Posts
Someone in Australia is taking this seriously - 2 or 3 decades too late. New Zealand is still in deep, DEEP denial
The
divisive issue Australia can no longer ignore
IT’S
the life-and-death issue on which Australia is “irresponsible to
the extreme”. And 30 leading experts in the field are furious.
5 November, 2018
AUSTRALIA,
you’re being “irresponsible to the extreme”.
That’s
the harsh message from leading scientists across the country, not
just for our “confused, divided and backwards” government but for
the everyday Aussies who believe climate change scepticism and refuse
to acknowledge the state of “emergency” we face.
Climate
policy was one of the catalysts for the Liberal Party rolling Malcolm
Turnbull last month. In his final speech as prime minister, Mr
Turnbull acknowledged the Coalition found it “very hard” to take
action on climate change.
“The
emissions issue and climate policy issues have the same problem
within the Coalition of … bitterly entrenched views that are
actually sort of more ideological views than views based, as I say,
in engineering and economics,” he said.
Prime
Minister Scott Morrison’s new energy minister, Angus Taylor, has
made it clear that he is focused on lower power prices and
electricity reliability ahead of climate action.
“I
am and have been for many years deeply sceptical of the economics of
so many of the emissions reduction programs dreamed up by
politicians, vested interests and technocrats around the world,” Mr
Taylor said last week.
All
of this leaves Australia, once again, without a meaningful plan on
how to cut Australia’s carbon emissions.
As
policy continues to stagnate, news.com.au contacted nearly 30
scientists across the country to get their views on the contentious
issue.
Overwhelmingly
they agreed Australia wasn’t doing enough about our “existential
threat to civilisation”.
It
sounds extreme and exaggerated, but it isn’t. The facts are all
there and have been for years.
That
threat lies in more extreme weather events — severe bushfires,
droughts and heatwaves — and greater sea level rise, leading to the
displacement of millions of people.
Yet
Australia’s politicians have failed to develop a longstanding
policy on what Kevin Rudd famously described in 2007 as “the great
moral challenge of our generation”.
Instead,
the policy has been used as a political tool to oust at least three
prime ministers.
Last
month Mr Turnbull was brought down for the second time over
energy/climate change policy. The first time he was rolled by Tony
Abbott as opposition leader. This time it cost him his job as prime
minister.
Scientists
have slammed the federal government for its “deliberate negligent
failure” to take action to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas
emissions over the last few years.
Climate
and Health Alliance president Peter Sainsbury said the Australian
Government was, remarkably, still projecting an increase in carbon
emissions to 2030.
“Australia
is being held back by the self-interest of a few right-wing
politicians and a network of highly influential companies,
particularly in the fossil fuel industry, who are prepared to
sacrifice other people’s health and wellbeing for their own
short-term economic gain,” he said.
“Every
delay, however, means that the consequences over the next 10 to 100
years will be more severe, with increased global warming, more severe
and more frequent extreme weather events, more land and marine
environmental destruction and more human injuries, ill-health and
premature death.”
But
Professor Greg Skilbeck’s words were even more sharp.
Temperature
change in Australia according to a CSIRO report. Picture:
CSIROSource:Supplied
A
lamb stands next to its dead mother at a farm near Braidwood, NSW, as
a result of the drought that’s gripping the nation — while the
Government argues over climate change. Picture: Lukas CochSource:AAP
The
academic from the University of Technology, Sydney, said if we
believed in science as part of the function of our everyday lives, we
should believe in climate change.
“You
cannot pick and choose — if you don’t accept climate change, you
should not be given penicillin or painkillers or even visit a
doctor,” he said.
“You
should not be allowed to fly or drive a car either. But I guess that
as most climate deniers also pick and choose the bits of the Bible
they subscribe to as well, I should not be surprised.”
News.com.au
isn’t the only media organisation to survey scientists.
The
Australian Science Media Centre worked with the Australian National
University to survey all scientists on the centre’s database, with
more than 300 responding from all fields — not just climate
scientists but also those in physics and medicine.
They
found 94 per cent agreed there was solid evidence the Earth’s
average temperature had been rising over the past few decades.
Not
one scientist said it had not. Of the remaining scientists, 5 per
cent said there was some evidence either way and under 1 per cent
said they did not know.
