QLD Govt “rock solid” on 50% renewable target by 2030. #auspol #qldpol #StopAdani #NEG #ClimateChange

Palaszczuk Government wants Canberra’s energy cards on the table

The Palaszczuk Government wants to know the detailed impact of a proposed National Energy Guarantee — including on power prices and carbon emissions — before it will back it.

Speaking after today’s meeting of all state, territory and federal energy ministers in Melbourne, Energy Minister Dr Anthony Lynham said Queensland supported the concept of an integrated climate and energy policy but had not been provided the information it needed to make a call.

“We support an end game of lower prices, lower emissions, an energy market that works for industry, and other Australians having the reliability of supply Queenslanders enjoy,” he said.

“But we still don’t have the detailed game plan to decide if the NEG is the way to get there.

“Queensland has agreed today to progress the NEG work so everyone can know the potential impact.

“The Palaszczuk Government will be carefully considering the additional information provided in advance of COAG in August, but remains concerned about the tight timeframes to finalise this framework.

“Importantly, we remain rock-solid in our commitment to a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030 and any NEG cannot impact on our target.”

Dr Lynham said other key matters were:

• mechanisms for future governments to fulfil their mandates to increase the national emissions target

• reassessment of the 2030 emissions reduction target for the electricity industry, as existing renewable energy growth means the industry will soon pass that target anyway and the energy sector remains best placed to deliver reductions in the carbon emissions for the broader economy

• with a tight August deadline for ministers to next meet and consider a complete proposal,  state, for Commonwealth and territory officials to meet regularly to flesh out missing details.

• More detail on the emissions target, impacts on emissions-intensive, trade-exposed export industries, offsets, state additionality, the setting of the reliability standard, market power mitigation and other technical matters.

The Queensland Government’s concerns about the NEG reflect input from key groups including the Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Clean Energy Council, the Queensland Council of Social Services and environmental groups.

Dr Lynham said Queensland was in a solid position under a Labor government compared to other states.

“We have Australia’s youngest coal fired powered generators delivering reliable baseload power, coupled with a renewable energy boom, with more than $4 billion worth of renewable projects financially committed or under construction,” he said.

“Queensland has had the lowest wholesale electricity prices on the east coast for the past five months and our policies continue to place downward pressure on electricity prices.”


Media inquiries: Jan Martin 0439 341 314

Press link for more: Statements Qld Gov

With the Great Barrier Reef already dying due to climate change the 26% target put forward by Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg seems pathetically inadequate.

It’s time we acted to protect our world heritage listed areas from global warming

The reality is Australian greenhouse gas emissions are rising under this do nothing government



Want to fight climate change? Read these 3 books first #StopAdani #auspol #qldpol

Want to fight climate change? Read these 3 books first

Shyla RaghavApril 19, 2018

Climate change is causing sea ice to melt. This threatens the survival of species such as the leopard seal, pictured above, in Antarctica. (© Levi S. Norton)

Climate change can seem like an impossibly large problem — what can any one of us do?

The answer: More than you might think. Three recent books can help point the way: They have shaped my views on how to eat sustainably, what impact the products I buy have on climate change and how important social justice is to tackling environmental issues.

“The Third Plate: Field Notes on the Future of Food,” by Dan Barber

Barber, a chef in New York, took a hard look at the way Americans eat and decided that it needs to change. He discusses what it means to cook and eat sustainably in a world obsessed with buying farm-to-table products without knowing whether these products are actually helping the environment. Traditionally, Americans have eaten meals similar to what Barber calls the “first plate”: a large cut of meat with few vegetables. The farm-to-table movement launched the idea of the “second plate,” one with free-range meat and locally sourced vegetables. But, Barber says, the best meal for the planet is actually the “third plate”: a combination of vegetables, grains and livestock that is fully sustainable.

This book got me thinking about my own relationship with food — and how we as humans are integrally linked with the ecosystems we live in, and that sustain us. We’re constantly told about the virtues of eating and purchasing locally, but this book takes it a step further, helping me understand the need to reimagine our current food system. We need to do this sooner rather than later for ourselves, for our communities and for the health of our planet.

“This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate,” by Naomi Klein

Klein exposes plenty of the myths involved in the climate change debate. Perhaps most provocatively, she says that climate change isn’t about carbon — it’s about capitalism. Klein argues that climate change is a wake-up call for the world to update its economic system to one that can sustain the Earth and every living thing on it. She says that either we rise to this challenge or we let it devour us.

I believe that humanity will rise to this challenge — in fact, it already is. Klein highlights how climate change is fundamentally an issue of justice and equity and integral to how our society is structured. One of the key tenets driving Conservation International is the understanding that people can thrive and economies can grow without destroying nature or increasing carbon emissions. Klein’s book inspires us to action while respecting and empowering communities that we live in.


Sign up to get more book recommendations from our staff.

The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems,” by Van Jones

Jones explains how to simultaneously solve socioeconomic inequality and the world’s environmental problems — no small task. This concept struck home for me because of Conservation International’s rights-based approach to conservation: Local communities who help the environment should be as fully supported and included as the nature that we try to protect. Jones lays out what he calls “the Green New Deal” — a proposal that would create thousands of new jobs that focus on conserving energy in local communities. I think that forms of climate resilience, such as the plan that Jones lays out, is the next wave of the environmental justice movement. Jones shows us how being green isn’t incompatible with prosperity, income generation and livelihoods of people. It’s an inspiring call to action to make the green movement part of the future we envision for our country.

Shyla Raghav is Conservation International’s climate lead.

Want to read more stories like this? Sign up for email updates here. Donate to Conservation International here.

Press link for more: Blog Conservation

I’ll add one more

Doughnut Economics

Climate Change Is Making Deadly Air Pollution Worse in Cities. #StopAdani #auspol #qldpol


Environmentalists worry that climate change could cause problems with rising sea levels and crop failures in the coming decades, but one group of researchers has found it’s already causing health problems now.

Temperature increases linked to climate change are worsening air pollution in communities across the country right now contributing to a range of health problems from asthma to premature death, according to a new report from the American Lung Association.

The total number of Americans exposed to unhealthy air rose to nearly 134 million, according to the group’s 2018 State of the Air report. That represents a spike from 125 million in the previous year.

