Month: September 2018

Typhoon Mangkhut, ‘global weirding’ and how tourism contributes to climate change |#auspol #qldpol #StopAdani #EndCoal #Insiders #QandA #TheDrum @TheCairnsPost #Staycation @Sustainable2050

By Mercedes Hutton

As Typhoon Mangkhut was doing its best to make life miserable in the Philippines and on China’s south coast, felling trees, shattering windows and laying waste to low-lying areas in its destructive wake, on the other side of the world, Hurricane Florence slammed into the United States’ eastern seaboard, dumping record rainfall and cutting power to hundreds of thousands of households.

Macau Streets turn into rivers after Typhoon Mangkhut

So far, so standard.

After all, the tropical cyclones of the Atlantic hurricane season and the Pacific typhoon season always overlap, right?

Wrong.

While the seasons do run simultaneously, it is most unusual for the two areas to be active at the same time.

Since 1970, such an anomaly has arisen just twice before, in 1998 and 2016, atmospheric research scientist Philip Klotzbach told NBC News on September 10, making Florence and Mangkhut’s dual attacks a symptom of “global weirding”.

But what is global weirding, and what does it mean for holidaymakers across Asia?

New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman first tried to embed the expression into the zeitgeist in 2010, when he wrote: “sweet-sounding ‘global warming’ doesn’t really capture what’s likely to happen.

I prefer the term ‘global weirding’, coined by Hunter Lovins, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, because the rise in average global temperature is going to lead to all sorts of crazy things – from hotter heat spells and droughts in some places, to colder cold spells and more violent storms, more intense flooding, forest fires and species loss in other places.”

Fast forward eight years and superlative weather events have become a regular occurrence.

This summer saw Japan sweat under a sweltering heatwave; flash floods and landslides hit Vietnam; and a drought-induced plague of rats swarm over Inner Mongolia, in China (yes, really); while warming oceans have led to coral bleaching and an increase in the intensity and unpredictability of storms.

A temperature indicator measures 41 degrees Celsius in Kumagaya, north of Tokyo, Japan, in July. Picture: Kyodo

For travellers, weirding can result in any number of outcomes, from cancelled flights to destinations dropping off the bucket list altogether as atmospheric conditions and rising sea levels render them inhospitable – or even underwater.

Of course, the real victims of such eventualities are not tourists but the inhabitants of the affected areas. A 2018 World Bank study found that 12 countries in Asia are at risk of inundation from a permanent sea-level rise, with coastal areas in China and Indonesia most vulnerable.

When presented in this way, it becomes evident that the glib term “global weirding” ill serves the enormity of its effects – let’s call a spade a spade, this is catastrophic climate change. And the tourism industry is both a victim of and a contributor to our planet’s ecological decline.

A paper published in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change this year examined the environmental impact of tourism – from flights to the manufacture of cheap souvenirs – and the results are damning: the industry accounts for a not inconsiderable 8 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Travellers were stranded at Hong Kong International Airport after more than 500 flights were cancelled because of Typhoon Mangkhut. Picture: K.Y. Cheng

Air transport is, unsurprisingly, one of the main culprits, and that is unlikely to change as the world gets richer and yet more people take to the skies. “Carbon taxes or carbon trading schemes – in particular for aviation – may be required to curtail unchecked future growth in tourism-related emissions,” said co-author of the study Dr Ya-Yen Sun, to British newspaper The Independent, in May.

Until that becomes an industry-wide reality, or biofuels become a legitimate alternative to environmentally harmful fossil fuels, it is up to the individual traveller to offset their own flight emissions/clear their conscience.

This can be done by investing in environmental projects such as afforestation and clean energy generation, or, dare we suggest it, by opting for a staycation.

It might be a cringeworthy portmanteau, but doing so is better for the environment and reduces marginally the chance of another typhoon ruining your holiday.

I’ve heard Sai Kung is lovely at this time of year – or will be when Mangkhut’s mess has eventually been cleared up.

Press link for more: SCMP.COM

Prepare for 10 Feet of Sea Level Rise, California Commission Tells Coastal Cities #auspol #qldpol #nswpol #ClimateChange #Insiders #TheDrum #QandA #StopAdani #EndCoal

Though an extreme scenario, it should be factored in to coastal infrastructure planning, new guidance suggests

By Anne C. Mulkern, E&E News on September 21, 2018

Houses hang over a cliff in Pacifica, California that was eroded by storms and powerful waves connected to a strong El Niño in 2016. Credit: Josh Edelson Getty Images

California coastal cities should be prepared for the possibility that oceans will rise more than 10 feet by 2100 and submerge parts of beach towns, the state Coastal Commission warns in new draft guidance.

The powerful agency, which oversees most development along 1,100 miles of coast, will consider approving the guidance this fall.

A staff report recommending the changes was released last week.

Earlier commission guidance put top sea-level rise at 6 feet by 2100. But according to the new report, there’s the “potential for rapid ice loss to result in an extreme scenario of 10.2 feet of sea level rise” by the end of the century.

Even without the 10-foot rise, the draft guidance cautions, as much as two-thirds of Southern California beaches “may be completely lost due to rising sea level.”

If adopted, the guidance will advise municipalities to evaluate the 10-foot scenario for planning and permitting. It’s aimed at getting cities to think differently about how they approve large projects that are likely to be in place for many years and that can’t be easily changed once built, said Madeline Cavalieri, statewide planning manager at the commission.

“What we’re saying is, look at that 10 feet of sea-level rise and think about what it means for your future,” Cavalieri said in an interview.

Cities need to think long-term when planning, she said, because “we don’t want to go investing a lot of resources into developing an area that we know is going to be underwater.”

The proposed guidance comes as the commission is asking more than 40 cities and counties to spell out how they’ll adapt to sea-level rise in the planning rulebooks known as Local Coastal Programs. Those outline how jurisdictions implement provisions of the state’s Coastal Act, a law designed to protect beaches, habitats and coastal access.

The commission, which must approve the plans, has butted up against cities on issues related to the change, including sea walls. The state agency looks to limit those, arguing they block beaches from moving inland as waters rise.

Some entities that would be affected by the proposed guidance already have lodged complaints. The Port of San Diego told the commission in a letter that, “due to the current state of knowledge about the West Antarctic ice sheet” and the 10-foot scenario, “planning for such event without a greater degree of certainty is not appropriate.”

Cavalieri said, though, that the port wouldn’t be obligated to design for 10 feet of sea-level rise if the guidance were adopted.

“It may be that they build something today that is designed to withstand a lesser amount of sea-level rise,” she said, “but they should do that going in eyes wide open that this might be an area that’s vulnerable. Maybe looking at that 10 feet, there are other design options.”

The proposed new guidance incorporates information from California’s Ocean Protection Council, which last year updated projections for what the state’s iconic coastline faces in years ahead.

The OPC revisions used an analysis from scientists Helen Fricker at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and Robert DeConto at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. They warn of hydrofracture, a phenomenon that occurs when water that’s on top of ice sheets due to melting seeps into crevasses and causes them to widen. That could result in the ice sheets breaking away from grounded ice.

Hydrofracture happened once already in 2002 to the Larsen B Ice Shelf in Antarctica. The incident wasn’t catastrophic because the shelf was not holding back a lot of ice, Fricker said in an interview. But if it happened with other ice sheets in the region, she said, “then you may get a very large runaway retreat” of ice from Antarctica.

“It’s not out of the question,” Fricker said. “There’s a low probability it could happen, but it’s something we should be mindful of as we plan for the future.”

Fricker briefed California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) on that part of the OPC report last year. She said the first thing the governor asked was the elevation of the airports in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Brown, she said, was concerned about “how quickly are we going to need to move things like airports.”

No probability for 10 feet

Last week’s draft commission guidance—based on the OPC analysis—gives several scenarios for what future sea-level rise could look like along different parts of the coast. Under the “low range” in the San Francisco area, for example, water could rise just over 1 foot by 2050 and 3.4 feet by 2100.

