Great Barrier Reef

The Day I Left My KeyBoard & Became A Climate Activist to #StopAdani 

For years I having been using my keyboard to encourage politicians and anyone who would listen to take the threat of climate change seriously.

 In 2007 I supported Kevin Rudd’s words “Climate Change Is Our Greatest Moral Challenge” I joined Jim Turnour’s campaign driving around Cairns with a giant Kevin07 banner. Jim managed a 14 percent swing and joined Rudd in Canberra I thought the battle was won. At last politicians were listening to the scientists, Australia signed the Kyoto agreement & later the Paris agreement. Australia put a price on carbon, we seemed to be heading in the right direction. 

Then along came Tony Abbott shouting “Climate Change is crap!”


 Australia took several steps backwards. I couldn’t understand the fact that Australia was turning its back on science. I feared for the future we were leaving our children.

I completed several online climate courses with Exeter, McQuarie & James Cook universities. The science wasn’t in doubt, I lectured on climate change at U3A Mandurah and started this blog. I became a keyboard warrior encouraging all who would listen to act.

In 2016 & 2017 I watched as the Great Barrier Reef suffer back to back coral bleaching.


I knew my keyboard activities hadn’t changed much, I knew I had to step up & become more active. We were running out of time.

I moved back to Cairns earlier this year, determined to do all I could to make a difference. I joined Stop Adani Cairns & moved from my keyboard to real climate activism.


I over came my fear & attended a meeting where an action was being planned on the Commonwealth Bank in Cairns. I found the Stop Adani group were people just like me. Many protesting for the first time in their lives. I was impressed by their non violence ethic & their passion for change. 

I volunteered to be spokesman for the action, doing interviews with Star Fm, Cairns Post & Win News. We started with a thank you to Westpac for ruling out finance for Adani Coal. We moved to the Commonwealth Bank singing & gathering up bystanders who joined with us to demand Commonwealth Bank stop funding Adani Coal. It was exciting and fun, I had made the next step, gone from my keyboard to join the ranks of Joan Pankhurst, Ghandi & Martin Luther King in non violent action to change the world. 

If,like me you are frustrated and want to be part of real change join us find a Stop Adani Group near you. Leave the keyboard it’s time to take to the streets. Time isn’t on our side we need urgent action now! 
John Pratt

A call to join the fight! #StopAdani 

It’s time to act! 

A call to join the fight. 

As a young sailor in the RAN in 1964 I was fortunate enough to be on a naval survey ship HMAS Gascoyne. The ship spent several months surveying the Great Barrier Reef. 

We travelled the entire reef from top to bottom and out to the continental shelf. 

The reef was in pristine condition, I was blown away with the beauty & the abundance of wildlife. 

I fell in love with the reef & Far North Queensland. My wife & I often flew to Cairns for holidays & in 2002 when I retired we moved to Cairns. I introduced my grandchildren to the charms of the reef by taking them on snorkelling trips to the reef.


In 2016 & 2017 the coral suffered back to back bleaching due to abnormally high sea temperatures. Climate change was killing the coral and putting much of the reef at risk. I was troubled by the thought that I would not be able to show my great grandchildren the wonders of the reef. The idea that in my lifetime I had witnessed a reef in pristine condition & the death of that same coral was soul destroying. 


For me it was a call to action, I didn’t want to face my great grandchildren to explain I had witnessed the death of the Great Barrier Reef and did nothing to protect this World Heritage Area. I studied the science and learnt that the continued use of fossil fuels would push the sea temperature above what the coral needed to survive. For the first time in my life I decided to take protest action and joined Stop Adani Cairns. I decided to dedicate the rest of my life to saving the reef from climate change. 

I call on all who have seen the best of the Great Barrier Reef and want to show their children and future generations to join the fight. 

Half the Great Barrier Reef may have died! #StopAdani #Qldpol #auspol

AS MUCH as half the Great Barrier Reef may have died in the back-to-back bleachings over the past two years.
But the head of the authority in charge of the reef says the actual extent of damage is tricky to calculate because some parts are growing well.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority believes about 30 per cent of coral, in the reef’s northern part, died last year in bleaching caused by warmer ocean waters, chairman Russell Reichelt told a Senate committee on Monday.
Surveys after this year’s bleaching are still being done but initial observations suggest 20 per cent of coral — mainly in the central area of the 344,000 sq km reef — is dead.
“Don’t think of these figures as the net amount of coral on the Barrier Reef because there are quite big movements upwards as well as downward,” Dr Reichelt told the senators at an estimates hearing in Canberra.
The southern part of the reef had grown by about 40 per cent in recent years because it hadn’t been hit by cyclones or bleaching — but it was likely it would suffer from those in the future.
Dr Reichelt said the bigger picture question was the coral’s resilience in the face of bleachings, tropical storms and other threats such as the crown of thorns invasions.
“It depends on the frequency of these major impacts and the concern is the frequency could well be increasing and the recovery time will be insufficient,” he said.
“If the recovery time is very short, there won’t be a lot of coral.”
The best science suggests global warming needs to be limited to 1.5 degrees to allow a good survival rate for coral.
There had already been a 0.7 degree warming over the past century, Dr Reichelt said.
“I draw the public’s attention and the committee to the fact the unprecedented back-to-back bleaching we’ve seen is occurring on a fraction of a degree (rise in temperature),” he said.
“The safe levels (of warming) for coral reefs, probably we’ve passed already.”