Ozone pollution — commonly known as smog — sits at the heart of America’s worsening air pollution problem. Warmer temperatures create conditions conducive to smog formation and lead air to stagnate, keeping dirty air from leaving a given area. The number of days with unsafe levels of ozone pollution increased significantly in 2014 – 2016, the timeframe evaluated in the report, at the same time as the planet experienced the hottest years on record.

“Climate change makes it harder to protect human health” the report says. “Too many cities suffered increased ozone from the increased temperature.”

The worsening ozone problem hit both the country’s largest population centers such as New York City and Los Angeles as well as smaller communities like Bakersfield and Fresno, according to the report.

The findings come as the federal government — led by Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency — has sought to slow programs aimed at addressing air pollution. Earlier this month, Trump signed an executive order asking the EPA to change federal air quality standards to reduce “unnecessary impediments to new manufacturing and business expansion essential for a growing economy.”

Federal law requires the EPA to administer the program in question, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, using best available science without considering the cost to industry.

The Trump Administration’s efforts to stop global warming regulations have been even more aggressive. The EPA has stopped the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which sought to reduce emissions of climate change-causing emissions, despite estimates that the program would cut air pollution and ultimately save 3,600 lives by 2030. And a range of other related regulations are on the chopping block, from vehicle emissions standards to a rule regulating methane emissions.

Press link for more:

Cane farmers should keep an eye on #StopAdani campaign. #auspol #qldpol #ClimateChange

Why cane farmers should keep an eye on #StopAdani campaign

Troy Kippen

If the international environmentalist community focused on the Great Barrier Reef as a beacon for the impact of climate change, then cane growers could get caught up in that activism, a leading energy scientist has warned. WWF-Aus / Christian Miller

A LEADING energy scientist has sent a dire warning to cane growers, and it had nothing to do with electricity prices.

Farmers could be caught up in social activism, similar to the Stop Adani campaigns gripping the country, Professor Chris Grieg said.

Prof Grieg, who specialises in energy systems, was a keynote speaker at the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists Conference in Mackay yesterday.

He said a short-term risk with climate change, for industry, is ‘snowballing activism’.

“The Adani case is a classic – where we’ve seen an absolutely intense focus on one company as the face of environmental activism.

If the international environmentalist community focused on the Great Barrier Reef as a beacon for the impact of climate change, then cane growers could get caught up in that activism, he warned.

“They have become extremely sophisticated, extremely powerful when they have a cause in mind.

“The Great Barrier Reef will be a target, especially as climate change affects the reef. You have to be aware of the sugar industry getting caught up in that.”

Prof Grieg said while there were models, there were many unknowns about the consequences of CO2 emissions and climate change, including social-economic impacts.

“(When the) OECD report came out it put a lot of pressure on us from the government and the community.

“At the moment the sugar industry is on the side of it, the coal industry is bearing the brunt of it (activism).

“Eventually it could be tagged to the sugar industry.”

The sugar industry had to be proactive and engaged to deal with activism if it arose, Prof Grieg said.

It had been seen before in the energy sector in the United States, with shale gas and coal.

The Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists annual conference will be at the MECC until Friday.

Press link for more: Daily Mercury

‘Cooked’: Study finds Great Barrier Reef transformed by mass bleaching #auspol #qldpol #StopAdani FFS #ClimateChange

‘Cooked’: Study finds Great Barrier Reef transformed by mass bleaching

Peter Hannam18 April 2018 — 5:52pm

Corals in the Great Barrier Reef have a lower tolerance to heat stress than expected, contributing to a permanent transformation of the mix of species in some of most pristine regions, a team of international researchers has found.

The scientists examined the impact of the 2016 marine heatwave that alone caused the death of about one-third of the Great Barrier Reef corals, mostly centred on the northern third section.

They studied how much abnormal heat triggers bleaching, the additional heat that killed the corals, and the accumulation needed to cause “an ecological collapse in the transformation of species”, said Terry Hughes, Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University, and the lead of author of the paper published Thursday in Nature.

The thresholds “are lower than we thought they would be”, Professor Hughes told Fairfax Media.

Bleaching in the northern part of the Great Barrier Reef in 2016 triggered widespread mortality of corals within weeks, scientists found.

Photo: AAP

A key guide is the number of so-called degree-heating weeks (DHW), such as waters a degree above average for a certain period. If reefs had DHWs of six or more – as about 29 per cent of the reefs suffered – the loss of corals reached 60-90 per cent, Professor Hughes said.

Some species, such as staghorns and tabular corals, were particularly susceptible, while dome-shaped porites corals were relatively resilient.

“The 2016 marine heatwave has triggered the initial phase of that transition [to heat-tolerant reef assemblages] on the northern, most pristine region of the Great Barrier Reef, changing it forever as the intensity of global warming continues to escalate,” the paper said.

The fact the northern section – with fewer people, little fishing and almost no water quality issues – was hit so hard was notable.

“There’s almost nowhere to hide from extreme temperatures,” Professor Hughes said. “Even the best-managed, most remote place is vulnerable.”

The Nature paper is one of a series being prepared or already published by Professor Hughes and colleagues at James Cook University that examine the unprecedented back-to-back mass bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef in the summers of 2016 and 2017.

Upcoming papers will examine the impacts of the latter event – which mainly hammered the middle section of the Reef – and the scope for recovery.

Fish species are adjusting to the mass mortality of corals – some better than others.

Photo: University of Wollongong

Just as coral species responded differently to the heat stress, so too have fish species that depend on them.

Butterfly fish, for instance, feed on only a couple of coral species. “If their diet disappears, so do they,” Professor Hughes said. Parrot fish, though, eat mostly seaweed, and will fare better.

Still, most fish depend on branching corals as a nursery – the type of corals that suffered high mortality in the heatwave.

“People have long predicted there will be significant fisheries impact from losing juvenile habitat and we expect that to unfold over the next five years,” Professor Hughes said.

Most of what researchers know about reef recovery has come from the study of the aftermath of cyclones.

Such events, though, tend to carve a swathe through the reef, perhaps 50 to 100 kilometres wide, with patchier damage than mass bleaching. Coral larvae come into the void from either side, typically taking a decade for branching corals to recover.

“The scale of the damage from back-to-back bleaching is vastly bigger,” Professor Hughes said. “We don’t know yet where the larvae are going to come from, and in what numbers.”

Peter Hannam is Environment Editor at The Sydney Morning Herald.