The medium scenario projects 1.9 feet of sea-level rise by 2050 and 6.8 feet by the turn of the century.

The OPC report, though, wouldn’t place a probability on 10 feet of sea-level rise, saying that “at this point, it is scientifically premature to estimate” the likelihood that what it called the “H++ scenario” will come to pass “and, if so, when the world will move onto the H++ trajectory.”

Asked why the state and local governments should plan for a scenario that might not happen, Kelsey Ducklow, climate change analyst at the Coastal Commission, said that “while the H++ scenario has a low probability of occurring, it is a possibility.”

“So understanding this worst-case scenario is an important factor for resilience planning, particularly for existing or planned development that would be irreparably damaged and would have significant environmental consequences,” she said in an email. Even if new development isn’t designed to the 10-foot standard, she said, “it is important to evaluate so that decisions can made with a full understanding of the risks to the development and the environment.”

Some residents of coastal California cities already are rejecting sea-level rise projections, even those well below the 10-foot scenario.

“Some of the climate change exaggerations of 3 feet of sea-level rise is equal to fearmongering,” Jim Steele, with the Community Working Group on Sea Level Rise in Pacifica, said at an August meeting on that city’s possible adaptation plans.

Steele said that sea level has risen about 8 inches over the last century, a rate of about 2 millimeters a year. If that rate continued, he said, it would take 144 years to rise 1 foot.

Others at the meeting pushed back, saying new climate science indicates faster sea-level rise.

James Jackson with Environmental Science Associates, a consultant in Pacifica, responded that the city’s draft adaptation policy aligns actions with “the actual amount of observable sea-level rise.”

Pacifica, which is south of San Francisco, already has seen coastal bluffs deteriorate to the point where three apartment buildings and a house perched on the edge were deemed unsafe and eventually demolished. City officials say El Niño storms contributed to that cliff erosion.

El Niño, which occurs when temperatures in the Pacific Ocean climb above normal, often brings heavy precipitation.

Jennifer Savage, California policy manager with the Surfrider Foundation, said she’s skeptical many would heed the Coastal Commission guidance warning of possibly 10 feet of sea-level rise.

“Unfortunately the long-term projections and reality of sea-level rise don’t coincide well with the political cycle, so it’s very hard to get elected officials and appointed authorities to take action,” Savage said.

Sea level is long-term, while mayors and councils are elected every few years, she said.

“Very few elected officials are going to want to be the ones to tell property owners your home is not as valuable as you think it is … because the ocean is going to wash it away, Savage said.“The political will to make hard decisions is not necessarily there.”

Press link for more: Scientific American

Closing eyes to #climatechange won’t stop warming #auspol #qldpol #nswpol #StopAdani #EndCoal #Drought #Bushfire #TheDrum #QandA #Insiders #SaveTheReef

By Ebony Bennett

Canberra is enjoying what my friend dubs “fake spring” – days of warm sunny weather that encourage you to pack away the blanket on the couch and venture out without your puffy coat, only to be caught shivering when the temperature inevitably drops.

But fake spring is not the only season out of whack. This year, bushfire season started in winter in Australia.

There were bushfires in the Arctic Circle.

It’s hard to wrap your mind around.

Yet the Morrison government appears content to head to the next election with no clear plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the cause of rising temperatures. It has dumped its signature policy, the national energy guarantee, and though the Prime Minister has assured the public we will meet our Paris target to reduce emissions, he has not outlined how his government will make this happen.

On climate change, Scott Morrison is the man without a plan.

It could cost him dearly. The Climate Institute has carried out an annual survey to track public attitudes to climate change for over a decade. This year, it showed public concern about climate change is at a five-year high, mostly driven by the effects of heat.

Having no discernible policy to reduce greenhouse-gas pollution is a high-risk political strategy.

First, it ignores that voters of all political persuasions are concerned about the effects of climate change and rising temperatures,  such as droughts, bushfires and the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef.

Second, it ignores that climate change is likely to be a huge issue in the Wentworth by-election where the Liberal vote has crashed – hardly sensible politics when the government is holding onto its majority by its fingernails.

Third, rising temperatures cause real policy problems for infrastructure, for sectors of the economy like agriculture, and for public health – to name just a few.

This week, many of us watched Four Corners’ expose of the aged-care sector in horror, including the story of Catherine Logan, who was stuck in her aged-care home on an extremely hot day, all day and night with no air-conditioning – not even a fan. She survived to tell her loved ones, but it was exceptionally dangerous.

Heat kills. It’s a gruesome reality.

Ageing coal-fired power stations, like this one in Gladstone, increasingly fail to operate in hot weather.

Photo: Glenn Hunt

The average human body temperature is 37 degrees.

If your body temperature is above 40 degrees, you are considered to have severe hyperthermia and are in danger of dying if not treated immediately.

As we head into summer, it’s worth remembering that, at temperatures above 35 degrees, the human body’s ability to cool itself reduces, making it a common benchmark temperature for occupational health and safety experts, academic and government researchers.

Combined with 70 per cent humidity, conditions over 35 degrees are considered “extremely dangerous” by government agencies such as the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

At most risk are the elderly, the very young and the very sick, and those who work in labour-intensive heat-exposed industries like agriculture or construction.

In November 2009, during its record-breaking heatwave, Adelaide’s morgue ran out of space, forcing authorities to store corpses in a refrigerated freight container. In 2003, more than 14,000 people died of hyperthermia in France alone during a European heatwave.

These were preventable deaths.

At least France has some clear plans to fix things. It has pledged to phase out all oil and gas production by 2040 and aims to end the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles by the same date. It also introduced a heat health watch warning system to avoid preventable deaths during heatwaves and extremely hot days.

In contrast, Australia is a policy vacuum.

That’s why the Australia Institute released the first in a series of HeatWatch reports this week that will track the forecast increase in extremely hot days in specific regions, using data from the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology.

HeatWatch began with Rockhampton and Gladstone in Queensland.

The number of days over 35 degrees has nearly doubled in Rockhampton in recent years and is forecast to triple in the absence of strong policy responses to climate change. About half of summer days in Rockhampton will be over 35 degrees by 2070. In Gladstone, CSIRO forecasts are already being exceeded and extreme heat days have already risen to levels that were not predicted to occur before 2050.

A couple of hot days are great for the pool or the beach in summer, but they far from fun when it’s too hot to sleep for days on end, or when it’s a struggle to go about your daily life – as anyone who lives in Adelaide or Western Sydney can attest.

The policy problems that this extreme heat will cause are not limited to health. Rockhampton beef farmer Mick Alexander said: “Some of the biggest issues we are facing in central Queensland are the increased rate of evaporation of water storages and the impact of hot conditions on cattle where vegetation has been over cleared in past years. Climate change is causing extremely hot summers and even unseasonably hot winters are forcing us to rethink paddock layout, tree retention and even man-made shade structures to reduce heat impact on livestock.”

The government’s climate policy black hole is letting down farmers like Alexander.

Heat also stresses infrastructure. More severe and more frequent bushfires damage property, but on hot days we also have seen roads physically melt. In Victoria, rail lines that were not built to withstand extreme heat buckled in 40-degree temperatures in 2009, causing mass train cancellations and commuter chaos.

Gas and coal-fired power stations fail in the heat, too, right when we need them most. During the February 2017 heatwave across south-eastern Australia, across the national electricity market, 14 per cent (3600 megawatts) of gas and coal-fired electricity generation capacity failed during critical peak demand periods in three states as a result of faults, largely related to the heat.

Gladstone power station is nearing the end of its operating life and is due for replacement. If the government had a clear policy to drive investment in clean-energy generation, the market would see the station replaced by clean energy that won’t fail in the heat. But there’s little chance of that under a Morrison government. When the government dumped the national energy guarantee, all the “certainty” promised to investors, business and the energy sector evaporated like a puddle of water on a 35-degree day.