In
June, the Lowy
Institute’s survey of 1200 adults found
59 per cent of Australians thought “global warming is a serious and
pressing problem” about which “we should begin taking steps now
even if this involves significant costs”.
Scientists
say we should move away from coal, shifting to renewable energy.
Picture: David AkeSource:AP
Almost
84 per cent supported renewables even if this meant the government
investing more in infrastructure to make the system more reliable.
Only 14 per cent thought the government should focus on traditional
energy sources like coal and gas.
Dr
Paul Read of Monash University said a “government divided is a
government extremely confused”.
“If
it cannot muster enough resources to get a straight answer on climate
change, it has little business meddling in ultimately moot issues —
economic growth, pensions, education, health, defence, technology,
gender politics, gay marriage and so on — should climate change
eventuate as predicted by our current world trajectories,” he said.
“The
immediate impacts of a government divided on climate change means
they can’t agree on what is and isn’t a priority — one big
example will be lack of preparedness for the global heatwave
predicted to 2022 and that trickles down to everything from pubic
health and farming to massive bushfires.
“We
will lose our food security for one. If they can’t agree on
science, they can’t prepare for reality. They will leave us in the
headlights of a semi-trailer getting faster and more unpredictable.”
A
bushfire tearing through California last month. Scientists say
climate change will bring more bushfires. Picture: Mark
RalstonSource:AFP
WHAT
SCIENTISTS TOLD US
John
Quiggin, University of Queensland: The toxicity of the issue
is not due, primarily, to conflicts of interest, which could be
resolved through ordinary political processes. Rather the problem is
that the issue has become bound up in right-wing culture wars.
Peter
Sainsbury, Climate and Health Alliance: Climate change is
occurring at a rate that is far faster than anything seen in Earth’s
recent history, and that it is principally due to human activity. If
co-ordinated global action is not taken in the next few years to
rapidly slow the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and
reach zero net carbon emissions by 2050, there will be catastrophic
consequences.
Liz
Hanna, Australian National University: The evidence
supporting climate change exists in all areas of science, and it
comes from all countries, and from all meteorological organisations.
Collectively, humanity is causing the warming, so all of humanity has
a responsibility to stop it, and stop it as fast as we can.
Greg
Skilbeck, University of Technology, Sydney: Scaremongering on
energy prices and anything that will affect these, is seen as a very
effective (political) campaigning tool, even though it has been
consistently shown that rising energy prices are only about the greed
of the energy companies and poor management of the infrastructure,
and really nothing else.
Chris
Brown, Griffith University: Time spent debating the science
on climate change delays decisions on acting to address climate
change and its impacts. It is time wasted that our natural ecosystems
and our economy cannot afford.
A
dry cornfield in Ahlen, Germany. The German Government last month
compensated thousands of farmers whose harvests had suffered as a
result of this year’s extreme drought, which experts have linked to
climate change. Picture: Martin MeissnerSource:AP
Haydn
Washington, UNSW Australia: They (the government) are
betraying the future of future Australians and risking large parts of
Australia becoming uninhabitable. This is irresponsible in the
extreme.
Dietmar
Dommenget, Monash University: For the rest of the world,
Australia used to be an environmental friendly place with no nuclear
energy and an environment that is still beautiful and natural. But a
country that is destroying its own natural wonder and does next to
nothing to prevent global warming will not be popular for much
longer.
Olaf
Meynecke, Griffith University: We are no longer in the
position to wait or hope that the problem will solve itself. We are
faced with mass extinctions, severe weather and the long-term loss of
stability of our economy if climate action is delayed.
Tom
Worthington, Australian National University: There is plenty
of hard science to say climate change is real. What we have to do now
is help the community with what to do about it. We need to be putting
in place actions now, such as investing in renewable energy, to save
high costs to the community and the economy later.
Linda
Selvey, University of Queensland: This is an emergency. That
is not an exaggeration, but an assertion that is backed by scientific
evidence. We need to take more action than less and a divided
government means that we do very little.
Ian
Lowe, Griffith University: The immediate impact of the
current government policy paralysis (and mindless encouragement of
new fossil fuel projects) is to accelerate the changes we are seeing
— altered rainfall patterns, more extreme events, worse bushfires —
as well as risking international sanctions for failing to meet our
treaty obligations.