He covers broad environmental issues ranging from climate change to renewable energy for Fairfax Media.

Press link for more: SMH.COM

Navigating the #ClimateChange Minefield #auspol #qldpol #StopAdani

Navigating the Climate Change Minefield with Michael Mann

APRIL 17, 2018

One of the nation’s most respected (and harassed) scientists,

Dr. Michael Mann, discusses the climate change tipping point and battling forces of denial.

For many Americans, the first introduction to the idea that our climate is changing was presented to us with an unforgettable visual: the hockey stick graph.

The long part of the stick shows us hundreds of years of relatively stable climate, with normal global average temperatures.

The curved part represents global average temperatures over the last few decades—which have shot up dramatically.

Dr. Michael Mann was one of the leading scientists behind the hockey stick graph, when it was published in the late 90s.

Since then, he’s been a favorite target of climate science deniers.

He’s been harassed, hacked, and threatened.

He’s had his research unfairly poked to bits in attempts to discredit him. But he’s stood by his work in the face of smear campaigns and phony controversies for decades now—and has been vindicated with recognition from the scientific community.

Dr. Mann is a distinguished professor of atmospheric science, and the director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University.

He joined me to talk about his introduction to climate science… how scientific knowledge is a slow process of accumulation… why it’s not enough for scientists these days to simply do their work… and what he would do with Wonder Woman’s Lasso of Truth.

Colleen: Michael Mann, welcome to the Got Science? Podcast.

Michael Mann: Thanks. Great to be with you.

Colleen: So our listeners may know you as one of the climate scientists who originally demonstrated the hockey stick curve, a graph showing evidence of the earth’s rapid warming. So that was back in the ’90s.

Others may know you as one of the most harassed scientists in modern history, along with others. You’ve had death threats leveled at you. You’ve been sued by the former attorney general of Virginia to gain access to your private emails. You were even mailed fake anthrax.

The list goes on and on. And I do wanna talk to you about all that today, but first I’d like to go back to the beginning.

Why did you become a scientist?

Michael Mann: Yeah, I became a scientist because I loved solving problems.

From the earliest days that I can remember I was always asking, anybody who would listen, questions, “You know, why is this this way?” I still recall I had an uncle who I would constantly pester about traveling at the speed of light.

Finally, he gave me the book Jonathan Livingston Seagull and told me it would answer all my questions. Of course, it didn’t, but I was always curious about the natural world, about the way things work and I always enjoyed solving problems, mathematical problems, what you might call scientific problems.

And so that led me to pursue a, degree in applied math and physics at UC Berkeley, and I went off to graduate school at Yale to study theoretical physics and then sort of realized that, there was this really interesting problem that required math and physics, the problem of modeling earth’s climate, and that struck me as a fascinating problem where I could use the tools, the math and the physics that I’d learned to work on this really interesting problem that it turns out also has some pretty important societal implications as well, but that wasn’t what drove my interest in climate. it was just this fascinating, huge, unsolved physics problem, and so that’s what led me into the field of climate research.

Colleen: I’ve been reading your book “The Madhouse Effect,” which is a collaboration with cartoonist Tom Toles and, full disclosure, I did read the cartoons first.

On page one, you talk about science and how it works, so the many levels of scrutiny and checks and balances.

So tell me a little more about the problem and process.

Michael Mann: Yeah, you know, the problem we were actually interested in, we were using what are known as proxy records.

These are things like tree rings and corals and ice cores and lake sediments, natural archives that we can use to extend the climate record back in time.

We only have about a century or so of widespread thermometer measurements and so to get a longer-term sort of view of how climate changes, we need to turn to these so-called proxy data.

The project that I was working on at the time had to do with natural long-term cycles in the climate.

It wasn’t actually about climate change. It wasn’t about human-caused climate change. I was interested in identifying long-term climate cycles and the instrumental record alone wasn’t long enough to do that so that’s why we turned to these proxy records and it was only really a by-product of that analysis where we decided to use those records to actually reconstruct climate patterns back in time.

And when we took a look at the result, we realized now that this work did have implications for human-caused climate change, because when you averaged the information over the globe to get a single number for each year, the average temperature, for example, of the Northern Hemisphere, where we had the most data, and you plotted that back in time, it became clear that the warming spike that we’ve seen over the past century really has no precedent as far back as we could go, at least a thousand years. And so, we published that work in the journal Nature, back in 1998. And in the article, we actually emphasized quite a bit the importance of these patterns for understanding natural climate variability, the El Nino phenomenon, and other things, how volcanoes influence the climate. There were all these other interesting problems that were really the primary impetus for doing these reconstructions in the first place.

But the curve that showed the average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere, which has come to be known as the hockey stick because of its shape, the blade of the hockey stick being the rapid warming of the past century and the handle being the longer term trend as you go back a thousand years, that took on a life of its own.

That was the one sort of result in that article that got all the attention and suddenly I found myself in sort of the center of the larger, very fractious debate over human-caused climate change, because of the deep implications that this curve, the hockey stick had.

It told a simple story, you didn’t need to understand the physics of the climate system to understand what this graph was telling us, that there is something unprecedented about the warming that we’ve seen over the past century, and by implication, it probably has to do with us.

Colleen: What sort of review then did your research undergo?

Michael Mann: To have credibility in the scientific world. Findings have to be vetted through the process, the peer review process.

Colleen: By scientists.

Michael Mann: Right, where you submit an article to a journal, in this case, Nature, and it goes to other leading scientists in the field. Your work, your article is reviewed essentially by your competitors and that’s a pretty tough process to withstand. They’re looking for holes in your findings, in your arguments, and they provide reports to the journal. The journal decides if the reviews merit publication with substantial revision or if the problems that are identified by the reviewers, the issues are too great to overcome, they’ll reject the manuscript, and Nature rejects the vast majority of manuscripts it actually sends out for review. And it only reviews a small subset of articles that it considers to be most significant. So that’s a really tough vetting process and to come out at the other end, and to have your article published means that you have to have addressed any of the issues that were raised by the reviewers in a meaningful way.