It’s a fair dinkum mess.

Ebony Bennett is deputy director of the Australia Institute. Twitter: @ebony_bennett

Press link for more: SMH.COM

“New Thinking For The British Economy” #auspol #qldpol #Neoliberalism #SystemChange not #ClimateChange #StopAdani #EndCoal

Western political economy is in a period of upheaval.

Neoliberalism – the set of economic ideas and policies that have dominated politics for the past 40 years – is rapidly losing legitimacy in the face of multiple crises: stagnant or falling living standards, sharply rising inequality of income and wealth, financial fragility and environmental breakdown.

The Global Financial Crisis of 2007/08 brought an end to the so-called ‘Great Moderation’ – the period of relative economic stability since the 1980s – and laid bare the underlying weaknesses of free market orthodoxy.

The impact of the crisis, and the austerity policies that followed, have fractured the political argument in many countries, contributing to a series of political shocks across Britain, the USA and Europe.

At the same time, the economics profession has entered a period of intellectual upheaval.

Student-­led campaigns for more pluralist economic teaching in universities have gained momentum, while increasing numbers of economists and commentators – including those in mainstream institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) – acknowledge the shortcomings of orthodox economic ideas.

Political economic paradigms do not last forever.

Over the last hundred years, Western political economy has experienced two major episodes of transition from one paradigm to another: firstly from laissez-faire to the post-war consensus after the Great Depression of the 1930s, and secondly from the post-war consensus to neoliberalism in the 1980s.

The evident failings of our present economic system, and the political dissatisfactions that have grown in recent years, suggest that the conditions for another paradigm shift are beginning to emerge.

By chance and good fortune, Britain is at the very forefront of efforts to build an alternative to neoliberalism.

Already there is a broad movement spanning academia and civil society working on a post-neoliberal vision for the economy, as well as growing political mobilisation and a proliferation of local and municipal initiatives putting new economic ideas into practice.

While there are matters for continued contestation, it is clear that a consensus on the broad outlines of a new political economic agenda are beginning to emerge.

This is an economy that embodies in its basic institutional structures and operations the foundational principles of democracy, equality, subsidiarity, resilience and sustainability.

This more democratic economy is inclusive and participatory, pays attention to matters of scale and decentralisation, and is plural, allowing for the innovation of new economic forms and approaches at different levels.

It involves building new, democratic models of ownership and control of key resources and decision-making across the economy.

This new economy is also radically green and sustainable, living safely within ecological limits and boundaries.

It is informed by a politics and ideology that leans towards the pragmatic and practical, with a strong non-sectarian solutions-orientation.

Press link for more: Open Democracy

We need a stability and wellbeing pact, not more growth. #auspol #qldpol #nswpol #StopAdani #EndCoal #ClimateChange #Drought #Bushfire #PostGrowth #Economy #TheDrum #QandA

This week, scientists, politicians, and policymakers gathered in Brussels for a landmark conference.

The aim of this event, organised by members of the European parliament from five different political groups, alongside trade unions and NGOs, is to explore possibilities for a “post-growth economy” in Europe.

For the past seven decades, GDP growth has stood as the primary economic objective of European nations. But as our economies have grown, so has our negative impact on the environment.

We are now exceeding the safe operating space for humanity on this planet, and there is no sign that economic activity is being decoupled from resource use or pollution at anything like the scale required. Today, solving social problems within European nations does not require more growth. It requires a fairer distribution of the income and wealth that we already have.

Growth is also becoming harder to achieve due to declining productivity gains, market saturation, and ecological degradation.

If current trends continue, there may be no growth at all in Europe within a decade.

Right now the response is to try to fuel growth by issuing more debt, shredding environmental regulations, extending working hours, and cutting social protections.

This aggressive pursuit of growth at all costs divides society, creates economic instability, and undermines democracy.

Those in power have not been willing to engage with these issues, at least not until now.

The European commission’s Beyond GDP project became GDP and Beyond.

The official mantra remains growth — redressed as “sustainable”, “green”, or “inclusive” – but first and foremost, growth.

Even the new UN sustainable development goals include the pursuit of economic growth as a policy goal for all countries, despite the fundamental contradiction between growth and sustainability.

The good news is that within civil society and academia, a post-growth movement has been emerging.

It goes by different names in different places: décroissance, Postwachstum, steady-state or doughnut economics, prosperity without growth, to name a few.

Since 2008, regular degrowth conferences have gathered thousands of participants.

A new global initiative, the Wellbeing Economies Alliance (or WE-All), is making connections between these movements, while a European research network has been developing new “ecological macroeconomic models”.

Such work suggests that it’s possible to improve quality of life, restore the living world, reduce inequality, and provide meaningful jobs – all without the need for economic growth, provided we enact policies to overcome our current growth dependence.

Some of the changes that have been proposed include limits on resource use, progressive taxation to stem the tide of rising inequality, and a gradual reduction in working time.

Resource use could be curbed by introducing a carbon tax, and the revenue could be returned as a dividend for everyone or used to finance social programmes.

Introducing both a basic and a maximum income would reduce inequality further, while helping to redistribute care work and reducing the power imbalances that undermine democracy.

New technologies could be used to reduce working time and improve quality of life, instead of being used to lay off masses of workers and increase the profits of the privileged few.

Given the risks at stake, it would be irresponsible for politicians and policymakers not to explore possibilities for a post-growth future. The conference happening in Brussels is a promising start, but much stronger commitments are needed. As a group of concerned social and natural scientists representing all Europe, we call on the European Union, its institutions, and member states to:

1. Constitute a special commission on post-growth futures in the EU parliament. This commission should actively debate the future of growth, devise policy alternatives for post-growth futures, and reconsider the pursuit of growth as an overarching policy goal.

2. Incorporate alternative indicators into the macroeconomic framework of the EU and its member states. Economic policies should be evaluated in terms of their impact on human wellbeing, resource use, inequality, and the provision of decent work. These indicators should be given higher priority than GDP in decision-making.

3. Turn the stability and growth pact (SGP) into a stability and wellbeing pact. The SGP is a set of rules aimed at limiting government deficits and national debt. It should be revised to ensure member states meet the basic needs of their citizens, while reducing resource use and waste emissions to a sustainable level.

4. Establish a ministry for economic transition in each member state. A new economy that focuses directly on human and ecological wellbeing could offer a much better future than one that is structurally dependent on economic growth.

Dr Dan O’Neill, Associate Professor, University of Leeds, UK

Dr Federico Demaria, Researcher, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain

Dr Giorgos Kallis, Professor, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain

Dr Kate Raworth, Author of ‘Doughnut Economics’, UK

Dr Tim Jackson, Professor, University of Surrey, UK

Dr Jason Hickel, Lecturer, Goldsmiths, University of London, UK

Dr Lorenzo Fioramonti, Professor, University of Pretoria, South Africa

Dr Marta Conde, President of Research & Degrowth, Spain

Dr Kevin Anderson, Deputy Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, UK

Dr Steve Keen, Professor, Kingston University, UK

Dr Saskia Sassen, Professor of Sociology, Columbia University, USA

Dr Ann Pettifor, Director, Policy Research in Macroeconomics (PRIME), UK

Dr Serge Latouche, Université Paris Sud, France

Dr Kate Pickett, Professor, University of York, UK

Dr Susan George, President of the Transnational Institute-TNI, Netherlands

Dr Joan Martinez Alier, Professor, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Catalonia

Dr David Graeber, Professor, London School of Economics, UK

Dr Juan Carlos Monedero Fernández, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain

Dr Dominique Méda, Professor, University Paris Dauphine, France

Dr Lourdes Beneria, Professor Emerita, Cornell University, USA

Dr Inge Røpke, Professor, Aalborg University, Denmark

Dr Niko Paech, Professor, University of Siegen, Germany

Dr Jean Gadrey, Professor, University of Lille, France

Dr Nadia Johanisova, Lecturer, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

