Go Greener, Australia

The Garnaut Climate Change Review is releasing it’s draft report on 30th June. If you live in a capital city on the mainland, you can attend a public forum to have your say about it. Professor Garnaut will be travelling around the country from the 7th to the 11th of July to host community discussions about the report. Individuals and organisations are encouraged to attend, but if you can’t, you can email or write in with your comments.

Each forum is held in the city’s town hall, from 10:00am to 11:30am. The dates are:

• Perth 7th July
• Adelaide 8th July
• Melbourne 9th July
• Sydney 10th July
• Brisbane 11th July

If you’re interested, you can register to attend through the review website.

The Garnaut review is the only independent study about the impacts of climate change that’s focusing on the Australian economy, and will be making recommendations about long-term policies and frameworks for Australia. I’d love to go to one of these forums, to see how it’s shaping up, but after taking a day off work to go to the Water Forever workshop I don’t think I can manage another day off so soon! If you do go, let me know if you’d like to write a guest post to share with the rest of us how it went.

On Tuesday, Brian from Larvatus Prodeo posted 7 graphs showing the incredibly rapid decline in Arctic ice last year. It beats all other extremes that have been recorded already, and shows how close we are to the point of no return.

Scientists previously predicted that the Arctic ice-cap would be no longer there during summertime by 2040, but have now revised that date to 2012. When it’s gone, we’re looking at faster sea-level rises and changed weather patterns with a knock-on effect around the world.

I was struck by the comment from one of the NASA climate scientists, Jay Zwally, as quoted in the National Geographic article Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within 5 Years (and quoted by Brian as well)

“The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming,” said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. “Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines.”

Brian’s article Trouble at the top of the world shows just how bad the damage is getting. He’s going to post more articles explaining the issue, and is encouraging people to send them to any policy-makers they know. Please read it, and send a link to it to anyone who you think needs to know more about what’s going on.

I’m back! And it was lovely to come home to the news that Australia has (finally) ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and that the US was unsuccessful in trying to derail the negotiations in Bali.

So what exactly was agreed to in Bali?

• to halve emissions by 2050
• to negotiate a binding set of short-term targets in 2009
• to help developing nations with reducing their emissions and adapting to changes

The US was being difficult throughout the process, and managed to get references to the IPCC and the science removed from the documents. But at the last minute they decided to let everyone have their agreement, after everyone else in the world made it clear that they’d be outcasts if they didn’t.

The general feeling is that the US will continue to stand in the way of negotiations until President Bush is gone in 2008 (they have 2-term limits over there), and after that we’ll all be able to get on with things. This is pretty depressing, because the situation is incredibly urgent. What I don’t understand is why the US can have any impact at all - they haven’t ratified the agreement, so why do they get a say in the final Bali conference documents?

Still, it would be great to see the same grassroots environmental action in the US that put environmental issues on the table during the Australian election. Grist.org has an article about how we got climate change to be talked about here, and what would need to happen in the US for the same result.

At any rate, Australia now has to work out what our precise options are. When Rudd became opposition leader, he commissioned the Garnaut report. It’s a review of the economic impact of dealing with climate change, and the costs of possible strategies we can use. In theory, it should be similar to the Stern report, only specifically for Australia.

The only problem is that the Garnaut report isn’t due until September next year. I’d like to see some action sooner, but I’d also like our action to be fully informed (rather than the back-of-a-Weeties-packet kind of research Howard did). So it looks like we’ll be waiting a while for specific targets to be announced. I’ll be campaigning for some actions to be taken before then - such as efficiency measures for households and businesses, which have an economic benefit no matter what our final targets are.

… a new chance for Australia to make a real difference to the impact of climate change. Now that Kevin Rudd and the Labour party have been elected to run the show for us, what’s in store? One of Rudd’s major election promises was that he would ratify the Kyoto Protocol - but was it just a ‘non-core’ promise to sway the voters, or is it the beginning of a new era of environmental responsibility for us? Crikey.com.au has tackled the question with two good articles.

The first is Rudd at Bali and Beyond, from Clive Hamilton (author of Scorcher: The dirty politics of climate change, which I reviewed a few months ago). Rudd is expected to ratify Kyoto when the next meeting of member nations is held in Bali this December. Hamilton discusses what Rudd will need to do at this meeting in order to be taken seriously. Other nations will be watching to see if we negotiate in good faith, and if Rudd removes the fossil fuel lobbyists from our international delegation. If Rudd looks like he means business, the rest of the world will be sighing with relief.