And that’s just the first step, because, the way science works, when you publish an article, that doesn’t represent a new scientific understanding. It’s one small increment in this larger foundation of what we know about the science. Very rarely does a scientific article substantially change our understanding. Typically, it incrementally adds to our scientific understanding, and it’s through the accumulated weight of multiple peer-reviewed studies that all point in a similar direction that we acquire what we think of as scientific knowledge. Getting an article published in the peer-reviewed literature is the first step in establishing, you know, sort of an advance in the forefront of understanding, but that alone is not enough to build a robust scientific consensus. Scientific consensus rests on the existence of multiple studies that all come to a similar conclusion.

Colleen: This makes it difficult then to communicate to the public about, at what point we should really be worried, or really do something. I know, again, in your book you talk about this tipping point “Have we passed the tipping point? Are we near it?” I think it gives people some measure of knowing where they are in this process, Have we passed the tipping point, or are we about to?

Michael Mann: Yes. So the tipping point, what we might describe as dangerous and catastrophic and irreversible climate change, that is a question I often get from people. You know, are we there yet? Have we passed the tipping point? The answer is disappointingly nuanced because, in reality, there is no one climate tipping point. There are probably many and rather than thinking about dangerous climate change as a cliff that we go off at some level of warming, often described as two degrees Celsius, three and a half degree Fahrenheit warming of the planet relative to pre-industrial is where scientists who determine, we start to see the worst impacts of climate change.

But there isn’t a cliff at two degrees Celsius warming. It’s more like an ever down sloping highway, and the farther we go down that highway, the more treacherous it becomes. We wanna get off at the earliest exit we possibly can. In reality, dangerous climate change to me isn’t a cliff. It’s more like a minefield and we’re walking out onto this minefield and we will certainly set off mines if we continue to walk out onto that minefield. And we don’t know exactly where they are, all we know is that as we walk out onto the minefield, we subject ourselves to greater and greater danger and risk.

Colleen: it’s admirable that you keep marching down this road. Because of your research, you’ve received death threats, you’ve received what looked like anthrax in the mail. Thankfully it wasn’t. What did you do when you opened that envelope and did it make you think that you should get out of the field of climate science?

Michael Mann: There were times when it felt like it was too much and, you know, you start to question whether or not you signed up for all this. You know, when I got a degree in applied math and physics from UC Berkeley, went off to graduate school at Yale University, little did I think that I was sort of preparing for a career of battling these forces of denialism so there were some tough times.

And what kept me going was the support of my colleagues, my fellow scientists, especially one scientist for whom I have the deepest respect who came forward and provided words of encouragement, my good friend Steve Schneider, who’s no longer with us. He was a great climate scientist and great science communicator, and I had a number of conversations with him, where he told me, “Look, you know, the fact that they’re going after you like this tells you that, you know, what you’re doing is important. You’re hurting their client,” is the way Steve would put it. The client, sort of in a metaphorical sense, the fossil fuel interests who were funding this. “You know this is inconvenient. Your scientist findings are inconvenient. They’re having a real impact.”

Though it isn’t what I signed up to do, I really don’t think that there’s any more important thing that I could be doing with my life than trying to inform this discussion about what might be the greatest threat, the greatest challenge we face as a civilization. I feel honored to be in a position to inform that discussion. And so if you ask me if I had the choice to do it over, would I choose a different path? The answer would be no. I would choose the same path.


Colleen: How has this changed the way that you conduct your research? I imagine it’s different.

Michael Mann: Yeah, if you’re a climate researcher today, especially one who engages with the media and is involved in outreach and communication to the public, then you’re gonna be challenged, you’re gonna be attacked. It makes you all the more careful in your research. You wanna make sure it’s bulletproof because you know that there are targets on your back and there are people who will look to discredit it in any way possible, you wanna make sure that your work stands up to the legitimate scrutiny of your fellow scientists and so I think it probably makes us more careful in the way we do science.

We double check our calculations. We wanna make sure that we’ve really gotten it right before we publish, and it also sort of reinforces this notion that, you know, your job isn’t done when the paper is published because you still have to be out there trying to ensure that the findings and their implications are conveyed accurately and objectively to the public, and you have these forces of denial who are trying to spin research in ways that downplay the significance of climate change and the threat of climate change. And I wrote an op-ed a few years ago in the New York Times, the title of which was “If You See Something Say Something,” borrowed of course from our Department of Homeland Security. But the point of the op-ed was really that as a scientists we really have to be out there communicating what we’ve found and what the implications are, because if we don’t, if we’re not out there then we leave a void that will be filled by other voices, vested interests who have an axe to grind, who have an agenda to advance, and that does a disservice to all of society.

Colleen: That’s an interesting, perhaps new, world where a scientist has to also be an amazing communicator to the layperson and that’s not easy to do.

Michael Mann: It’s not a skillset that science necessarily selects for but I think, increasingly, we’re seeing younger scientists who are coming into science today who are much more engaged in sort of that side of it, the communication and the outreach, I think, because it’s sort of part of your upbringing today. You know, young scientists have grown up in the world of social media, on the online world, and I think that, because we have seen these concerted attacks against science, it’s brought in sort of a new breed of scientists who wants to do science, but also wants to be involved in defending science. And I think that’s… If you’re looking for a silver lining, then that’s certainly one.

Colleen: Mm-hm. So I have to ask this question. Your research has gone through incredible scrutiny by the scientific community. How do you deal with the climate deniers, the non-scientists who throw out these ridiculous assertions? Do you ever just wanna put your face in a pillow and scream?

Michael Mann: I think I probably have on occasion. You can ask my family, they’ve probably heard. You know, yeah, there are times, when it can be very frustrating. Not really because, you know, you’re being attacked, you know, we’ve come to expect it and frankly most of the attacks are just so silly that they’re not taken seriously by the people that we care about the most, our fellow scientists and policymakers who are engaged in a good faith effort to understand the evidence. But they do provide fodder for the sort of professional denialism, industry-funded denialists and front groups and organizations, funded by fossil fuel interests that spread misinformation and disinformation and the politicians, policymakers who sort of see themselves as essentially agents for the fossil fuel interests who fund their campaigns. The forces of denial at this point, in my assessment, are not engaged in a good-faith debate, because the basic science is in.

Colleen: What are you currently working on?