Dr Wolfgang Sachs, Research Director Emeritus, Wuppertal Institut, Germany

Dr Stefania Barca, Senior Researcher, Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal

Dr Gilbert Rist, Emeritus Professor, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Switzerland

Dr György Pataki, Professor, Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary

Dr Simone D’Alessandro, Professor, University of Pisa, Italy

Dr Ian Gough, Visiting Professor, London School of Economics, UK

Dr Iñigo Capellán-Pérez, Researcher, University of Valladolid, Spain

Dr Amaia Pérez Orozco, Researcher, Colectiva XXK, Spain

Dr Max Koch, Professor, Lund University, Sweden

Dr Fabrice Flipo, Professor, Institut Mines Télécom-BS et LCSP Paris 7 Diderot, France

Dr Matthias Schmelzer, Researcher, University of Jena and Konzeptwerk Neue Ökonomie, Germany

Dr Óscar Carpintero, Associate Professor, University of Valladolid, Spain

Dr Hubert Buch-Hansen, Associate Professor, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

Dr Christos Zografos, Pompeu Fabra University, Spain

Dr Tereza Stöckelová, Associate Professor, Institute of Sociology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Czech Republic

Dr Alf Hornborg, Professor, Lund University, Sweden

Dr Eric Clark, Professor, Lund University, Sweden

Dr Miklós Antal, Researcher, University of Leeds, UK

Dr Jordi Roca Jusmet, Professor, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain

Dr Philippe Defeyt, Chairman, Institute for Sustainable Development, Belgium

Dr Erik Swyngedouw, Professor, University of Manchester, UK

Dr Christian Kerschner, Assistant Professor, Modul University Vienna, Austria

Dr Agata Hummel, Assistant Professor, University of Adam Mickiewicz, Poland

Dr Frank Moulaert, Emeritus Professor, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium

Dr Frank Adler, Researcher, Brandenburg-Berlin Institute for Social Scientific Research, Germany

Dr Janne I. Hukkinen, Professor, University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr Jorge Riechmann, Professor, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain

Samuel Martín-Sosa Rodríguez, Responsable de Internacional, Ecologistas en Acción, Spain

Dr John Barry, Professor, Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland

Dr Linda Nierling, Senior Scientist, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany

Dr Ines Omann, Senior Researcher, Austrian Foundation for Development Research, Austria

Dr Hug March, Associate Professor, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain

Dr Jakub Kronenberg, Associate Professor, University of Lodz, Poland

Yayo Herrero, Miembro del Foro de Transiciones, Spain

Dr Isabelle Anguelovski, Professor, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain

Dr François Schneider, Researcher, Research & Degrowth, France

Dr Vasilis Kostakis, Senior Researcher, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia

Dr Enric Tello, Professor, University of Barcelona, Spain

Dr Andrew Sayer, Professor, Lancaster University, UK

Dr Kate Soper, Emerita Professor, London Metropolitan University, UK

Dr Klaus Hubacek, Professor, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria

Dr Brent Bleys, Assistant Professor, Ghent University, Belgium

Dr Jill Jäger, Independent Scholar, Vienna, Austria

Dr Mauro Gallegati, Professor, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Italy

Dr Peadar Kirby, Professor Emeritus, University of Limerick, Ireland

Dr Inés Marco, Researcher, University of Barcelona, Spain

Dr Ivan Murray Mas, Assistant Lecturer, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Spain

Dr Alexandros Kioupkiolis, Assistant Professor, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Dr Aurore Lalucq, Co-Director, Veblen Institute, France

Dr Gaël Plumecocq, Researcher, French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), France

Dr David Soto Fernández, Associate Professor, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Spain

Dr Christian Kimmich, Researcher, Masaryk University Brno, Czech Republic

Dr Giacomo D’Alisa, Researcher, Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal

Dr Seth Schindler, Senior Lecturer, University of Manchester, UK

Dr Philippe Roman, Researcher, ICHEC Brussels Management School, Belgium

Dr Lorenzo Pellegrini, Associate Professor, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands

Dr Erik Gómez-Baggethun, Professor, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway

Dr Tommaso Luzzati, Assistant Professor, University of Pisa, Italy

Dr Christoph Gran, ZOE Institute for Future Fit Economies, Germany

Dr Tor A. Benjaminsen, Professor, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway

Dr Barry McMullin, Professor, Dublin City University, Ireland

Dr Edwin Zaccai, Professor, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

Dr Jens Friis Lund, Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Dr Pierre Ozer, Researcher, Université de Liège, Belgium

Dr Louison Cahen-Fourot, Researcher, Institute for Ecological Economics, Wirtschaftsuniversität Vienna, Austria

Dr Tommaso Rondinella, Researcher, Italian National Institute of Statistics, Italy

Dr Julia Steinberger, Associate Professor, University of Leeds, UK

Dr Andrew Fanning, Marie Curie Research Fellow, University of Leeds, UK

Jose Luis Fdez Casadevante Kois, Miembro del Foro Transiciones, Spain

Dr Seema Arora-Jonsson, Professor, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden

Dr Astrid Agenjo Calderón, Lecturer, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Spain

Dr Tom Bauler, Professor, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

Dr Gregers Andersen, Independent Researcher, Denmark

Dr Peter Söderbaum, Professor Emeritus, Mälardalen University, Sweden

Dr Lourenzo Fernandez Priero, Professor, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Spain

Dr John R Porter, Emeritus Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Dr François Thoreau, Senior Researcher, University of Liege, France

Mariagiulia Costanzo Talarico, Researcher, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Spain

Dr Maria Nikolaidi, Senior Lecturer, University of Greenwich, UK

Dr Ekaterina Chertkovskaya, Lecturer, Lund University, Sweden

Dr Stefan Gaarsmand Jacobsen, Assistant Professor, University of Roskilde, Denmark

Dimitar Sabev, Researcher, University of National and World Economy, Bulgaria

Dr Mladen Domazet, Research Director, Institute for Political Ecology, Croatia

Dr Hans Diefenbacher, Professor, University of Heidelberg, Germany

Dr Marco Armiero, Director of the Environmental Humanities Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden

Dr Irene Ring, Professor, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany

Dr Christine Bauhardt, Professor, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany

Dr Dominique Bourg, Professor, University of Lausanne, Switzerland

Dr Tomas Ryska, Lecturer, University of Economics, Czech Republic

Dr Filka Sekulova, Researcher, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain

Dr Andrej Lukšič, Associate Professor, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

Dr Adrian Smith, Professor, University of Sussex, UK
Dr Serenella Iovino, Professor, Università di Torino, Italy

Dr Helga Kromp-Kolb, Professor, University of Renewable Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria

Dr Roberto De Vogli, Associate Professor, University of Padova, Italy

Dr Danijela Dolenec, Assistant Professor, University of Zagreb, Croatia

Dr Alexandra Köves, Senior Lecturer, Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary

Dr Antoine Bailleux, Professor, Université Saint-Louis – Bruxelles, Belgium

Dr Christof Mauch, Director, Rachel Carson Centre for Environment and Society, Germany

Ajda Pistotnik, Independent Researcher, EnaBanda, Slovenia

Dr Branko Ančić, Researcher, Institute for Social Research for Social Research in Zagreb, Croatia

Dr Marija Brajdic Vukovic, Assistant Professor, University of Zagreb, Croatia

Dr Manuel González de Molina, Professor, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Spain

Dr Kye Askins, Reader, University of Glasgow, UK

Dr Carlos de Castro Carranza, Profesor Titular de Física Aplicada, Universidad de Valladolid, Spain

Dr Annika Pissin, Researcher, Lund University, Sweden

Dr Eva Fraňková, Assistant Professor, Masaryk University, Czech Republic

Dr Helga Kromp-Kolb, Professor, University of Renewable Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria

Dr Lidija Živčič, Senior Expert, Focus, Association for Sustainable Development, Slovenia