The second article is from Guy Pearce, author of High and Dry. He says that ratifying Kyoto will be the easy bit, since all Rudd has to do is show up at Bali and receive the gratitude of everyone who has been waiting for so long for us to join in. After that, he has to begin the hard work of actually cutting emissions. Pearce says that there will be several clues as to how Rudd will proceed after Kyoto is signed. If he replaces Garrett as Environment Minister, keeps taking the advice of ABARE on climate change issues, or delays setting binding emissions targets, then things don’t look good - we’ll have to make sure we keep the pressure on him for real action.

Only time will tell if Rudd will help Australia to do the right thing. I think the signs are good - but I’ll be happier once the Cabinet ministers are announced, and we know the fate of Peter Garrett.

Yesterday we went to the Perth Walk Against Warming protest march, which was held in Fremantle. We took advantage of the free public transport to get there from the city.We got there a bit early, and picked up a sign to carry. They had 4 or 5 different climate change signs for the people who hadn’t brought their own. We wandered around the Esplanade park doing some people-watching. There were also stalls for various causes and products; I signed a petition to stop mining in the Burrup region, and Dave bought me some organic sunscreen. Some poor guy was in a panda suit for the WWF - he must have been baking alive in there, but he was still performing for the kids.

Who was there?

There were all sorts of people there - from kids in prams to nanas with parasols; some people brought their dogs or their bongo drums; some had homemade signs, some had professionally-made ones. As for politicians, the Greens members had flags and matching Green shirts, which looked impressive when they stood in a group. There were Democrats as well, and a large bunch of people in Kevin07 t-shirts. I didn’t see any other minor parties, or any Liberal party representatives either.

There were quite a few people there promoting other causes. I think it’s better to keep the protest focused: promoting every issue under the sun makes you look like you’re just there to complain, while having a short list of specific actions you want lets people know exactly what you want from them, and what you’re trying to achieve. It’s a fine line though, because you also want to show that many different types of people support your cause, and having identifiable groups helps that. I think the organisers did well in this regard, because as an entire group I thought we looked pretty much on-topic.

The walk

The day started with a welcome to the land by an elder Aboriginal, then the Fremantle mayor spoke, and a few conservationists, then off we went!

The walk itself was shorter than I was expecting. This was a good thing, as it was really hot, about 36 degrees. We did a loop out to the main cappuccino strip in Freo, ending back at the park. There were a lot of spectators, pausing their shopping to watch us go by. Most seemed happy just to watch, a lot gave us the thumbs up, and a few laughed or swore at us. Our group was over 5000 strong, according to The West Australian, but Dave thinks it was closer to 8000. We were led by the Chameleon Brass band, who played some jazz and funk tunes, with about 20 people holding up windmills that look like the ones you get on wind-farms. It was quite a nice effect to see them turning in the breeze. There were also some giant puppets (not sure what they were to represent, except for the anti-nuke one); a few drumming bands; a group of cheerleaders called the Greenies; and everyone else of all shapes and sizes milling around in-between.

Afterwards they had speeches by the invited political representatives, with each one highlighting that the Liberals were a no-show. Another man spoke about what the consequences of climate change are for Australia, and what action we need to stop it - less of the “change a lightbulb” and more of the “no new coal power plants” variety. Then a few bands started to play, and we took a last look around before heading to the pub for a refreshing beer.

Other marches were held around WA and Australia - ours wasn’t the largest, but I think Perth was well-represented. I hope the number of people marching around the nation gives our politicians a clue about how seriously voters take this issue, and that we want serious action on climate change.

With the federal election coming up, there’s been some talk about the Kyoto Protocol, and whether or not we should sign it. You can see who’s for and against Kyoto at the ACF’s election score-card, and read all about the disagreements between leaders and their environment ministers in the news. But what is the Kyoto Protocol, and why is it such an issue for Australia?

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement where countries agree to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, on average by about 5%. Countries can trade any extra reductions with other places that haven’t done so well. Helping renewable energy projects in developing nations count towards their goals as well. There are two groups of countries: Annex I, the developed nations who accept reduction targets and report on them every year; and Non-Annex 1, the developing nations who don’t have to reduce their GHG emissions, but can join in the Clean Development Mechanism and get some renewable energy. So far, 175 nations have signed up.

It was negotiated in 1997, when Australia got a sweet deal which allowed us to increase our emissions by 8% instead of reducing them. But then we didn’t sign up after all, and neither did the USA. The agreement needed 55 developed nations to join to make it worthwhile, and they were a couple short. Finally Russia signed on in 2004, which made enough countries for everyone to get going.

Australia and the USA are still the only developed nations in the world who haven’t signed up to Kyoto. Some people say we shouldn’t join in, because developing nations like China and India don’t have to commit to any reductions in their emissions. As their populations increase and their lifestyles become more like ours, they’ll end up needing to produce lots of energy and make lots of consumer goods, and that will create a lot of GHG emissions. I think this reason is a cop-out, because climate change is caused by the pollution that countries like us made during the 20 century: it’s like saying “Well, we made a mess, but we won’t start cleaning up until you do, because you might make a mess later on.”