Michael Mann: So, believe it or not, still science is probably the thing I love doing the most. I love communicating the science as well. But what brought me into science, what got me into science in the first place was my love of doing science and I feel it also keeps me grounded. When I talk about the science and its implications, being on the forefront of the science sort of keeps me grounded in terms of what I know and how well I can inform the discussion. There are a number of different projects that I’m involved with at any given time. There are probably a half dozen. Probably the one I’m particularly interested in and sort of active in, is an effort to understand the linkages between climate change and extreme weather because there are still some scientific uncertainties in the linkages, how climate change, human-caused climate change is impacting storm systems and how it may be changing the jet stream in a way that gives us sort of the wacky weather that we’ve seen in recent years.

There is legitimate uncertainty in that area of science, and the implications of that area of the science are profound, because of course to the extent that climate change is exacerbating many types of extreme weather events. That’s where we’re seeing some of the greatest tolls, something like I think it was $300 billion in insured damages in the United States last year, just over the last year, by these unprecedented wildfires, superstorms, floods. Understanding that linkage and being in a better position to assess how much worse it’ll get if we continue on the course that we are on, there’s a lot of important science to be done in that area, and so that’s one of the areas where I’m doing quite a bit of work. Also, and specifically, the phenomenon of hurricanes and how climate change is impacting hurricanes and changing hurricane characteristics together with sea level rise is impacting coastal risk for, you know, the East Coast of the US, including, you know, cities like Boston and New York City, but for the rest of the world as well.

Colleen: So if you could have one superpower, what would you want?

Michael Mann: It would be Wonder Woman’s golden lasso because I would wrap it around our politicians and force them to tell the truth when it comes to climate change and the impacts that it’s having.

Colleen: That is an excellent superpower. If I could grant it I would. What would you say to early career scientists to encourage them?

Michael Mann: Yeah, I would say, have courage. Know that if you’re doing cutting-edge science, in any field where the findings of science might collide with powerful special interests, There are so many examples of scientific research, be it biology or chemistry or physics basically, like the physics of climate change, where the science that we do eventually has implications that may prove inconvenient to powerful special interests, be they tobacco interests, or the fossil fuel industry or the, you know, the chemical industry. And we have to expect that they will push back through any means available to them and often that involves attacking scientists. Attacking the science itself by trying to discredit the messenger, the scientist. So have courage, and know that if you’re being attacked by these sorts of folks, it’s not because you’re doing bad science, or you’re a bad person, it’s because you’re doing good science that really has implications, implications that are troubling to some of these vested interests, and know that you have the backing of the scientific community.

And one of the things that has made me optimistic about where we’re headed is just over the course of my career, how the scientific community has really started to recognize that they’re in a fight with bad faith actors who are trying to discredit science, and they need to be more organized, the scientific community needs to be more committed to positive outreach and communication, and to provide resources to scientists who are willing to do that, and to protect them, whether that’s in the legal realm or simply in having an army of scientists who are out there trying to speak truth to power. And this is a worthy battle and if you’re looking for a worthy battle, then the battle to inform the public about science and the implications it has, there’s no worthy battle in my view to be involved in, and so I hope younger scientists recognize that. I think they do. I think I recognize that in the younger scientists who are coming into this field, sort of a new breed of scientists.

Colleen: Michael Mann, thank you so much for joining us here at the Got Science? Podcast.

Michael Mann: Thank you. It was great.

Press link for more: Union of Concerned Scientists

The Great Barrier Reef will never be the same again. #auspol #qldpol #StopAdani #ClimateChange

Global warming is already transforming large parts of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef

By Andrew Freedman1 hour ago

A researcher assesses minor damage at Day Reef on the Great Barrier Reef.

Image: ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies/Gergely Torda

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef will never be the same following the devastating marine heat wave that hit it between 2015 and 2016, according to a new study published Wednesday.

The new research found that the northern third of the reef — which as a whole, is the largest living structure on the planet — experienced a “catastrophic die-off” of fast-growing coral species, like staghorn and tabular corals.

These reefs have now shifted to a new state, with a different balance of coral species than were present prior to the marine heat wave. Scientists have tied that marine heat wave itself, and the increasing prevalence and severity of them, to human-caused global warming.

SEE ALSO: Bad news! Extreme ocean heat waves are a thing, and they’re getting worse

The study, published in the journal Nature, shows that many coral species that comprise the Great Barrier Reef succumbed to ocean temperatures that were well above average. However, those corals died in water temperatures that scientists previously thought would still sustain the organisms, not kill them.

This raises the possibility that corals are more sensitive to ocean warming than previously thought, adding even more evidence that if global warming were to exceed about 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above pre-industrial levels, many coral reef ecosystems would cease to exist as we know them today.

These findings about the collapse of coral ecosystems could inform future decisions of whether to list unique ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef as “threatened” World Heritage Sites, something the Australian government has opposed for fear that it would hurt tourism.

The research team used satellites to map the pattern of heat exposure across the 3,863 coral reefs that make up the overall Great Barrier Reef.

According to the study, 30 percent of corals on the Great Barrier Reef died within just a nine-month period in 2016, as water temperatures exceeded a particular heat threshold.

Most of these losses occurred in the northern 434-mile section of the reef, which lost more than two-thirds of their corals, calling into question their ability to function as unique ecosystems.

The different colour morphs of Acropora millepora, each exhibiting a bleaching response during the mass coral bleaching event.

Image: ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies/Gergely Torda

Reefs that were exposed to the warmest waters of this marine heat wave, which was tied to both a strong El Niño event in the tropical Pacific Ocean and human-caused global warming, suffered “an unprecedented ecological collapse,” the study found, with species composition changing drastically, reducing the diversity of species present after the assault from the warmer than average seas.

“Our study shows that coral reefs are already shifting radically in response to unprecedented heatwaves,” said Terry Hughes, director of the ARC Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies in Australia, in a statement. He said focusing on protecting the more heat-tolerant coral species is key to ensuring the survival of the Great Barrier Reef.

Some scientists have even suggested using “assisted migration,” or importing more heat tolerant species, to foster more resilient coral communities in places that suffer from coral bleaching-related mortality.

“Bleaching is not like a steamroller that just kills everything… between species there are winners and losers,” said Mikhail Matz, who studies how corals adapt to climate change at the genetic level and was not involved in the new study. Matz says the corals left after a major marine heat wave such as the one in 2015-16 could be genetically adapted to be more heat tolerant.

“We expect that if genetics works as we think it works then the next generation will be more heat tolerant, because this is natural selection going on,” he said.