Dr Martin Pogačar, Research Fellow, ZRC SAZU, Slovenia

Dr Peter Nielsen, Associate Professor, Roskilde University, Denmark

Yaryna Khmara, Researcher, University of Lodz, Poland

Dr Ika Darnhofer, Associate Professor, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Austria

Dr Isabelle Cassiers, Professor, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium

Dr Mihnea Tanasescu, Researcher, Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) and Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Belgium

Dr Daniel Hausknost, Assistant Professor, Institute for Social Change and Sustainability, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria

Dr Christoph Görg, Professor, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Austria

Dr Andreas Novy, Professor, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria

Dr Fikret Adaman, Professor, Boğaziçi University, Turkey

Dr Bengi Akbulut, Assistant Professor, Concordia University, Canada

Dr Kevin Maréchal, Professor, Université de Liège, Belgium

Dr Anke Schaffartzik, Researcher, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain

Dr Milena Buchs, Associate Professor, University of Leeds, UK

Dr Jean-Louis Aillon, Researcher, University of Genova, Italy

Dr Melanie Pichler, Researcher, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Austria

Dr Helmut Haberl, Associate Professor, Institute of Social Ecology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Austria

Dr Julien-François Gerber, Assistant Professor, International Institute of Social Studies, Netherlands

Dr John Holten-Andersen, Associate Professor, Aalborg University, Denmark

Theresa Klostermeyer, Officer for Sustainability and Social Change, German League for Nature, Animal and Environmental Protection, Germany

Dr Lyla Mehta, Professor, Institute of Development Studies, UK

Dr Geneviève Azam, Professor, Université Jean Jaurès, France

Dr Hermann E. Ott, Professor, University of Sustainable Development Eberswalde, Germany

Dr Angelika Zahrnt, Professor, Institute for Ecological Economic Research, Germany

Dr Melissa Leach, Director, Institute of Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex, UK

Dr Irmi Seidl, Assistant Professor, Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Switzerland

Dr Shilpi Srivastava, Research Fellow, Institute of Development Studies, UK

Dr Elgars Felcis, Researcher, University of Latvia, Chairman of Latvian Permaculture Association, Latvia

Dr Tilman Santarius, Professor, Technische Universität Berlin and Einstein Center Digital Futures, Germany

Nina Treu, Coordinator of Konzeptwerk Neue Ökonomie, Germany

Dr Laura Horn, Associate Professor, Roskilde University, Denmark

Jennifer Hinton, Researcher, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr Friedrich Hinterberger, President, Sustainable Europe Research Institute, Austria

Dr Miriam Lang, Assistant Professor, Universidad Andina Simón Bolivar, Ecuador

Dr Susse Georg, Professor, Aalborg University, Denmark

Dr Silvio Cristiano, Researcher, Università degli Studi di Napoli ‘Parthenope’ & Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Italy

Dr Petr Jehlička, Senior Lecturer, Open University, UK

Dr Maja Göpel, Professor, Leuphana University, Member Club of Rome, Germany

Dr Geraldine Thiry, Associate Professor, ICHEC Brussels Management School, Belgium

Dr Olivier Malay, Researcher, University of Louvain, Belgium

Dr Richard Lane, Researcher, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Netherlands

Dr Laura Centemeri, Researcher, National Centre for Scientific Research, France

Dr Stephan Lessenich, Professor, Ludwig Maximilians University, Germany

Timothée Parrique, Researcher, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr Ludivine Damay, Lecturer, Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

Dr Janis Brizga, Researcher, University of Latvia, Latvia

Dr Claudio Cattaneo, Associate Professor, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain

Dr Miquel Ortega Cerdà, Advisor, Barcelona City Council

Dr Olivier De Schutter, Professor, Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium

Dr Annalisa Colombino, Assistant Professor, Institute of Geography and Regional Sciences, University of Graz, Austria

Dr Philip von Brockdorff, Head of the Department of Economics, University of Malta, Malta

Dr Sarah Cornell, Senior Researcher, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr Ruth Kinna, Professor, Loughborough University, UK

Francesco Gonella, Professor, Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Italy

Orsolya Lazanyi, Researcher, Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary

Dr Eva Friman, Director at Swedesd, Uppsala University, Sweden

Dr Pernilla Hagbert, Researcher, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden

Vincent Liegey, Co-Author of ‘A Degrowth Project’, Hungary

Dr Manlio Iofrida, Associate Professor, University of Bologna, Italy

Dr Mauro Bonaiuti, Lecturer, University of Turin, Italy

Dr Marco Deriu, Researcher, University of Parma, Italy

Dr Eeva Houtbeckers, Postdoctoral Researcher, Aalto University, Finland

Dr Guy Julier, Professor, Aalto University, Finland

Dr Anna Kaijser, Lecturer, Linköping University, Sweden

Dr Petter Næss, Professor, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway

Dr Irina Velicu, Researcher, Center for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal

Dr Ulrich Brand, Professor, University of Vienna, Austria

Dr Christina Plank, Researcher, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Austria

Dr Karolina Isaksson, Senior Research Leader, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Sweden

Dr Jin Xue, Associate Professor, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway

Dr Rasmus Steffansen, Researcher, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway

Dr Irmak Ertör, Researcher, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain

Dr Maria Hadjimichael, Researcher, University of Cyprus, Cyprus

Dr Carlo Aall, Researcher, Western Norway Research Institute, Norway

Dr Claudiu Craciun, Lecturer, National School of Political Studies and Administration (SNSPA), Romania

Dr Tuuli Hirvilammi, Researcher, University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Dr Tuula Helne, Senior Researcher, The Social Insurance Institution of Finland, Finland

Davide Biolghini, Researcher, Rete italiana Economia Solidale (RES), Italy

Dr Pasi Heikkurinen, Lecturer, University of Leeds, UK

Dr Anne Tittor, Researcher, University of Jena, Germany

Dr Dennis Eversberg, Researcher, University of Jena, Germany

Dr Herman Stål, Lecturer, Umea School of Business, Economics and Statistics, Sweden

Dr Hervé Corvellec, Professor, Lund University, Sweden

Dr Anna Heikkinen, Researcher, University of Tampere, Finland

Dr Karl Bonnedahl, Researcher, Umea University, Sweden

Dr Meri Koivusalo, Professor, University of Tampere, Finland

Dr Martin Fritz, Researcher, Bielefeld University, Germany

Dr Daniel Bergquist, Researcher, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden

Dr Yuri Kazepov, Professor, University of Vienna, Austria

Dr Salvador Pueyo, Researcher, Universitat de Barcelona, Catalonia

Dr Lars Rydén, Professor, Uppsala University, Sweden

Patrick ten Brink, Director of EU Policy, European Environmental Bureau, Belgium

Dr Ebba Lisberg Jensen, Associate Professor, Malmö University, Sweden

Dr Alevgul H. Sorman, Researcher, Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Spain

Dr Aram Ziai, Professor, University of Kassel, Germany

Dr Panos Petridis, Researcher, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Austria

Dr Gary Dymski, Professor, University of Leeds, UK

Dr Markus Wissen, Professor, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Germany

Dr Wendy Harcourt, Professor, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University, The Netherlands

Dr John Barrett, Professor, University of Leeds, UK

Dr Silke van Dyk, Professor, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Germany

Dr Vasna Ramasar, Senior Lecturer, Lund University, Sweden

Danijela Tamše, Managing Editor of the Journal for the Critique of Science, Imagination, and New Anthropology, Slovenia

Dr Camil Ungureanu, Associate Professor, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain

Dr Mirela Holy, Lecturer, VERN’ University of Zagreb, Croatia

Press link for more: The Guardian

Along With Flooding, Hurricane Florence Unleashes Toxic Coal Ash #auspol #qldpol #nswpol #StopAdani #EndCoal #ClimateChange

The coal industry dumped its toxic waste in the cheapest way possible.

Now coal ash pits are leaking and spilling amid flooding from Hurricane Florence.

