were questions about ice loss, paralysis by uncertainty, tipping points, Paris agreement, short termism, etc. Fascinating and informed but nothing was a joy. Follow it up. I've linked Prof Howden's overheads below.

Professor Mark Howden of the ANU Climate Change Institute presented on Climate Update 2018.

http://climate.anu.edu.au/files/Mark-Howden-ANU-Climate-Update.pdf

To fret or to despair

With all the despair around the US Election, here was one session I couldn't miss: a seminar at ANU on US Climate policy after Obama, ie, after the upcoming election. These are serious sessions and well worth the visits. This was convened by the ANU Climate Change Institute and introduced by its Director, Mark Howden, with key guest was Elliot Diringer or the Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions, with a past in the (Bill) Clinton White House. This was not a party-political presentation (although some despair or disdain is inevitable when considering some future options).

Elliot Diringer spoke first. Firstly on the foundations for the present, how there was emerging climate bipartisanship but how it failed especially in the context of the Tea Part and conservative backlash. Then about Obama carrying out limited actions under Presidential Executive Powers, made possible as the Supreme Court included greenhouse gases under this act. Thus, standards were introduced for vehicles and power emissions were limited by plan for implementation by the States. The death of Justice Scalia brought Congress to deny a replacement, presumably hoping for a Republican win. Then Obama and international powers used for the Paris agreement and for lead-up announcements with China (oh, how that discomforted our own anti-Climate-action warriors, not least Abbott). But the agreement had to be implementable without Congressional agreement, so it is fragile. The current status is US emissions (thanks also to natural gas and new tech) is reduced 10% and a landmark climate agreement (Paris) is in place but the Clean Power Plan is in legal limbo through State actions and the outcome depends on a new Supreme Court Justice which awaits a new president in 5 months. And this election is "unusually, unpredictable ... humbling for political pundits" and will lead to the "solidification or unravelling of [established] climate change actions" given the "stark difference" between Hillary (Clinton) and Trump. Hillary has engaged with negotiation, launched coalitions, outlined comprehensive plans for a "clean energy superpower". Trumpet has no record in public office, has rhetorically called climate change a "hoax" (memories of Abbott and his "crap" call), (if I have this right - it seems so nutty) suggested it's developed by the Chinese to roll back US dominance by bureaucratic control, and that he'd cancel the Paris Agreement and declare US energy dominance. Wow! So, possible scenarios are these: 1. A Trump president who is true to his word; a return to US climate policy dark ages; EPA remains obligated to control greenhouse gases but is delayed; US withdraws from Paris which undermines the will of other countries. 2. A Clinton presidency with Republican control of Congress, requiring continued Exec powers; resistance from the States; the question of which Supreme Court Justice replaces Scalia; a possible window for legislation to enact a Carbon tax with more general fiscal reform (with public support and private sector impatience with uncertainty). 3. A Clinton presidency with 1 or 2 houses to Democrats or detente with Congress, or Trump wins and forgets his previous lines and makes a deal. ED is not a fan of US Exceptionalism but he does see the US as decisive in climate matters. There's now a decent agreement in place, 2degC is "extremely demanding" but is depends on countries "all doing our fair share".

The local panel members were Eliza Murray and Luke Kemp. Luke spoke first. A Hillary presidency would be BAU (Business As Usual); can the Congressional deadlock [on more than just climate] be broken?; Trump ("the most interesting scenario for me as a pessimist") can't cancel Paris but can withdraw the US and this is "detrimental perhaps not fatal" and other US actors (cities, states) may continue to act and some renegotiation may be required to deal with country withdrawals (difficult and not quick). The Paris negotiations were effective but risky (but necessary given Congressional intransigence). Then Eliza on the history of policy making in Australia, how the Carbon tax/ETS were withdrawn and how a centralised approach (as in Australia) has these dangers; about how some constituencies and action, carbon farming and reinvestments were retained under Direct Action; about how maintaining a string of actors tests approaches and is less risky (but less likely in a smaller federation like Australia).

There were questions about "bottom-up" movements and city/state action and flexibility; how Obama's earlier legislation failed despite Democrats holding both houses; about the need for different language than "carbon tax" [how trivial but necessary - so much for informed citizenship]; about Hillary's approach to the election "we are going to put a lot of coal miners out of work" but offering support for the change; about country-level carbon inventories that predate Paris, how measurements are for where a fuel is burnt and how planes and shipping are not country-based; about the UNFCC; renewable industries and the US. What thinking is in place to protect Paris post Trump? Was it ED who was terrified by this scenario: US withdraws from Paris; bullish decision makers are destroyers [reminds me of Abbott once again]; without US at the table, a US return becomes harder over time. Otherwise, this has all happened unexpectedly and quickly, so little thought is yet given. What if Sanders runs as an independent (almost audible groans) and pretty much the end of the session.

There was more than this, but you get the gist. Watch this space over coming months. Mark Howden, Elliot Dirringer, Luke Kemp and Eliza Murray spoke on US Climate policy after Obama for the ANU Climate Change Institute.