Although they don’t look like it, corals are actually living animals, and they receive vital nutrients from symbiotic algae that live within them, providing them with their vibrant colors. When exposed to stress from high temperatures, corals can expel the algae, which causes the coral to expose its skeleton. These bleached coral are more susceptible to continued high ocean temperatures as well as damage from pollution and other threats.

While bleached coral can recover, a prolonged period of high temperatures can kill corals outright.

This is what happened during the longest global coral bleaching event on record, which lasted from 2014 to 2017, but was particularly pronounced in the northern third of the Great Barrier Reef during much of 2015 and 2016.

There are ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ among corals as they respond to the accumulating impacts of climate change.

Image: ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies/Mia Hoogenboom

Study co-author Mark Eakin, who directs a coral bleaching prediction program at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), said part of the reason for the high rates of mortality in the northern Great Barrier Reef is that these areas had not been previously exposed to many bleaching events, and the less heat tolerant species succumbed almost immediately.

“You’re losing some of those more sensitive species,” he said in an interview. “But what that also means is you’re losing a lot of diversity.”

The study paints a grim prognosis for the parts of the Great Barrier Reef hit hardest by the heat wave. The reef will likely lose some of the marine diversity that makes it such a valuable ecosystem.

However, that doesn’t mean that all of the heat-sensitive coral will completely disappear.

Instead, picture a future in which heat resistant coral species dominate such reefs, playing host to a smaller number and variety of fish and other aquatic species. Such heat-tolerant corals may grow more slowly, since the more abundant, fast-growing species are less tolerant to heat stress.

The study concludes that the transition “has already begun on the northern, most-pristine region of the Great Barrier Reef, changing it forever as the intensity of global warming continues to escalate.”

“The good news is that you’ll still have reefs, but they definitely won’t be as good of reefs as we have now,” Eakin said.

Press link for more:

The Hidden Coral Crisis: Loss of Fish Diversity. #auspol #qldpol #ClimateChange

The Hidden Coral Crisis: Loss of Fish Diversity After Bleaching Strikes

Scientists in Australia have documented how the composition of coral species affects the survival of fish populations following bleaching events.

As small fish key to coral health disappear, reefs’ resilience to future catastrophes could decline.

By Todd Woody

April 10, 2018

Todd Woody is executive editor for environment at News Deeply.

A veteran environmental journalist based in California, Todd previously served as editorial director for environment at TakePart, a digital magazine owned by Participant Media.

He formerly was the environment editor at Forbes magazine, a senior editor at Fortune magazine, an assistant managing editor at Business 2.0 magazine and the business editor of the San Jose Mercury News.

He has been a frequent contributor on environmental issues to The New York Times, The Atlantic, Quartz and other publications.

Clown fish at Lizard Island during the 2016 coral bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef.ARC CoE for Coral Reef Studies/Laura Richardson

When coral reefs turn deathly white as ocean temperatures spike, the kaleidoscope of marine life surrounding them dims, as well, becoming more functionally monochromatic and less ecologically diverse, according to researchers who studied a section of the Great Barrier Reef before, during and after a catastrophic coral bleaching event in 2016.

This “biotic homogenization” of fish populations could make coral reefs even less resilient as the frequency of climate change-induced coral bleaching accelerates, said Laura Richardson, lead author of the study published Thursday in the journal Global Change Biology.

Phd Students James Cook University Laura Richardson & Edmond Sacre

“In the case of our study, what we found was that prior to bleaching the fish communities among these different coral habitats varied quite substantially,” said Richardson, who conducted the research as a PhD student at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. “But by six months after the bleaching, the variation among these communities was almost entirely lost. If the abundance of particular species declines, you have less of these fishes carrying out important ecosystem functions.”

For instance, Richardson – now a postdoc at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom – and her colleagues documented declines in populations of damselfish and other small herbivorous fish following a bleaching event in February 2016. Water temperatures rose to 32.8 C (91 F) that month and the marine heat wave persisted for more than eight weeks. Damselfish and similar species are coral cleaners, removing algae and seaweed so that corals can thrive and then revive after a bleaching event.

“If a reef has fewer fishes carrying out particular functional roles or particular tasks in the ecosystem, then when there is ongoing disturbances such as bleaching events or storms, the ecosystem as a whole will be less resilient as they have less insurance to play with,” noted Richardson.

The study is the first to document biotic homogenization on coral reefs. Previous studies have shown that the apparent richness of wildlife in any given ecological community can mask a loss of diversity among ecosystems as species are shuffled due to various pressures, including climate change; this is sometimes called a hidden biodiversity crisis. In research published in 2015, scientists analyzed 29 years of surveys for North Atlantic groundfish that had begun in 1985. The researchers discovered that, off Scotland, “the species identity of colder northern localities increasingly resembles that of warmer southern localities.” The changing composition of fish communities tracked rising ocean temperatures, they noted.

Branching corals and small‐bodied reef fish are often more affected by coral bleaching. Pictured here, a bleached branching acroporid colony with associated reef fish, right next to a healthy (or yet to bleached) Porites colony, on Lizard Island, northern Great Barrier Reef, in January 2016. (ARC CoE for Coral Reef Studies/ Laura Richardson)

“As long as species are not globally extinct this homogenization is potentially reversible,” the researchers wrote. “However, this crisis is largely unrecognized, and adds to the challenges already facing marine biodiversity.”

So to the casual snorkeler, even a bleached coral reef might look alive with an abundance of fish. But the numbers hide a uniformity. It’s like walking into a crowded cafe in San Francisco once patronized by artists, activists and surfers. It’s still packed but now everyone works for Twitter and is staring at a MacBook Air.

Richardson and her colleagues’ research has also has broken new ground on how the bleaching of specific species of coral affects the composition of fish populations.

She did not set out to study coral bleaching impacts when she began surveying fish populations or “assemblages” in September 2015 at 16 reef sites surrounding Lizard Island off Australia’s far northeast coast. “I went out to the island to look at how the different communities of coral influence the structure of different habitats,” Richardson said.

She and a colleague would jump in the water and establish survey transacts by attaching yellow tape at one end of a reef. “As the tape rolls out, the person who counts the fish goes first and counts all the fish within a 5m [16ft] belt along that transact,” Richardson said. “And the second person follows and counts the corals along the tape.”