Pete Harrison / Earthjustice

Coal ash spilled by Hurricane Florence coats a turtle in Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Riverkeepers cleaned and released the turtle.

As Hurricane Florence floods the Carolinas, a long-buried coal industry secret is rising to the surface. Across the country, giant pits filled with millions of tons of coal ash — a toxic byproduct of burning coal — are leaking. And in the storm-pummeled Southeast, the toxic waste is spreading with the floodwaters.

Coal ash sites at the Duke Energy H.F. Lee plant in Goldsboro, North Carolina, are actively spilling coal ash into the nearby Neuse River. On Wednesday, during a canoe patrol of the flooded area by Waterkeeper groups and Earthjustice attorney Pete Harrison, the group spotted large amounts of floodwater washing coal ash downstream, as well as large swaths of floating coal ash in stagnant areas. The unprotected berm meant to hold the ash in place was eroding away in dozens of locations.

Coal ash leaks from a breached pond at the L.V. Sutton Power Station outside Wilmington, North Carolina.

Waterkeeper Alliance/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Together, the three Lee coal ash basins hold about 1 million tons of toxic ash that contains heavy metals like arsenic and lead. And they are now completely under water.

Coal ash is the toxic waste that doesn’t go into the air when coal is burnt to make electricity.

At most power stations coal ash is mixed with saline waste water and pumped to a muddy, toxic lake near the facility. It is a toxic cocktail of substances including mercury, lead, arsenic, selenium and chromium.

This sludge can leak into rivers and aquifers, contaminating water needed by farmers and the environment.

When it is left to dry out, winds can blow the toxic dust onto nearby communities.

Coal ash is linked to asthma, heart disease, cancer, respiratory diseases and stroke.

Press for Australian EnviroJustice

But they’re not the only coal ash sites failing amid the storm. On Friday, floodwaters breached an earthen dam holding back Sutton Lake, a former cooling reservoir at another Duke Energy site, the L.V. Sutton Power Station in Wilmington, North Carolina. Waters from the lake flooded one of three adjacent coal ash lagoons, and riverkeepers are now seeing coal ash in the nearby Cape Fear River. On Thursday, the company had activated a high-level emergency alert after floodwaters from the river overtopped the lake’s earthen dam. And a coal ash landfill under construction at the Sutton plant ruptured last week, spilling enough ash to fill 180 dump trucks.

“These are ongoing spills that will continue until the floodwaters recede,” says Harrison, who adds that both spills present a threat to drinking water. “It’s mind-boggling that these power companies built their toxic waste dumps right next to flood prone rivers. It means that every time there’s a major flood, downstream communities have to worry about being exposed to toxic coal ash — as if they don’t already have enough to worry about.”

Fly ash blows around at Stanwell’s Meandu coal mine Queensland

The National Weather Service expects the flooding to worsen over the next few days in the aftermath of Florence.

These incidents are entirely predictable, given that industry chooses to deal with this toxic waste the cheapest way it knows how: by placing these unlined or poorly lined pits next to rivers and in floodplains so that the coal plant doesn’t have to travel far to water down its waste. Though this practice is great for the industry’s bottom line, it’s a disaster waiting to happen for communities unfortunate enough to live next to these waste sites.

“Communities living near coal ash dumps are absorbing all the risk when the sites leak or fail,” says Earthjustice attorney and coal ash expert Lisa Evans. “Meanwhile, coal companies like Duke make billions of dollars in profits. The inequity of the situation is apparent, and appalling.”

Matthew Starr, a lower Neuse riverkeeper, takes a sample of water from the flooded area by the Duke Energy H.F. Lee plant.

Waterkeeper Alliance/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

As manmade climate change persists, floods are likely to swamp North Carolina’s coal ash sites more often. Since the 1990s, climate change has altered weather patterns so drastically that North Carolina has endured four hurricanes or tropical storms that qualify as 100-year storms.

And coal ash incidents aren’t limited to when a hurricane rolls into town. In October 2017, Duke Energy had yet another coal ash spill at one of its sites near the city of Gaffney, South Carolina, after 3.74 inches of rain. And the infamous TVA Kingston spill in 2008, which released more than a billion gallons of coal ash and devastated the community of Harriman, Tennessee, occurred in the middle of what was otherwise a cold and dry December night.

Environmentalists and public safety advocates have pushed the EPA for decades to strengthen regulations on these ticking time bombs. In 2015, we made some headway after the EPA created its first-ever regulations on coal ash. Thanks to the 2015 rule, which required utilities nationwide to test the water near their coal ash sites, we’re now seeing confirmation of what we’ve suspected all along: Coal ash sites are leaking pretty much everywhere we look, rain or shine, including in states like Oklahoma and Indiana.

But the new rules didn’t go far enough. Among other things, the government failed to adequately regulate unlined and poorly lined ash pits. The agency also improperly exempted coal ash ponds at closed coal-fired power plants from regulation. The three submerged and spilling Lee basins are currently exempted under the rule.

Earthjustice, on behalf of public interest groups, sued the EPA over these failings. In August, an appeals court agreed with us, ordering the EPA to revise the 2015 rule to adequately address the health and environmental threats from these coal ash sites. The judges’ order also requires the EPA to close unlined ponds before utilities determine they are leaking — a decision with huge implications given that about 95 percent of the nation’s nearly 1,000 ash ponds are unlined.

Coal ash leaks into the Neuse River at the Duke Energy H.F. Lee plant in Goldsboro, North Carolina.

Photo Courtesy of Riverkeeper

As communities across the Carolinas brace for more river flooding following Hurricane Florence, we are just beginning to see the extent of the devastation the storm has caused. The Southeast alone has dozens of coal ash sites in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland. Many of them are right in the path of Florence. Only time will tell how many of these sites are ultimately affected by the floods.

Meanwhile, we’ll continue to work within the courts to force government agencies to enact stronger protections for coal ash to protect our communities — particularly communities of color and low-income communities that are disproportionately affected. Earthjustice, alongside our partners and allies, has long fought to get coal ash properly regulated. We’re not stopping now.

Press link for more: Earth Justice

Worst part about #climatechange isn’t rising temperatures. #auspol #qldpol #nswpol #Drought #StopAdani #EndCoal #Refugees #TheDrum #QandA

Why the worst part about climate change isn’t rising temperatures

Matthew Davis21 September, 2018

• Climate change is usually discussed in terms of how it impacts the weather, but this fails to emphasize how climate change is a “threat multiplier.”

• As a threat multiplier, climate change makes already dangerous social and politic situations even worse.

• Not only do we have to work to minimize the impact of climate change on our environment, but we also have to deal with how it affects human issues today.

Human beings are great at responding to imminent and visible threats.

Climate change, while dire, is almost entirely the opposite: it’s slow, it’s pervasive, it’s vague, and it’s invisible.

Researchers and policymakers have been trying to package climate change in a way that conveys its severity.

Usually, they do so by talking about its immediate effects: rising temperature, rising sea levels, and increasingly dangerous weather.

These things are bad, make no mistake about it. But the thing that makes climate change truly dire isn’t that Cape Cod will be underwater next century, that polar bears will go extinct, or that we’ll have to invent new categories for future hurricanes.

It’s the thousands of ancillary effects — the indirect pressure that climate change puts on every person on the planet.

How a drought in the Middle East contributed to extremism in Europe

(DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS/AFP/Getty Images)

Nigel Farage in front of a billboard that leverages the immigration crisis to support Brexit.

Because climate change is too big for the mind to grasp, we’ll have to use a case study to talk about this.

The Syrian civil war is a horrific tangle of senseless violence, but there are some primary causes we can point to.

There is the longstanding conflicts between different religious sects in that country.

Additionally, the Arab Spring swept Syria up in a wave of resistance against authoritarian leaders in the Middle East — unfortunately, Syrian protests were brutally squashed by Bashar Al-Assad.

These, and many other factors, contributed to the start of the Syrian civil war.

One of these other factors was drought.