A diver examines bleaching on a coral reef on Orpheus Island. Picture: Greg Torda/AFPSource:AFP
Dr Reichelt said the authority accepted the need to change its approach.
He said he agreed “more or less” with comments from Professor Ian Chubb, a former national chief scientist and Australian National University vice-chancellor, who told Fairfax the Reef 2050 Plan needed to be redrawn as it did not address the greatest threat facing the reef — climate change.
Prof Chubb is chairman of the independent Expert Panel advising the government on the implementation of the plan to protect the reef. The panel wants the plan revised to include steps to cut emissions and help the reef adapt to global warming that’s already being felt.
Greens senator Larissa Waters told news.com.au there was a clear call for climate change to be better addressed by government in order to save the reef.
“Dr Reichelt made a comment that we had already passed safe levels for the reef,” she said.
“It’s widely understood that with two degrees of warming, we will lose all reefs globally.”
She said limited global warming to 1.5 degrees was essential if the reef was to have any long term future.
Yet, she said the Turnbull Government was bending over backwards to facilitate the development of one of the largest coal mines in the world, potentially providing mining company Adani with a taxpayer-backed concessional loan and environmental approvals.
Adani’s $21 billion Carmicheal coal mine has been hugely controversial among environmental groups which are concerned about the emissions the coal will produce once it is dug up.
Conservative radio announcer Alan Jones has also expressed disbelief about the granting of a water licence to Adani, which will give its mine unlimited access to groundwater for the next 60 years with no government oversight.
RELATED: Is this the worst mistake Australia could make?
It’s also clear that most Australians do not support giving coal mine projects money.
A new ReachTEL poll, commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation, found just 6.8 per cent of people supported the idea of using public money to support coal mine projects.
The Federal Government is considering providing Adani with a $900 million concessional loan from its Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund to help it build a rail line linking the central Queensland mine with Abbot Point port so it can ship the coal overseas.
But in a separate Senate hearing, it was revealed an independent body charged with assessing major projects, Infrastructure Australia, has not done a cost-benefit analysis on the project.
The Abbot Point coal terminal. Picture: Australian Marine Conservation Society.


The Abbot Point coal terminal. Picture: Australian Marine Conservation Society.Source:Supplied
“The fact that the premier infrastructure body that looks at national ideas and ranks them in a priority list has not considered it, clearly indicates that the Adani rail line is not a worthwhile investment,” Senator Waters said.
Federal Labor is also opposed to the loan, saying taxpayers shouldn’t be used as an “ATM for Indian coalmining companies”.
Today, Queensland Deputy Premier Jackie Trad also hosed down suggestions Adani was offered a “royalties holiday” to get its mine off the ground.
Under the mooted deal, Adani could have paid as little as $2 million a year in royalties for the first seven years, before slowly increasing to the full amount.
The estimated shortfall in royalties in the short term was around $350 million.
Talk of such a deal is believed to have caused major divisions in the state Labor cabinet, with the Left faction raising serious concerns. Ms Trad, a member of the Left, told reporters on Monday any such deal would break an election promise.
“We’ve got a pre-election commitment in relation to any subsidisation of Adani, and we made that commitment very clearly at the last state election, that there would be no royalty holiday or subsidisation of taxpayer funds for Adani,” she said.


“Having said that, I am part of a government that has made sure all of Adani’s statutory licensing arrangements have been pursued, so that the mine can get on and open, and employ people.”

Press link for more: News.com.au

Let’s Change The Conversation #StopAdani #auspol #qldpol 

Let’s Change The Conversation From Climate Change To ‘Shared Benefits’

By Max Guinn 

Founder of Kids Eco Club

Max Guinn,16, is the founder of Kids Eco Club (www.kidsecoclub.org), an organization of over 100,000 K-12 students, which raises eco-consciousness through school environmental clubs. 

Max has collaborated with, and been recognized by, organizations such as the United Nations,The Sierra Club, the State of California, the City of San Diego – and even the Dalai Lama – as a leader in youth engagement in environmental stewardship. 