Shortly after the team completed the surveys, scientists issued a warning of a coming bleaching event at the Great Barrier Reef. Richardson returned to Lizard Island in April 2016 to survey the same sites as the bleaching was in full swing.

As waters warm, corals expel their zooxanthellae, the symbiotic single-cell algae that provide them with nutrition and their eye-popping color in exchange for shelter in the coral polyp. Zooxanthellae can turn toxic to corals when water temperatures rise by as little as 1 C (1.8 F).

Bleaching at Lizard Island in 2016. Some species decline and others survive severe bleaching events. (ARC CoE for Coral Reef Studies/ Laura Richardson)

Six months after the bleaching episode ended, Richardson made a third trip to Lizard Island in October 2016 for another round of surveys at the 16 sites.

The scientists’ analysis concluded that the types of corals affected by bleaching had more consequence for certain fish species than the percentage of coral cover lost. The surveys from April 2016 showed that bleaching affected 51 percent of coral cover, but that branching corals were particularly hit hard.

“The fishes that we specifically noted that declined were the small-bodied reef fishes like the damselfishes and cardinal fishes that are really dependent on live branching coral for habitat – and they use those live branching coral as refuge from predation by larger reef fishes and also from environmental stresses like sunlight and strong currents,” said Richardson. “The loss of these live branching specialists meant that other fishes were able to take their place and use the reef space.”

The fish that disappeared tended to be small specialist species that filled a specific ecological niche. They were replaced by generalist species that could tolerate the coral ruin left by bleaching.

Richardson cautioned that the Lizard Island surveys offer a “short-term snapshot” of the impact of coral bleaching on fish populations. “Corals are highly dynamic systems and they can change a lot.” Still, she said, “In the paper we advise that managers will benefit by taking note of coral species composition as that’s likely to affect the fishes that you find there and that’s likely to affect the overall resilience of those coral reef ecosystems.”

Press link for more: News Deeply

95% of worlds population breathe dangerous air! #auspol #qldpol #StopAdani

More than 95% of world’s population breathe dangerous air, major study finds

Poorest are hardest hit with many developing countries falling behind on cleaning up toxic air pollution

Fiona HarveyLast modified on Wed 18 Apr 2018 04.24 AEST

More than 95% of the world’s population breathe unsafe air and the burden is falling hardest on the poorest communities, with the gap between the most polluted and least polluted countries rising rapidly, a comprehensive study of global air pollution has found.

Cities are home to an increasing majority of the world’s people, exposing billions to unsafe air, particularly in developing countries, but in rural areas the risk of indoor air pollution is often caused by burning solid fuels. One in three people worldwide faces the double whammy of unsafe air both indoors and out.

The report by the Health Effects Institute used new findings such as satellite data and better monitoring to estimate the numbers of people exposed to air polluted above the levels deemed safe by the World Health Organisation. This exposure has made air pollution the fourth highest cause of death globally, after high blood pressure, diet and smoking, and the greatest environmental health risk.

Experts estimate that exposure to air pollution contributed to more than 6m deaths worldwide last year, playing a role in increasing the risk of stroke, heart attack, lung cancer and chronic lung disease. China and India accounted for more than half of the death toll.

Burning solid fuel such as coal or biomass in their homes for cooking or heating exposed 2.6 billion people to indoor air pollution in 2016, the report found. Indoor air pollution can also affect air quality in the surrounding area, with this effect contributing to one in four pollution deaths in India and nearly one in five in China.

Bob O’Keefe, vice-president of the institute, said the gap between the most polluted air on the planet and the least polluted was striking. While developed countries have made moves to clean up, many developing countries have fallen further behind while seeking economic growth.

He said there was now an 11-fold gap between the most polluted and least polluted areas, compared with a six-fold gap in 1990. “Air pollution control systems still lag behind economic development [in poorer nations],” he said.

But he added: “There are reasons for optimism, though there is a long way to go. China seems to be now moving pretty aggressively, for instance in cutting coal and on stronger controls. India has really begun to step up on indoor air pollution, for instance through the provision of LPG [liquefied petroleum gas] as a cooking fuel, and through electrification.”

The number of people exposed to indoor air pollution from burning solid fuels has fallen from an estimated 3.6 billion around the world in 1990 to about 2.4 billion today, despite a rising population.

Emissions from transport are a growing concern, however, as road traffic increases. Diesel fuel is a leading cause of air pollution in some rich countries, including the UK, but in poorer countries the often decrepit state of many vehicles means petrol-driven engines can be just as bad in their outputs, especially of the fine particulate matter blamed for millions of deaths a year.

O’Keefe said governments were under increasing pressure to deal with the problems through regulation and controls, and hailed internet access as having a significant impact.

“Social media has been very important, as a growing number of people have access to it and to data and discussions [on air pollution]. People now have the ability to worry about not just the food they eat and a roof over the head, but they have the means to discuss [issues] in public,” he said.

Tuesday’s report reinforces an increasing volume of data in recent years that has shown how air pollution is increasing and causing deaths. More data has become available in the past decade from satellites and on-the-ground monitoring, while large-scale studies have revealed more of the health risks arising from breathing dirty air, which rarely kills people directly but is now known to contribute to other causes of death.

Press link for more: The Guardian

Dear Mr Adani “Invest in Solar not Coal. #auspol #qldpol #StopAdani #ClimateChange


For our common home

Dear Mr Adani,

We are leaders from many faith traditions and communities across Australia. We are writing to you to ask you to abandon your proposed mine and instead use the same money to invest in solar energy in North Queensland.

Our common home, the Earth, is now in great danger due to the effects of our actions as human beings on the climate. On this point the scientific community is united. Today, we too are united as people of faith.

Let us be clear. We are not merely opposed to this one mine. We are opposed to all new coal development in the Galilee Basin. We are at a crossroads. One way lies destruction; the other way, sanity. We need to turn immediately in the direction of a stable and compassionate future based on ambitious investment in renewable energy.

We wish to stress that we strongly support good local jobs. Yet people need jobs with a realistic future. Grasping at short-term profits from a thermal coal industry in worldwide structural decline will not provide this. Meanwhile, investment in renewables is booming. And the evidence shows that investment in renewable energy creates far more jobs per dollar than coal does. Coal communities need serious investment to make the transition from the dirty energy of the past to the clean energy of the future.