The other main reason given for not signing is that joining in on Kyoto will cost too much money, or reduce employment. This is a cop-out too: not only are there investment opportunities for Kyoto partners, there are employment opportunities in new areas like renewable energy and forest management; and (as pointed out in the Stern review) it would take less than 1% of GDP per year to reduce GHG emissions to an acceptable level, if we start now. If you wait too long, it ends up losing you between 5% to 20% of GDP per year, and even now some Kyoto countries like France are talking about restricting business with non-Kyoto countries, which loses us more opportunities and money. Speaking economically as well as environmentally, it’s stupid not to join in the only international agreement in place to help fix this global problem.

Climate change isn’t going away - we can sit on the sidelines and moan about how hard it all is, or we can join in with the rest of the gang and help fix it. I know I’d rather be helping. How about you?

Today is Blog Action Day, with the topic of the environment. I blog about the environment anyway - about what I do to live a greener lifestyle, and the places in Australia facing environmental problems. But today I want to look at the big picture…

Sydney Opera House mark 2
Originally uploaded by Elfike

Prime Minister John Howard called the federal election yesterday - this means we’ve got 6 weeks to decide who’s going to lead us into a future that’s definitely got climate change on the horizon. Australians have to look at what the country needs right now, look at what’s on offer from politicians, then make the call: who will help us most?

What can the Australian government do to help us prevent the worst of climate change? How can they help ordinary Australians make the right choices? We need to speak up and ask for what we want from them. Here’s what I reckon…

1. Sign Kyoto

The Kyoto Protocol isn’t perfect, but it’s the only international agreement that exists to work on this international problem. Australia should be co-operating with the rest of the world, not hanging back and waiting for a magic-bullet solution. The Kyoto nations are already making advances in technology and legislation that we could be benefiting from if we were to join in - there are investment and education opportunties that we’re missing out on. We could be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

2. No new coal

New Zealand has put a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants for 10 years - it would be easy for us to do the same. Coal already gets many subsidies from the government, from taxpayers’ money. Why are we paying for more greenhouse gas emissions to be put into our environment? If coal companies can build plants that prevent GHG emissions through carbon capture, using their own money, then they can go ahead. But until then, we can stop contributing to their pollution.

3. More renewable energy

Renewable energy, from sources such as solar, wind, geothermal energy, wave power and so on, are a much cleaner way of supplying electricity than the coal we currently use. Currently, our mandatory renewable energy targets are at 2%, and have been since 2000, while our actual renewable use is about 8%. Other countries get much more of their power from renewables: Germany 11% (mostly wind power), Spain 20% (with some regions at 70%), Denmark 20%. Iceland and New Zealand have 70% because they’ve got extensive hydro and geothermal resources to use. Renewable energy is ready for the mainstream. Even 15% would help our climate change problem, but I think we can aim higher. Australia needs to encourage investment in this renewable energy, and make it easier for both large and small businesses to get involved. This could open up new areas of employment, research and investment for us.

4. Efficiency standards

You’ve seen the stickers on appliances showing how energy efficient they are (or aren’t, in some cases). But what if we made it compulsory for all products to meet a minimum standard of efficiency? The government already holds products to safety standards, so why not have efficiency standards as well? They could be phased in over a number of years, and it’d make it impossible for anyone to buy an energy-hog. The standards could apply to new buildings as well - no-one wants to spend a lot of money on a home only to find that it could have been better. Some states are already introducing building standards, but it should be done across the board. Efficiency standards would make it easier for Aussies to reduce their energy consumption without having to learn electronics and construction techniques!

These are some of my ideas - I think our government should be making it easy for us to reduce our pollution and waste, while encouraging innovation and new ways of thinking about how we live our lives.

What could the next Australian government do to make it easier for you to live a greener life?

blog action day

If you’ve been wondering how Earth’s climate works, what global warming is, and how it creates climate change, then Tim Flannery’s The Weather Makers is the book for you.

Flannery starts by explaining how our climate works and what we’re currently doing to change it. His enthusiastic approach to explaining the science makes this book far more entertaining to read than a dry recital of statistics. Anyone who did a few science units in high school will be able to follow the details, because he goes through the concepts clearly and simply. However, he never dumbs it down - the information is accurate and reliable.

In the next section Flannery shows the effect our changes to the atmosphere have already caused, with examples from around the world, particularly Australia and the US. Then he covers the major solutions proposed (solar, wind, nuclear, etc), what politicians are doing, and then a section on what we as individuals can do. I found the section on politics rather depressing, but since the book was written there’s been a groundswell of support in Australia for taking action on climate change, and more demands from the public for politicians to do something about it.