Recently, Max also co-founded Climate Change Is 4 Real (www.ccis4r.com), to virtually connect thought leaders from all academic disciplines with student groups and educators to share facts, inspiration, and scalable solutions, to promote ocean conservation, and combat human-caused climate change and mass animal extinction.
Last September, I emailed President Obama. 

His response helped me to focus on what matters. He wrote,

“Progress doesn’t come easily, and it hasn’t always followed a straight line. 

Keeping our world’s air, water, and land clean and safe takes work from all of us, and voices like yours are sparking the conversations that will help us get to where we need to be.

 I will continue pushing to protect the environment as long as I am President and beyond, and I encourage you to stay engaged as well.”
But I worry that adults will never agree on climate change.

 The issue has become too political. 

The words “climate change” have even been scrubbed from government websites!

 Our current President refers to climate change as “a hoax.” 


Most people have no interest in discussing it.

 Try talking about C02 levels or climate science and see how far you get. 

The reality is that climate change has become a matter of opinion, rather than a matter of scientific fact.

 It has made the opinion of the ordinary person with no scientific background equal to the findings of eminent scientists who have devoted their lives and education to the study of the problem.

Only 27 percent of Americans surveyed in a 2016 Pew study agreed with the statement that, “almost all” climate scientists believe climate change is real and primarily caused by humans.

 Contrast this to multiple peer-reviewed scientific studies finding that 97 percent of climate scientists believe climate change is real and that humans are the main contributor. 

In an age of alternative facts and a distrust of science, how do we talk about climate change and the need for action without turning people off?
Stanford Professor Rob Jackson thinks we should stop arguing over climate change and start talking about the shared benefits of addressing problems, like health, green energy jobs, and safety.

 My experience tells me that he is right.
theguardian.com

Renewable Energy Jobs

Six years ago, just before I turned 10, I started a non-profit called Kids Eco Club to inspire kids to care for the planet, its wildlife and each other.

 It starts and supports environmental clubs in K-12 schools.

 Over 100,000 kids now participate annually in Kids Eco Club activities, learning the skills necessary to lead, and to understand the issues facing our world, including climate change. 

Kids Eco Club is successful because we focus on shared values rather than C02 levels.

 Take a class snorkeling, and everyone becomes interested in protecting coral reefs.

 Bring local wildlife into the classroom, and kids will fight for green energy and clean water to protect their habitat. Passion drives us.

kidsecoclub.org

Porcupine classroom visit

My generation does not have the luxury of addressing human-caused climate change as callously or as passively as the generations before us ― because we are running out of time. 

Agriculture, deforestation, and dependence on fossil fuels release greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere, trapping heat, making the Earth warmer. 

The hottest year on record? 

Last year, 2016.

 A warmer Earth creates major impacts everywhere: on ecosystems, oceans, weather.

 Sea levels are rising because the polar ice caps are melting, and the oceans are warming, which causes them to expand. Severe weather events are created from warmer oceans – warmer water, more evaporation, clouds, and rain―causing greater storm damage, more flooding, and, ironically, larger wildfires and more severe droughts since weather patterns are also changing.

graphics.latimes.com

The morning Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans

Imagine three out of every four animal species you know disappearing off the face of the Earth.

 According to the Center for Biological Diversity, we are currently experiencing the worst species die-off since dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. 

Species are vanishing at a rate roughly 100 times higher than normal. 

While things like asteroids and volcanoes caused past extinctions, humans almost entirely cause the current crisis. 

Global warming caused by climate change, habitat loss from development and agriculture, pesticide use, poaching, unsustainable fishing practices, pollution and disease spread by the introduction of exotic species, are driving the crisis beyond the tipping point. 

Can you picture a world without butterflies, penguins, elephants, rhinos, sea turtles, honeybees, orangutans, salamanders, or sharks?

Getty Images

Mother orangutan and baby

The oceans provide 50% of the earth’s oxygen and 97% of its livable habitat. 

The health of our oceans is vital to our survival and the survival of the over one million types of plants and animals living there. Climate change and fossil fuel reliance raise ocean temperatures, causing extreme weather, coastal flooding, and ocean acidification. 

Ocean acidification is beginning to cause the die-off of calcium-rich species at the base of the ocean’s food chain, like coral, shellfish, and plankton.

 This die-off would trigger a spiral of decline in all sea life – from fish to seabirds to whales – and negatively impact hundreds of millions of people who rely on the oceans for food.

 Other human threats include overfishing, pollution, oil drilling and development. 