Paris

I write this only a few days after the end of the Paris Climate Change convention (more formally COP21 and more). My despair over climate change had smouldered for a few months leading up to this event, obviously hoping for some positive outcome, late as it would be. Through the 2 weeks, the messages seemed to be good. In the end, there was much cheering and satisfaction. This looked positive, although there were nay-sayers too, on both left and right. There was even a staunch denialist letter to the Canberra Times arguing the cooling line, as I remember (it makes you wonder, but Trump is also unseemingly popular). I read some articles, but largely awaited this event at ANU. The event was "Deciphering the Paris Climate talks : where to next?" coordinated by the ANU Climate Change Institute featuring 5 people (all men, noted by several woman around me) who had attended Paris, so this was informed. They were: Assoc Prof Frank Jotzo, Dep Dir, Crawford School, Dir, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy; Adj Prof Howard Bamsey, formerly Australia’s Special Envoy on Climate Change; Luke Kemp, lecturer and finishing PhD student at ANU with a focus on climate negotiations (the young one); Doug McInnes, Dept of Foreign Affairs & Trade; Alex Gosman, CEO, Australian Industry Greenhouse Network. Chaired by Prof Mark Howden, Dir, ANU Climate Change Institute; introduced by H.E Sem Fabrizi, Ambassador, Delegation of the European Union to Australia; summarised by Prof Brian Schmidt, Leader of the Mainau Declaration on Climate Change (and soon to be ANU's VC, and our fave local Nobel prizewinner). A powerful team, it must be admitted! Each spoke for a few minutes, then some questions, then the summary. The session didn't summarise the agreement so much as talk of why and how success was reached and suggestions for what was now required. Here's my summary.

There were three elements for the successful outcome (and it is certainly seen as successful): Ambition (<2degC, targetting 1.5degC); commitment (transparency through INDCs, 5-yearly reviews, regular overall reports and a mechanism to ramp up ambitions by individual countries); solidarity (support for developing countries and the commitment to $100b pa transfers). The success was a function of France's "masterclass in diplomacy" (day 1 commitment by heads of government then transparent, inclusive shuttle diplomacy; a multilayered approach; good planning with a tight team; the writing and release of the draft then final texts). Also, the involvement of the USA ("a vindication of Obama"); Kerry's "masterful intervention"; the pre-G20 US/China deal that so flummoxed Abbott as "instrumental"; the behind-the-scenes bilaterals. But also important was the "alignment of the stars": Trudeau cheered for "Canada is back"; Australia "in from the cold" and winning only one Fossil of the Day award (oddly, a good result!); Obama not Republicans, more. And public scrutiny: all public events being televised thus limiting negativism and promoting positive ambition; the Paris Action Agenda of commitments by 800 businesses and NGOs. Amusingly, there was talk of calling the Pope to speak to the one country with a flag up approaching the final gavel, but he was unavailable, in Mass. It was recognised that this agreement comes nowhere near 2degC (I read variously 2.7-3.5degC) but it codifies existing efforts, sends signals to industries and commits to a mechanism to ramp up action. There's a certain optimism here, but it's reasonably founded and the outcome is more than might have been hoped for. A carbon price was not included (but that's a domestic decision) and neither was decarbonisation mentioned in the text (but it's an inevitable implication). The INDCs (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) are not legally binding, but the process of 5-yearly reports and ramped up actions apparently is binding and the burden of change has been shared to some degree by all parties, developed and developing. It was "heartwarming" that Australia was back in the process and apparently we did good work, even Greg Hunt (who would'a thunk it). The plan is for net zero emissions by end-century (or was it 2050?) and this requires all manner of actions to be used, including carbon sequestration (although I imagine that's an increasingly relatively costly option). ACT presented well as a subnational government but most others displayed good intentions and talk rather than action. Carbon Tracker ( http://www.carbontracker.org/ ) is a useful incentive for divestment and BHP did well by publishing its carbon risk; carbon risk will become increasingly recognised by business. Brian Schmidt observed that "humanity is pretty good at close problems (eg, nuclear war) ... this is long term, therefore a great achievement". That this is a framework but there are challenges ahead. That technology will be important but also the social sciences and humanities. That the ANU Climate Change Institute does great work. That this is the defining issue of our times and that it requires coordinated, long term generational effort without immediate gain (mmm, that's a worrying thought).

So it's clear that Paris was a great achievement but there's still plenty of work to do and possibility of failure and, despite the worthy target, we may not win. I still mull over the ~2.1degC positive forcing in place against the ~0.7degC negative forcing and how this fits, but the broad scientific view appears to be that there's still hope to avoid runaway climate change. That's the biggy: when the positive feedback loops start up and we lose the ability to turn things around, when those tipping points are reached, then it's game over. Paris suggests we may not get there: it seems there's hope yet. And then there are the denialists who will presumably still rant away. That should be frustrating but increasingly just an amusement for the rest of humanity.

Deciphering the Paris Climate talks : where to next? was presented by the ANU Climate Change Institute and featured Frank Jotzo, Howard Bamsey, Luke Kemp, Doug McInnes, Alex Gosman, Mark Howden, Sem Fabrizi and Brian Schmidt.