NSW
farmer Ian Cargill inspects a dried out dam on Billaglen farm near
Braidwood, NSW. Picture: Lukas CochSource:AAP
Stephen
Williams, James Cook University: Stop pretending there is
any serious debate and start getting on with doing something rather
than political grandstanding and using climate change as a scary
topic to play political games. Climate change is the most serious
challenge facing the world.
Peter
Rayner, University of Melbourne: It’s much better to
squeeze the brakes gently than jam them on at the last minute,
especially when we can see the brick wall a mile off.
Bill
Laurance, James Cook University: Australia’s political
conservatives have shifted so far to the right that they’ve fallen
off a cliff — and they’re dragging the rest of the country with
them, consequences be damned.
John
Church, UNSW: Saying we do not want to discuss climate
change and the drought is like arguing we do not care how much more
Australian farmers and regional areas suffer in the future.
Samantha
Hepburn, Deakin University: As the Earth gets hotter,
governments will increasingly confront tragic choices. Global climate
change will cause severe food and water scarcity, resource conflict
and a sea-level rise that will threaten major cities. Warming at the
higher levels (5-6C) will be civilisation-altering.
Andrew
Blakers, Australian National University: Climate change is
likely to become an ever more prominent political, engineering,
environmental and business issue. The fact that solar and wind are
both cheaper and have zero emissions virtually guarantees continued
rapid growth throughout the first half of the 21st century.
Steven
Sherwood, UNSW: Division means uncertainty, which means lack
of investment in new electricity hence higher electricity prices. The
impact of such uncertainty on electricity prices has been vastly
greater than the impact of whether we use coal, solar or wind or
whatever. Eventually we will agree on climate change but it may be
too late then to do very much.
Tony
Matthews, Griffith University: Australia is underperforming
in its response to climate change overall. The country continues to
fall behind expectations in terms of emissions reductions, relative
to many other developed economies.
Peter
Tangney, Flinders University: There is unequivocal evidence
that the climate is changing. There is also unequivocal evidence that
the climate is changing due to human interference.
Colin
Butler, Flinders University: Climate change represents an
existential threat to civilisation. Catastrophe may yet be avoided,
but is increasingly likely, with early signs already evident.
Celia
McMichael, University of Melbourne: Australia should be
doing much more to shift to a clean economy and to urgently meet —
or exceed — greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
Tullio
Rossi, Animate Your Science: Let’s take the Great Barrier Reef
situation as an example. Given the inestimable value of this wonder
of the world, and the fact that we are seriously risking losing it
because of climate change. Australia should be at the forefront of
climate change action globally.
Hot enough to fry an egg on the sidewalk? Here’s how climate change is making heat waves more common and severe bit.ly/2wquToy
“We have witnessed really devastating impacts of climate change in all regions of the world” warns @UN Climate Chief @PEspinosaC, urging progress at #SB48Bangkok bit.ly/2wDbQau #ParisAgreement
It is not known how much longer the ocean can continue to buffer us from climate change as its health declines. We need to take action: virg.in/3dc
Scott
Kelly, University of Technology Sydney: While
Australian politicians continue to argue between themselves, the rest
of the world is going to move on and Australia will be left behind.
If Australia is going to lead the way in renewable technology and
build a society of the future, it can’t continue to support vested
interests in old expensive technology such as coal.
Ying
Zhang, University of Sydney: We need better public
engagement to increase the awareness of both risks and opportunities
in responding to climate change. For example, better urban planning
to accommodate more public and active transportation that could bring
co-benefits of improved air quality and health status.
Elizabeth
Haworth, University of Tasmania: It is hard to explain
Australia’s lack of action, considering the vulnerability of the
population and business to climate change — perhaps due to lack of
understanding of the scientific base, apathy due to ideology and/or
being in thrall to big business rather than science.
Jason
Evans, UNSW: Australia has been increasing emissions in
recent years but we need to decrease them to reach our Paris
Agreement commitment. Then we need to continue decreasing them beyond
that to limit the worst impacts of climate change.
Paul
Read, Monash University: We’ve lost decades of action and
squandered opportunities for an economic adaptation that would have
preserved a decent quality of life for future Australians.
Anonymous: The
absence of effective greenhouse gas emission reduction policies is a
decision to continue high emissions from Australia. That is a
decision to make climate change worse; more intense and more frequent
heatwaves, greater sea level rise, reduced rainfall in southern
Australia and more intense bushfires.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.