We need to act now to create change in our own communities by protecting ocean habitats, promoting conservation, and creating sustainable solutions to nurse our oceans back to health.

mintpressnews.com

Dead sperm whales found with plastic in their stomachs

In a world with over 7 billion people, we cannot continue to divide ourselves into categories like believers and climate change deniers, or Republicans and Democrats. (labor or Liberal) 

The best chance we have of ensuring a world with clean water and clean air is to engage all of us.

 If this takes changing the conversation from “climate change,” to “shared benefits,” then change the conversation. Together all things are possible.

Press link for more: HuffingtonPost

U.S. Should stand by the Paris Agreement on Climate Change & Australia should #StopAdani 

Op-ed: U.S. should stand by the Paris Agreement on Climate Change

By Jean Hill

As President Trump meets with Pope Francis on May 24, the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City urges the president and his administration to heed the words of the Holy Father,

 “The dignity of each human person and the pursuit of the common good are concerns which ought to shape all economic policies.”
While the priorities expressed in Pope Francis’ statement apply to multiple policy concerns, the Diocese of Salt Lake City encourages the administration, and our congressional delegation, to pay particular attention to the dignity of the human person and the common good as they consider whether or not the United States will remain part of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, an international effort by most countries of the world to reduce the greenhouse gases driving climate change.


We can see the impacts of climate change close to home, but we often miss the devastating effects our emissions have on people living in some of the poorest countries.

 Personally, I will never forget the dire straits created by rapidly changing climate patterns on the people in the African nation of Malawi. 

As part of a delegation from Catholic Relief Services, the official international humanitarian relief organization of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I met with farmers who were trying, without cash reserves or modern equipment, to salvage a growing season after extreme flooding left behind multiple feet of silt atop fertile land.
Those same floods also stranded hundreds of families whose homes were washed away, and who don’t have the option of moving somewhere else. 

None of the people I met were using the fossil fuels that contribute to climate change, but all were dealing with the fallout of such uses.

The people of Malawi are not alone. 

Rising sea levels threaten fresh water supplies and erode agricultural land in low lying regions like Bangladesh.

 Coffee farmers in Central America are losing entire seasons because diseases attacking their crops are thriving in the warmer temperatures, forcing many farmers to migrate to survive. 

All of this has the potential to drive more global instability to which the United States will be forced to respond.


The Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City strongly urges our congressional delegation and the administration to keep the United States in the Paris Agreement. 

This international effort is necessary to serve the most vulnerable members of society who contribute to climate change the least.

 It is imperative to protect the people of Malawi, Bangladesh, Central America and elsewhere who are finding ingenious ways to adapt to an ever changing climate, but lack the resources required to not only prevent catastrophic climate impacts, but also ensure long-term survival.


As the world’s richest nation and one of the major sources of greenhouse gases, the United States has a moral obligation and a national interest to address the causes of climate change and help the world’s poor adapt to it.
We are encouraged by Rep. Mia Love’s decision to join the House Climate Solutions Caucus, a bi-partisan body that acknowledges climate change and is working together to better understand its impacts and chart a path to addressing the problem. 

We also believe that the Paris Agreement is a manifestation of the stewardship needed to bring the countries of the world together to reduce greenhouse gases that are harming the environment and the people in it.
In his encyclical “Laudato Si’,” Pope Francis makes clear that our care for one another and our care for the Earth are intimately bound together, and that good stewardship protects both the environment and society, now and for future generations. 

Through the Paris Agreement we are already part of a global community working together on this issue.


For the sake of the poorest amongst us, the United States should remain in the Paris Agreement and honor the pledge we made to do our part to reduce greenhouse gases enough to avert future disaster.
Jean Hill is government liaison for the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City.

Press link for more: Salt Lake Tribune

Another Coral Reef Devasted by Global Warming #StopAdani #auspol #qldpol

Scientists just discovered yet another coral reef that has been devastated by global warming
As concerns grow over the condition of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, which has endured widespread coral bleaching in the past several years, scientists are finding similar damage on reefs all over the world, including in the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea. 


Now, a recent expedition to the Chagos Archipelago, a collection of at least 60 small islands in the Indian Ocean, has revealed devastating coral bleaching and coral death there, too.

“In shallow water, above 15 meters and in places down to 20 meters, we’ve seen a lot of coral mortality – probably somewhere in the region of 90 percent,” said John Turner, a professor at Bangor University in Wales, who led the recent expedition.

 “It’s a very upsetting thing to see, when these reefs have developed so well, and to see them being essentially reset, if you’d like.”


The reef is believed to have suffered back-to-back bleaching events in 2015 and 2016, Turner told The Washington Post. These events were brought on by unusually warm conditions, likely influenced by climate change and an unusually severe El Nino effect in 2015. 

Scientists have found that coral reefs all over the world have been affected by these conditions, though not all have fared as badly as those in the Chagos area or the Great Barrier Reef.