This mine would also create far fewer than the 10,000 jobs you have claimed. Your own economist stated under oath in the Queensland Land Court that the average number of new jobs per year would be around 1464. Likewise, your Australian CEO has said that “everything will be autonomous from mine to port”. This is no recipe for jobs.

We are very concerned that there is nothing approaching a broad acceptance of the use of the land for the mine from the indigenous peoples in the area. This is abundantly clear from the longstanding legal opposition on the part of the Wangan and Jagalingou Family Council.

We know that this mine would use huge volumes of scarce water from the Great Artesian Basin. This ‘Pearl of Great Price’ is an ancient and precious source of water and must not be squandered. The effects on farmers and on our ecosystems would be too great.

For thousands of years, our traditions have taught us to care for the Earth. This responsibility is now extremely urgent. And it is those least responsible for this threat that suffer the greatest impacts of a warming climate.

Here in Australia this moral responsibility is inescapable. By itself, the amount of carbon dioxide from burning the coal in the Galilee Basin would be one tenth of what the whole world can ever emit if we are to avoid the safe upper limit in temperature before many island nations and coastal cities start to disappear (1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels). This is already starting to happen. Australians in the Torres Strait Islands are already suffering serious inundation as are our close neighbours in Kiribati and Tuvalu. It would lead to many more bushfires, droughts, cyclones and floods both here and all over the world. Already we see the impending loss of the famous Great Barrier Reef, a place of magnificent beauty, full of life and astonishing colour, which has experienced back-to-back yearly coral bleaching. The single largest and overriding cause of this is climate change. The reef is World Heritage listed – and the world is watching. Such an increase in temperature also poses serious security risks as world civilisation starts to feel the strain of so many natural disasters.

Your own mine would emit a staggering five billion tonnes of CO2.

Our love and concern for the wellbeing of people, other forms of life and our planet leaves us convinced that building this mine would be a giant leap in a very dangerous direction. We therefore call on you to abandon it and to work instead with state and federal governments to invest in good local jobs in solar and wind. You have the capacity to do enormous good.

Protecting our common home and all those who live here is an essential part of each of our faiths. We each ask the faith communities to which we belong to join us in creating this future. An easy first step is to support the Sun Powered Queensland campaign for an ambitious target for solar energy. We also ask our communities to contact the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change, who have organised this letter, to help them in their work.

Yours in peace,

Bishop Philip Huggins, Anglican Church, President, National Council of Churches, Australia

Dr Rateb Jneid, President, Muslims Australia

The Very Reverend Dr Peter Catt, Dean of St. John’s Anglican Cathedral, Brisbane

Jeffrey B. Kamins OAM, Senior Rabbi, Emanuel Synagogue, Woollahra

Sheik Riad Galil OAM, Senior Imam, West Heidelberg Mosque

Bhante Sujato, Project Leader, Sutta Central

Reverend Dr Denis Edwards, Professorial Fellow, Institute for Religion and Critical Inquiry, Faculty of Theology and Philosophy, Australian Catholic University, Adelaide Campus

The Right Reverend Professor Stephen Pickard, Executive Director, Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture, Charles Sturt University

Rabbi Jonathan Keren-Black, Jewish Ecological Coalition, Board member, ARRCC

The Reverend Dr Jo Inkpin, Lecturer in Theology & Senior Tutor and Anglican Priest, St Francis College, Brisbane

The Reverend Dr Patrick McInerney, Columban Coordinator NSW

Professor Gerard Moore, Academic Dean, United Theological College, Associate Head of School of Theology, Charles Sturt University

Rev Brian Vale, Regional Director, Missionary Society of St Columban, ANZ Region

Associate Professor Mehmet Ozalp, Islamic Sciences and Research Academy Australia (ISRA)

Reverend Dr Jason John, Uniting Earth Ministry, Uniting Church NSWACT

Reverend Dr Ormond Rush, Associate Professor and Reader, Institute for Religion & Critical Inquiry, Faculty of Theology and Philosophy, Australian Catholic University

Dr Neil Ormerod, Professor of Theology, Institute for Religion & Critical Inquiry, Faculty of Theology and Philosophy, Australian Catholic University

Father Claude Mostowik MSC, President, Pax Christi Australia, Director, Missionaries of the Sacred Heart Justice and Peace Centre (Australia)

Pastor Darren Cronshaw, Head of Research and Professor of Missional Leadership, Australian College of Ministries, Pastor, Auburn Life Baptist Church

Reverend Alex Sangster, Uniting Church Minister, Fairfield

Reverend Rex Graham, Uniting Church Minister, Wollongong

Pastor Jarrod McKenna, Cornerstone Church, Perth

Reverend John Brentnall, Chairperson, Uniting Eco Group

Sister Barbara Daniel PBVM, Presentation Sisters

Sister Elizabeth Young RSM, Sisters of Mercy

Sister Elaine Wainwright RSM, Sisters of Mercy

Sister Caroline Vaitkunas RSM, Sisters of Mercy

Sister Claudette Cusack RSM, Sisters of Mercy

Sister Mary Tinney RSM, Sisters of Mercy, Earth Link

Sister Marie Britza RSM, Sisters of Mercy

Sister Veronica Lawson RSM, Sisters of Mercy

Sister Julie O’Brien RSM, Sisters of Mercy

Sister Barbara Bolster RSM, Sisters of Mercy

Sister Tricia Nugent RSM, Sisters of Mercy

Sister Ruth Wyatte RSM, Sisters of Mercy

Ana Freeman, Rahahim Ecology Centre

Dharmachari Arthacarya, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmacharini Buddhankapali, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmacharini Dantachitta, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmachari Dharmalata, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmachari Dharmamati, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmacharini Dharmamodini, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmachari Dharmananda, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmacharini Hrdayaja, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmacharini Khemayogini, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmacharini Maitripala, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmacharini Nagasuri, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmachari Nandavani, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmacharini Prakashika, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmachari Saddhavijaya, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmacharini Samacitta, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmacharini Shubhavyuha, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmachari Siladasa, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmacharini Sudaya, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmachari Tejopala, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmacharini Vimoksalehi, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmacharini Vimuttinandi, Triratna Buddhist Order

Dharmacharini Moksavajra, Triratna Buddhist Order

Ms Thea Ormerod, President, Australian Religious Response to Climate Change (ARRCC)

The public is invited to contribute to ARRCC’s current fund-raiser. Click here to view the video and donation page.