Flannery finishes with a list of stuff you can do to prevent climate change, which is also available on the The Weather Makers website. I think the list is great - it’s aimed at getting you to make the changes that will make the most difference, rather than tiny changes that will chip away at the problem. I particularly like that ‘write to a politician’ is on the list, since many of the “Top 10 Ways to Save the World” lists neglect political action. The website also has excerpts from the book (so you can try before you buy), reviews and further resources.

Recommended?
The Weather Makers is a clear and comprehensive look at climate change, providing us with the information we need to make decisions about possible solutions to the problem. Flannery’s enthusiasm is catching, and I think that’s why he received the Australian of the Year award in January - he shows us we can understand the problem, we can figure out solutions, and we can make changes for our future. I’d recommend this book to anyone in Australia or the USA who’s been looking for an overview of the climate change situation.

If you haven’t done much high-school science, then I’d recommend We Are the Weather Makers instead. It’s the “young adult” edition: same content, but simplified. I think it’s a great option for people interested in learning about climate change even though they might not have any scientific knowledge. It’d also be good for anyone who hasn’t got the time to read the longer version

Clive Hamilton’s book Scorcher is a history of climate change politics in Australia since the mid-90s. Hamilton shows that the Howard government has had a clear agenda for climate change during this time, but not one that many Aussies would approve of.

Hamilton starts with details of the power-brokers in Australia who try to prevent government action on climate change. It’s a lot like the Four Corners expose from last year, The Greenhouse Mafia. Then there’s an explanation of where Australia’s greenhouse-gas emissions come from and the consequences for us, as well as the ethical implications of this global problem.

The next section of the book gets to the point. Hamilton explains how the Howard government threatened to withdraw from the first Kyoto Protocol negotiations unless we got a special deal (the inclusion of land-clearing emissions) and permission to increase emissions. After we got this cushy deal, Howard refused to ratify the agreement. The rest of the world were not happy, Jan, and the refusal of Australia and the US to join in caused a 5 year delay before Kyoto could come into force.

When the Kyoto agreement finally got underway in 2004, the Howard government tried to discredit it and undermine the second round of negotiations. Because of this, Australia will be restricted to observer status only in 2013 when the second phase of Kyoto is organised. Understandably, other nations feel that if we don’t think Kyoto is a good idea, then we shouldn’t bother showing up for meetings.

Finally, the book shows how the Howard government has tried to deal with the majority of Aussies who want more action on climate change. So far they’ve:

• raised the idea of nuclear power, which didn’t go down well with most Aussies,
• started the Asia-Pacific 6 group, which died when the US refused to fund it, and
• created a carbon-trading task group, which copied what was already being created by the Kyoto deals.

Hamilton takes a jab at environmental groups and the Australian public, for not speaking up sooner. Later he has a go at Tim Flannery for promoting individual action as a solution instead of government policy. I can’t remember Hamilton being active on environmental issues before anyone else figured it out, and I think he misunderstands Flannery’s position. This finger-wagging is a strange addition, and I think Hamilton would’ve done better to stick to political history.

Recommended?
If you’re going to claim that the Prime Minister has sabotaged the Kyoto processes and prevented climate-change action within Australia, then you’d better be able to back it up with solid facts or you’ll end up looking like a conspiracy theorist. Hamilton documents everything, and makes it easy for anyone to confirm his claims. He lists the facts, with supporting statistics, graphs, references to published material and so on.

The disadvantage of this is that it’s pretty dry reading. However, Hamilton is probably aiming for a narrower audience: journalists, academics, lobbyists and people with the background to understand and take in the amount of detail he presents. If you’re part of this target audience, or have an interest in politics, recent history and the environment, then you’ll find Scorcher both relevant and important.

I know it’s an important topic, but it’s not fun to pick up a book just to find out more of the dishonesty of politicians and businessmen, and how their actions make the rest of the world think we’re selfish and ignorant. And it’s not exactly surprising information. I’m glad I read it, but I’m a bit reluctant to recommend it to other people! If you’re a casual reader with an interest in the environment, this probably isn’t the book for you.

A friend let me know there’s a new campaign by the ACF called Who On Earth Cares?. The campaign website asks you to sign up, mark your location on a map of Australia, and say what you’re doing to help the environment.

It’s being promoted by Cate Blanchett. She says (from the linked article):

“On a personal level, I’m extremely concerned about climate change as a mother because I want to ensure for my own children a very safe and sustainable future and leave them a sustainable Australia”

Last time I checked just over 3,600 people all over Australia had put themselves on the “Who Cares” map. If they give these numbers to politicians, that’d be a great way of showing the public support for real action on climate change.