Bleaching doesn’t automatically mean death for coral reefs.

 It’s a natural reaction to environmental stress, such as high temperatures, that causes the corals to expel the tiny algae that live inside them and give them their brilliant colors.

 Given enough time, the coral will regrow its algae and return to normal. 

But bleaching events can weaken the reefs, making them more vulnerable to disease.

 And if stressful conditions last long enough, the coral may begin to die.
Before the more recent bleaching event in the Chagos Archipelago, an El Niño effect in 1997 and 1998 caused a severe one.

 It took until about 2012 before the Chagos reef appeared to have recovered.
Now, Turner says, the Chagos area has suffered so much coral death that “the reefs have basically been set back to the ’97-’98 cover levels of coral.”
This raises alarm about the archipelago’s future, especially amid concerns about rising global sea levels. 

“If the reefs begin to die off in any way or erode, then of course these atolls are at risk,” Turner said. “Erosion will begin to exceed growth, and we will see these islands begin to recede. . . . That’s the natural way with atolls.”
The Chagos Archipelago includes a collection of coral atolls. 

One of them, the Great Chagos Bank, is the largest coral atoll in the world. 

It sits in the middle of the Indian Ocean, midway between the eastern coast of Africa and Singapore and about 300 miles south of the Maldives, the closest island nation.
The archipelago’s original inhabitants were expelled in the 1960s and moved to Mauritius and the Seychelles to make way for military bases, and there’s an ongoing sovereignty dispute over the islands between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. Only one island in the archipelago – Diego Garcia, the largest – is inhabited by humans, mostly military personnel and contractors.
Until recently, the area around the Chagos Archipelago was the largest marine protected area in the world.

 (It has since lost the title to other marine reserves designated in the past few years). 

Because of its protected status, Turner said, “one would hope these reefs were pristine.”
In fact, he said, a major part of the archipelago’s scientific significance is the fact that most of the islands are nearly untouched by human influence. 

That makes the site something of a reference point for researchers – a place where the ongoing effects of processes like climate change might be observed without all the extra noise that comes with human activities like fishing or construction.


“But actually, what we have learned is that the big bleaching events that are caused by ocean warming have affected these reefs just like any other,” Turner said.
Coral sampling during the expedition showed that about 90 percent of all the coral in the archipelago’s shallow waters – at depths above 50 feet or so – have died. 

In deeper waters, most of the corals are surviving, although there’s widespread evidence of bleaching, researchers said.
Turner remains optimistic about the reef’s ability to bounce back.
“We’re seeing lots of juvenile corals beginning to grow on these reefs,” he said.

 “So that’s a good sign.”
Still, one point of concern is that many of these young corals are settling down on the frames of dead corals, which may eventually break down, Turner said. 

In the longer term, more bleaching events in the coming years could further devastate an already weakened reef.

 As climate change is expected to cause severe warming events to become more frequent in the future, scientists are beginning to worry that many reefs around the world won’t have adequate time to bounce back between bleaching events.

 This is one of the issues facing the Great Barrier Reef.

Turner noted, however, that because the Chagos Archipelago is so remote and has enjoyed protection over the years, it has been spared some of the other damaging effects of human influence – such as overfishing or damage from boats and divers – that have plagued other reefs, including the Great Barrier Reef. As a result, he said, there’s hope that the coral there may be hardier than in other places.
“We do make the point that this is resilient and there is a good possibility of recovery,” he said.

Press link for more: Bangor Daily News.Com

Coal is blocking Labor’s ears! #StopAdani #Auspol #Qldol #ClimateChange 

Leader of a Sinking Island Admonishes Trump on Climate Change

The Prime Minister of Tuvalu, an island nation in the Pacific, is calling out President Donald Trump for his myopic views on coal and climate change.
Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga told Motherboard no country is seriously interested in fossil fuel expansion anymore. 

No one in the US financial community wants to invest in fossil fuels, gas and oil projects are shutting down in the middle East.
“The US is going to be left behind. 

The guy in the White House doesn’t understand that,” Sopoaga said at the UN energy forum in Vienna this week.

There are more than a thousand energy experts and political leaders embracing renewable energy at this moment. 

Just one example: All of India’s lighting will be replaced by LEDs by 2019, saving millions of dollars and reducing CO2 emissions by 18 million tonnes a year, according to Piyush Goyal India’s Minister of Energy. 

This is far ahead of the US and nearly every other country.
Meanwhile, the White House is in the middle of figuring out if it will pull the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement. 

That agreement was not only about reducing CO2 emissions, but every nation to signed it committed to phasing out the use of fossil fuels.
Climate change is an urgent concern for Tuvalu, the world’s second smallest country, since it is a mere 10 feet above the Pacific ocean at its highest point. 