In fact, the drought in that region — it started in 2006 — has been described as the “worst long-term drought and most severe set of crop failures since agricultural civilization began in the Fertile Crescent many millennia ago.”

Because of this drought, many rural Syrians could no longer support themselves. Between 2006 and 2009, an estimated 1.5 million Syrians — many of them agricultural workers and farmers — moved into the country’s major cities.

With this sudden mixing of different social groups in a country where classes and religious sects were already at odds with one another, tensions rose, and the increased economic instability encouraged chaos. Again, the drought didn’t cause the civil war — but it sure as hell helped it along.

The ensuing flood of refugees to Europe is already a well-known story.

The immigration crisis was used as a talking point in the Brexit movement to encourage Britain to leave the EU. Authoritarian or extreme-right governments and political parties have sprung up in France, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Slovenia, and other European countries, all of which have capitalized on fears of the immigration crisis.

Why climate change is a “threat multiplier”

This is why both NATO and the Pentagon have labeled climate change as a “threat multiplier.”

On its own, climate change doesn’t cause these issues — rather, it exacerbates underlying problems in societies around the world. Think of having a heated discussion inside a slowly heating-up car.

Climate change is often discussed in terms of its domino effect: for example, higher temperatures around the world melt the icecaps, releasing methane stored in the polar ice that contributes to the rise in temperature, which both reduces available land for agriculture due to drought and makes parts of the ocean uninhabitable for different animal species, wreaking havoc on the food chain, and ultimately making food more scarce.

Maybe we should start to consider climate change’s domino effect in more human and political terms. That is, in terms of the dominoes of sociopolitical events spurred on by climate change and the missing resources it gobbles up.

NASA via Getty Images)

Increasingly severe weather events will make it more difficult for nations to avoid conflict.

Part of why this is difficult to see is because climate change does not affect all countries proportionally — at least, not in a direct sense. Germanwatch, a German NGO, releases a climate change index every year to analyze exactly how badly different countries have been affected by climate change. The top five most at-risk countries are Haiti, Zimbabwe, Fiji, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. Notice that many of these places are islands, which are at the greatest risk for major storms and rising sea levels. Some island nations are even expected to literally disappear — the leaders of these nations are actively making plans to move their citizens to other countries.

But Germanwatch’s climate change index is based on weather events. It does not account for the political and social instability that will likely result. The U.S. and many parts of Europe are relatively low on the index, but that is precisely why these countries will most likely need to deal with the human cost of climate change. Refugees won’t go from the frying pan into the fire: they’ll go to the closest, safest place available.

Many people’s instinctive response to floods of immigrants is to simply make borders more restrictive. This makes sense — a nation’s first duty is to its own citizens, after all. Unfortunately, people who support stronger immigration policies tend to have right-wing authoritarian tendencies. This isn’t always the case, of course, but anecdotally, we can look at the governments in Europe that have stricter immigration policies. Hungary, for example, has extremely strict policies against Muslim immigrants. It’s also rapidly turning into a dictatorship. The country has cracked down on media organizations and NGOs, eroded its judicial system’s independence, illegalized homelessness, and banned gender studies courses.

Climate change and its sociopolitical effects, such as refugee migration, aren’t some poorer country’s problem. It’s everyone’s problem. Whether it’s our food, our homes, or our rights, climate change will exact a toll on every nation on Earth. Stopping climate change, or at least reducing its impact, is vitally important. Equally important is contending with the multifaceted threats its going to throw our way.

Press link for more: Big Think

10 Years On – the climate crisis is an economic crisis #auspol #qldpol #nswpol #StopAdani #EndCoal #ClimateChange #Drought #Bushfire #Divest @scheerlinckeva @aistbuzz @ANZ_AU @CommBank;

10 years ago we saw the collapse of Lehman Brothers bank and the fall out of an economic crisis that has wrought devastating effects on social cohesion globally and continues to do so.

The 1% that gambled huge sums of borrowed money on junk bonds, generating obscene wealth for a handful of the already super rich, walked away largely unscathed, while ordinary people have been left to deal with the impacts.

Since 2008, in Europe alone, 2.4 trillion euros worth of ‘new money’ has been created by central banks across the region in order to bail out the very institutions that have caused the crisis. That’s the equivalent of around 30,000 euros for every European citizen.

Meanwhile tens of millions of people across the region have been pushed into poverty and are relying on handouts to scrape by. These conditions have created fertile ground for far-right populists that have put the blame on migrants who had to flee civil unrest in their home countries or because of water and food shortages intensified by a rapidly warming climate. Impacted people are being turned against each other as wealth accumulates in fewer and fewer hands.

What has this got to do with the climate crisis?

6 years ago Bill McKibben, 350.orgs founder wrote his seminal article – Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math – based on a report by financial analysts .

Bill McKibben

It made the root cause of the climate crisis unmistakably clear: fossil fuel companies are planning to burn more than five times more fossil fuels than is possible to stay below 2°C of global warming.

And here’s where the connection with the economic crisis is laid bare. The biggest fossil fuel companies in the world are valued (in trillions of dollars) on the assumption that the proven coal, oil and gas reserves that they have access to will be dug up and burnt.

Think about that for a moment. Simply put – taking serious action on climate change would wipe trillions off the value of some of the world’s biggest companies.

Carbon Bubble

Yet despite this knowledge the banks and institutional shareholders propping up the industry continue to pour billions into it. The growing power of social movements and the rise of renewables is already disrupting the business model of the fossil fuel industry in ways that could trigger the mass sell-off of failing fossil bonds. It could mark the unfolding of a financial crisis of unthinkable magnitude.

We must with urgency intervene.

From master to servant

In order to achieve economic and climate justice we’ll need to bring fossil-fueled finance under control. We will need to redefine the value of finance as a servant to people and kick out the dominant use of finance by the few to master the many.

We’ll need to break the bonds between banks and the fossil fuel industry and create new flows of money towards the solutions. Instead of the financial system serving a corporate elite and its shareholders, it must be fundamentally reshaped to support more community-based solutions. Solutions that have been leading the transformation to an equitable renewable energy economy by shifting power away from the big fossil fuel giants and towards more localised economies.

1.5°C  – Climate Justice. I.e. the amount that warming should be limited to in order to avoid devastating impacts being experienced by those communities that have done least to cause the problem

200bn  – the finance being given to new fossil fuel projects in the form of subsidies and bank loans each year over the last 10 years

480bn  – an estimate of the finance that must be put into solutions every year for the next 10 plus years in order to limit warming to 1.5°C

A recent study from an economics institute in the Netherlands determined that around 480bn per year needs to be spent on renewables and energy efficiency to have a good chance of meeting a 1.5℃ target.

To put that in context, the EU’s defence budget is around 700bn per year. The telecoms market in Europe last year was valued at just under 300bn. These are all big figures, but in reality tiny fractions of the global economy. 480bn for example is less than 5% of Europe’s GDP.

If we can print trillions to save the banks, we can create the modest amounts to build out the modern, renewable infrastructure needed to avert the worst ravages of a fossil-fueled climate crisis.

We’re not talking unrealistic amounts of money here. These sums are readily available when the political will exists. And this is where there is another link to the financial criss that started to unfold 10 years ago. Money is a social construct which at its most fundamental level represents a social relationship. When money is created by a government or a bank for example, and lent to people or a company it exists in the form of debt. The person with the cash now owes the person that created it, and that money must be repaid at some agreed point in the future. Money in this sense could be seen a manifestation of social power and domination. That’s why when commercial banks (the banking and political class in neoliberalism being essentially the same people) gamble and lose hundreds of billions, crashing the global economy, their debt is let off and new money is created to bail them out.

Arguably the climate crisis could be averted, and relatively quickly, if money was created to build out the solutions. But the political will needed to achieve that would need to be based on a willingness to redistribute large amounts of wealth and power.

Guess what? Those holding that power now aren’t going to let go of their wealth without being forced (or being made irrelevant) to by a popular movement. And it is with this awareness that we need to be building a movement capable of reclaiming the value of money in the interests of people and our common home.