Rising sea levels, driven by man-made climate change, now regularly swamp these tiny islands.

 Thousands have been forced to move to New Zealand.

 Without drastic reductions in fossil fuel use, the entire nation will drown.

The island of Tuvalu is home to 10,000 people. Image: Wikimedia Commons
If that happens, it would be to the shame of the entire world, he said. “Our islands are already sinking. 

Focusing on more fossil fuels will kill the world. 

What jobs are there on a dead planet?” Sopoaga told me.

It was a 20 year fight for Tuvalu and other small island states to reach the Paris Agreement. 

There was a very strong political consensus and there is no going back, he said. 

Meeting these commitments will bring a wide range of benefits, including lower energy costs, less air pollution, green jobs and more, he said.
Another thing the guy in the White House likely doesn’t know is that it will take the US five years to withdraw from the the agreement, according to its terms. And even then, other countries will have to agree to it.
“I’m glad we negotiated so hard to get that.”

Press link for more: Motherboard.Vice.Com

Poorest nations say Paris Climate Agreement is their “lifeline” #StopAdani #Auspol 

A drought in Guatemala that has drained this lake is being linked to climate change in the region


The world’s poorest nations say the Paris climate agreement is their “lifeline” and must be strengthened.
The Climate Vulnerable Forum, (CVF) representing 48 countries, said the deal was crucial to their survival.


In a swipe at President Trump’s oft-used phrase, they said that “no country would be great again” without swift action.
Thousands of delegates are meeting here in Bonn to develop the rule book for the Paris deal.
Around one billion people live in countries that are part of the CVF.
The group firmly supports the idea, enshrined in the Paris agreement, that countries would do all in their power to keep temperatures from increasing more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.


“Keeping to 1.5 degrees is quite simply a matter of survival,” said Debasu Bayleyegn Eyasu from Ethiopia, which holds the presidency of the CVF.


“For all of us, the Paris agreement is our lifeline.”
Other speakers highlighted the fact that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the current US position on climate change.
President Trump is expected to decide on future US participation in the Paris accord after the G7 summit in Italy next week.
Picking up on Mr Trump’s “make America great again,” election battle-cry, Emmanuel Guzman from the Philippines said: “Without increased climate action, no country will be great again.”
“The measure of greatness is how you are able to increase and enhance your climate action.”
Mr Guzman said he was calling on all world leaders to increase their ambition and not just Mr Trump.
“I would not like to point a finger at someone, but it is a call for action by all big or small.
“If we don’t achieve the goals of the Paris agreement there are irreversible damages and consequences.”


 VietnamGetty Images

Rising sea levels are causing problems for farmers in many climate vulnerable nations including Vietnam

“It’s a grim scenario – that’s really unacceptable to us.”
The group highlighted some of the important differences between keeping temperature rises under 2 degrees or under 1.5.


The Greenland ice sheet would enter irreversible long-term decline, with significant impacts on sea levels at 1.6 degrees one delegate said.
Warming beyond 1.5 would also “appreciably increase the prevalence of extreme storms that have already been capable of large-scale loss of life and cutting a year’s GDP in half for some of our members.”
At the last major conference of negotiators in Marrakech last November, members of the CVF committed themselves to moving towards 100% renewable energy as soon as possible.
“Costa Rica produces 100% renewable energy most of the year,” said William Calvo, the country’s adjunct chief negotiator.
“But we won’t stop there: we are tackling now the transport sector and hope to even export renewable power more widely in the region.”
The idea that other countries are capable of picking up the slack if the Americans pull out of Paris gained support this week with the release of an analysis showing that India and China are likely to overshoot existing targets to cut carbon

.
President Trump’s actions to revitalise the coal industry in the US and to de-regulate oil and gas are unlikely to rapidly increase emissions before 2030 says the study from the Climate Action Tracker.
Between 2013 and 2016 Chin’s coal use declined each year and a continued slow decline is expected. 

India says that planned coal-fired power plants may not be needed if recently announced green policies are effective.



“You have to have the U.S. on board ultimately to meet the goals set by the Paris Agreement,” Bill Hare from Climate Analytics told news agencies.
“But if there’s a hiatus for four years it doesn’t mean it’s the end of the game.”

Press link for more: BBC.COM

The Adani mine will kill Millions! #StopAdani #Auspol #Qldpol 

This is not rhetoric: approving the Adani coal mine will kill people.
Rarely have politicians demonstrated better their ignorance of the risks and opportunities confronting Australia than with Barnaby Joyce, Matt Canavan and other ministers’ recent utterances on Adani and Galilee Basin coal, along with their petulant foot-stamping over Westpac’s decision to restrict funding to new coal projects.