Press link for more: 350.ORG

Study: Commitment To Democratic Values Predict #ClimateChange Concern #auspol #qldpol #StopAdani #EndCoal

ATLANTA—Commitment to democratic values is the strongest predictor of climate change concern globally, Georgia State University faculty have found in a new study comparing climate change attitudes across 36 countries, including the U.S.

The article, published this month in Environmental Politics, was based on an analysis of the Pew Research Center’s 2015 Global Attitudes Survey, by professor Gregory Lewis, chair of the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies’ Department of Public Management and Policy; Risa Palm, provost and senior vice president for academic affairs at Georgia State; and Bo Feng with IMPAQ International.

“The biggest surprise in this study is the strength of the Pew measure of commitment to democratic values as a predictor of climate change concern,” Lewis said. “A belief in free elections, freedom of religion, equal rights for women, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and lack of Internet censorship is nearly universal in predicting this attitude.

In fact, it is the strongest predictor of climate change concern everywhere except in English-speaking Western democracies, where party identification matters more.”

Earlier research in the U.S. points to political ideology and party identification as driving opinions on climate change.

The new study shows fairly similar patterns across English-speaking western democracies and, to a lesser extent, western Europe.

However, these factors matter much less in most countries. Gender, age, education and religiosity also have very different impacts in the developed West than in most of the world.

“U.S. patterns differ widely from those in most countries,” Lewis said. “We found that members of the left and liberal parties worry more about the effects of climate change than members of conservative parties in Western democracies, but that’s not so in the rest of the world.

Women, young people and those who are less religious express greater concern about climate change in the English-speaking Western democracies.

In most of the world, however, gender differences are small, and older and more religious people express more concern.”

These disparities suggest the need for more research in other countries and stronger explanations for the patterns observed there and in the U.S.

“Climate impacts follow no national boundaries, so solutions must be global,” Lewis said. “However, most of the survey research has focused on the U.S., where political ideology and party identification drive opinion.

We need to gain a clearer understanding of those who take climate change seriously versus those who doubt it exists in other countries, as well as in the U.S.

This knowledge will help all policymakers address the populations most likely to support climate change mitigation efforts and develop the messaging most effective in reaching them.”

The article, “Cross-national variation in determinants of climate change concern,” is available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2018.1512261. News media may contact Jennifer French Giarratano in the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at jgiarratano@gsu.edu or Jeremy Craig in the Office of the Provost at jcraig@gsu.edu for further assistance if needed to access the paper.

Gregory Lewis

Professor and Chair

Public Management and Policy

Press link for more: News.gsu

Gambling with fossil fuels could cause the next financial crisis. #auspol #qldpol #nswpol #ClimateChange #StopAdani #EndCoal @scheerlinckeva @aistbuzz #Divest @ANZ_AU @CommBank

A decade on from the global financial crisis, we can partly understand its cause as a crash in the subprime mortgage market.

Banks began offering mortgages to people increasingly unlikely to make their repayments; packaged all those new lower quality ‘sub-prime’ mortgages up into bundles; and traded them pretending they were low-risk, all explained with far more detail and humour by Oscar-winning film The Big Short.

Eventually, people began defaulting on their mortgages, the sub-prime bundles became worthless, and trillions of dollars were lost.

Money heist

More instructively, we can understand the crisis as having multiple roots in the marketisation of housing, the limitless drive to accumulate wealth with little interrogation of longer-term consequences, and the deregulation of the financial sector which held the health of the global economy in its hand.

The story has been often told of how the gains of this reckless system were privatised and its losses socialised. This was a crisis of capitalism in decay and yet it was the fundamental logic of capitalism – enriching the richer and impoverishing the poor – which defined its winners and losers.

Bankers still received their bonuses while ‘austerity’ was imposed on the masses under the guise of fiscal prudence covering for an ideological crusade of wider deregulation and increasingly scandalous privatisation.

Earlier this year, a Spanish TV show, Money Heist, took Netflix by storm – becoming the platform’s most watched non-English language TV series on Netflix ever. It even rocketed Italian anti-fascist song Bella Ciao up the music charts globally.

Indeed, Bella Ciao was not featured in the show apolitically. The legacy of the partisan’s resistance defines the series’ underlying politics. It articulates a popular dissatisfaction with the financial system and the double standards applied to it compared with ordinary citizens.

Viewers are steered to join the show’s fictional public in sympathising with the heist which occupied The Royal Mint of Spain and printed nearly €1bn in protest.

The heist’s orchestrator explains how little cash they actually printed compared to quantities printed in recent years by the European Central Bank and sent directly to the pockets of bankers. “Did anyone say that the ECB was a thief? No. Liquidity injections they called it.”

Bankers’ bonuses

Compare the bonuses received by bankers responsible for the 2008 crash to the militarised police response, SWAT teams and gun fire directed at the heist. Compare the crimes.

The obvious point that this fictional heist is not a coherent response to this unjust financial system in crisis doesn’t need to be laboured. However, it is significant that such protest so strongly captures the imagination of Money Heist’s fictional public and real viewers.

There has been no coherent alternative to the prevailing system of injustice on the table. For them, the poetic justice of a heist committing the same crime as the bankers and getting away with it just as they did will do.

This political helplessness may have been true in the setting, time and context of Money Heist – Spain, still feeling the effects of deep austerity. For many it still feels true.

But as movements for democratic socialism surge globally and the climate justice movement gets serious about what to do with power beyond protest, our critique of financialised capitalism need not end with unreconstructed expressions of disdain for its flagrant injustices – whether the protest movements of the early 2010s or Money Heist.

It may be 10 years later than ideal, but the proposal for fossil free finance is part of a wider program of radically transforming the role that finance plays in society.

It must be an important part of our radical response to the financial crisis designed to capture popular imagination.

Carbon bubble

Underlying demands for fossil free finance is our analysis identifying the striking parallels between the financial crisis of capitalism in 2008 and today’s climate crisis.

Capital’s fundamental drive to accumulate by any means pushed the housing market to the brink punishing society’s most vulnerable – just as it pushes the climate to its limits while the poorest bear the brunt of its breakdown.

By financing the extraction of ever more fossil fuels and creating unnecessary markets to meet demand not for energy but financial speculation – knowing what they do about the consequences of unrestrained fossil fuel extraction – investment bankers are gambling with our climate just as they did so irresponsibly with our homes. It will end the same.

The market valuation of fossil fuels currently assumes all known reserves will be extracted and their value realised. The idea of a ‘carbon bubble’ recognises that to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown over 80 percent of reserves must stay in the ground. Citigroup predict the economy will haemorrhage over $100 trillion.

The housing bubble burst. The carbon bubble will burst. When it does, the severity of consequences for a global economy built on the foundations of assets suddenly stripped of value may mean we can never return to business-as-usual.

Real justice

Let’s be clear. Climate catastrophe could well precipitate a financial crisis unprecedented in scale if the transition to decarbonisation is left too late and rushed in the wake of catastrophe as tipping points are passed.

In this case, the story of climate injustice thus far would likely be reproduced. The financial sector and fossil fuel industry would be bailed out and the costs of financial collapse and climate breakdown laid at the feet of the poor.

Whereas Money Heist represents an unreconstructed discontent with this system nevertheless evoking sympathy of systematically disempowered and disposed public, there is only real justice in a radical transformation of the financial system and who it works for.

To avoid a climate change-induced financial crash, banks must divest themselves of finance for new fossil fuel infrastructure locking our economy into carbon intensive production.

Banks financing operations must be repurposed to fund a far-reaching program of investment in zero-carbon research and infrastructure to decarbonise the economy while empowering workers and communities whose livelihoods capital so readily gambles with.

More on how next time.

This Author

Chris Saltmarsh is co-director of climate change campaigns at People & Planet. He tweets at @chris_saltmarsh.

Press link for more: The Ecologist