 Likewise, Bill Shorten sees no problem in supporting Adani.
The media are no better; discussion instantly defaults to important but secondary issues, such as Adani’s concessional government loan, the project’s importance to the economy, creating jobs for north Queenslanders and so on.
The Adani mine by itself will push global temperatures above the threshold increase of 2 degrees.


The Adani mine by itself will push global temperatures above the threshold increase of 2 degrees. Photo: Robert Rough

Nowhere in the debate is the critical issue even raised: the existential risk of climate change, which such development now implies. 

Existential means a risk posing large negative consequences to humanity that can never be undone.

 One where an adverse outcome would either annihilate life, or permanently and drastically curtail its potential.

This is the risk to which we are now exposed unless we rapidly reduce global carbon emissions.
In Paris in December 2015, the world, Australia included, agreed to hold global average temperature to “well below 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees”, albeit the emission reduction commitments Australia tabled were laughable in comparison with our peers and with the size of the challenge.

Dangerous climate change, which the Paris agreement and its forerunners seek to avoid, is happening at the 1.2-degree increase already experienced as extreme weather events, and their economic costs, escalate.

 A 1.6-degree increase is already locked in as the full effect of our historic emissions unfolds.
Our current path commits us to a 4 to 5-degree temperature increase.


 This would create a totally disorganised world with a substantial reduction in population, possibly to less than one billion people from 7.5 billion today.
The voluntary emission reduction commitments made in Paris, if implemented, would still result in a 3-degree increase, accelerating social chaos in many parts of the world with rising levels of deprivation, displacement and conflict.
Adani Group founder Gautam Adani with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.


Adani Group founder Gautam Adani with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. 

It is already impossible to stay below the 1.5-degree Paris aspiration.

 To have a realistic chance of staying below even 2 degrees means that no new fossil-fuel projects can be built globally – coal, oil or gas – and that existing operations, particularly coal, must be rapidly replaced with low-carbon alternatives. 

Further, carbon-capture technologies that do not currently exist must be rapidly deployed at scale.
Climate change has moved out of the twilight period of much talk and limited action. 

It is now turning nasty.

 Some regions, often the poorest, have already seen major disasters, as has Australia.


 How long will it take, and how much economic damage must we suffer, particularly in Queensland, before our leaders accept that events like Cyclone Debbie and the collapse of much of the Great Barrier Reef are being intensified by man-made climate change? 

Of that there is no doubt, nor has there been for decades. 


The uncertainties, regularly thrown up as reasons for inaction, relate not to the basic science but to the speed and extent of climate impact, both of which have been badly underestimated.
The most dangerous aspect is that the impact of fossil-fuel investments made today do not manifest themselves for decades to come. 

If we wait for catastrophe to happen, as we are doing, it will be too late to act. 

Time is the most important commodity; to avoid catastrophic outcomes requires emergency action to force the pace of change. 

Australia, along with the Asian regions to our north, is now considered to be “disaster alley”; we are already experiencing the most extreme impacts globally.


In these circumstances, opening up a major new coal province is nothing less than a crime against humanity. 

The Adani mine by itself will push temperatures above 2 degrees; the rest of the Galilee Basin development would ensure global temperatures went way above 3 degrees. 

None of the supporting political arguments, such as poverty alleviation, the inevitability of continued coal use, the superior quality of our coal, or the benefits of opening up northern Australia, have the slightest shred of credibility. 

Such irresponsibility is only possible if you do not accept that man-made climate change is happening, which is the real position of both goverment and opposition.

Nowhere in the debate is the critical issue even raised: the existential risk of climate change.
Likewise with business.

 At the recent Santos annual general meeting, chairman Peter Coates asserted that a 4-degree world was “sensible” to assume for planning purposes, thereby totally abrogating in one word his responsibility as a director to understand and act on the risks of climate change. 

Westpac’s new climate policy is a step forward, but fails to accept that no new coal projects should be financed, high-quality coal or not. 

The noose is tightening around the necks of company directors. 

Personal liability for ignoring climate risk is now real.

Yet politicians assume they can act with impunity. 

As rumours of Donald Trump withdrawing from the Paris agreement intensify, right on cue Zed Seselja and Craig Kelly insist we should do likewise, without having the slightest idea of the implications.

The first priority of government, we are told, is to ensure the security of the citizens. 

Having got elected, this seems to be the last item on the politician’s agenda, as climate change is treated as just another issue to be compromised and pork-barrelled, rather than an existential threat.

We deserve better leaders.


 If the incumbency is not prepared to act, the community need to take matters into their own hands.


Ian Dunlop was an international oil, gas and coal industry executive, chairman of the Australian Coal Association and chief executive of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. 

He is a member of the Club of Rome.

Press link for more: SMH.COM

Climate Change Our Greatest Moral Challenge & The generation gap 

Climate Mission—and Winning Converts

Pexels/Pixabay
For decades now, the organized climate-denial machine in this country—largely composed of polluting billionaires, bought-and-paid-for government officials, spurious think tanks, and a colorful assortment of freelance cranks—has liked to think that the millions of Americans who describe themselves as evangelical Christians are totally on board. 

The relationship they’ve cultivated is founded on the presumption of shared mistrust. 

To evangelicals, climate deniers have essentially said: You don’t really think those pointy-headed scientists have all the answers about the origins of the universe or how life on earth began, do you? 

So why would you ever trust them on this?

It’s easy to see what the climate-denial machine has gotten out of the relationship (besides fossil fuel profits).

 First and foremost, evangelicals have long represented a reliable voting bloc that can generally be counted on to organize for candidates and show up on election day; having them in your column is extraordinarily helpful at the basic level of boots-on-the-ground political reinforcement. 

Secondarily, climate deniers benefit from the patina of righteousness that comes from their association with the devout. 

When the policies you endorse are demonstrably linked to increased death, devastation, and human misery, believing that the majority of America’s evangelical Christians are nominally on your side must offer some degree of conscience-easing comfort.

But that invites the question: What do evangelical Christians get out of this relationship? 

Right now, the younger ones, at least, are getting the sneaking suspicion that they’ve been had. 

It is their future that’s at stake, after all.
It’s important to note here that a great deal of philosophical and political diversity exists among evangelicals, not all of whom fit neatly under the label of “Christian conservative.”

 While they tend to agree on fundamental theological matters, they’re not afraid to have vigorous internal debates over any number of hot-button social issues. 

One of these issues is climate change. 

And it now appears that evangelicals, especially millennial evangelicals, are starting to rebuff the advances of the climate-denial machine and to absorb climate action as an aspect of their faith—which compels them, after all, to be good stewards of God’s creation.


Since its inception in 1999, the Micah Network, a global community of relief workers and development specialists, has worked to make the easing of the poor’s burdens a larger part of the Christian mission.

 In 2005, the network launched the Micah Challenge, designed specifically to effect public policy that would help alleviate the poverty and suffering of more than 800 million people around the world who survive on less than $2 a day. 

For the young, energetic evangelicals who make up the Micah Challenge’s leadership, personal acts of charity for the poor, while laudable, aren’t enough. Poverty and suffering, they say, are structural problems that require structural solutions.



Visit the Micah Network’s website and one of the first things you’ll notice is how straightforwardly the organization prioritizes climate justice within its goals of “mobiliz[ing] Christians to end extreme poverty through changing attitudes, behavior, and policies that perpetuate injustice and deny God’s will for all creation to flourish.” 

Its adherents are naturally concerned about the disproportionate impact that climate change has on the world’s poorest people―making life much more difficult, and often impossible, for those living in areas highly susceptible to natural disaster, for example, or where food supplies are dependent on fishing or subsistence farming.
On one level, the group wins hearts and minds with the aid of high-profile Christian figures who understand the urgent need to rally public support for the cause. 

In 2015, the Micah Challenge sent a contingent of well-known Christian recording artists to the United Nations–sponsored COP 21 summit to witness the signing of the Paris climate agreement—as well as to “witness,” in the more religious sense of that word, for climate justice.

 And just last week, in the days leading up to the Peoples Climate March in Washington, D.C., a small but influential group of Micah-associated authors, musicians, and scientists traveled to the nation’s capital. 

There they met with Republican lawmakers and others to express their displeasure at the Trump administration’s many attempts to defund or otherwise dismantle federal efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
In truth, support for climate action among evangelical faith leaders isn’t a new thing.

 The Evangelical Climate Initiative, which currently represents more than 300 of these leaders, has been sounding the trumpet on climate change for more than a decade. 

But the message hasn’t always caught on among parishioners, many of whom may feel uncomfortable endorsing a position they perceive as “liberal” or “progressive.” 

What feels different about this moment in time is that groups like the Micah Challenge, aided by expert climate communicators like the scientist Katharine Hayhoe, finally seem to have broken through to the next generation.


Katherine Hayhoe

 This generation has grown up not just reading and studying about the effects of climate change but actually living through them. 

Millennials don’t pay too much attention to the ravings of misguided senators or to dubious reports put out by pro-pollution think tanks. 

But they do listen to the words of their favorite bloggers, authors, and singer/songwriters.
Every week seems to bring more bad tidings for federal climate action and the planet. 
But here’s some good news: Our battle over whether and how to address climate change is looking less and less like a culture war these days, and more and more like a generation gap. 


And as is the case in any generational struggle, the old guard doesn’t have a prayer.

Press link for more: NRDC.ORG