Vanuatu

Climate Change: Politics overrides religion #Auspol #StopAdani 

When it comes to climate change, politics overrides religious views

ELIZABETH EISENSTADT-EVANS | COLUMNIST 


EDITOR’S NOTE: Last week, Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, issued a proposed rule that would repeal the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era effort to limit carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants.

If you are a Christian who has ever engaged another believer on the topic of climate change, odds are you have heard of Katharine Hayhoe.
For years, the increasingly prominent Texas Tech University climate scientist has occupied a unique position, building bridges between the scientific community, which overwhelmingly affirms that human-caused climate change is a threat to the planet, and conservative American evangelicals, many of whom are skeptical of science in general and climate science in particular.
Married to a professor of linguistics (and former climate change skeptic) who also is a pastor, Hayhoe (a native of Canada) seems to find the time to be everywhere, including Facebook and Twitter. 

Her bi-weekly “Global Weirding” videos, delivered in a positive, approachable style, tackle many of the myths and questions that dog the topic of climate change (though debate in the scientific community was essentially over a long time ago).
Approximately two years ago, I interviewed Hayhoe for a column.

 In light of the hurricanes that have inflicted massive damage and loss of life in the Caribbean and the United States, I contacted her again.
How were the storms that hit the Gulf Coast, Florida and the Caribbean altered by our warming climate?
The bottom line is that a changing climate exacerbates our natural risks. 

If we want to know why we should care about climate change, all we have to do is look around and see what types of weather extremes we are already vulnerable to in the places where we live. 

If we live in Washington or Oregon, it might be wildfires.


 In the Northeast, it’s often heavy rainfall. 

 In the Gulf Coast, one of our biggest concerns is hurricanes. 

Climate change doesn’t necessarily produce a drought or a hurricane, but it amplifies the risks associated with naturally-occurring events.


Climate change exacerbates the risks associated with hurricanes in at least three different ways:
First, in a warmer world, more water evaporates, so when a storm comes along, there is more water vapor available, which increases the amount of rainfall and the intensity of the rainfall associated with a given storm.  
Reason two is sea level rise.

 As warmer water expands and land-based ice is melting, more water behind the storm surges makes storm surges stronger.
Reason three, over 90 percent of the extra energy being trapped inside the earth’s climate system by the heat-trapping gases we produce is going into the ocean. 

With a warmer ocean, more energy is available to hurricanes, because they get their energy from warm ocean water.
We don’t expect climate change to significantly alter the number of hurricanes, but we do expect that, in a warmer world, on average, there will be more rainfall and stronger storm surges associated with hurricanes, and likely more powerful hurricanes than there would be otherwise.
Why do people expect to see more hurricanes as a proof of the reality of climate change?
In years like 2017, and in 2005, which is the last time we had so many hurricanes, many people wonder or even assume that climate change is causing more hurricanes to form.

 But the reality is that when we look at the long-term numbers, we don’t see any change in the frequency of hurricanes. 

Some years are bad years, other years have relatively few storms.
Looking to one year as proof of a long-term trend is what I think of as “the ink-blot syndrome.” We humans are always looking for patterns in the world around us, but often we are doing so based on inadequate information. 

 This desire to discern patterns from the chaos of life is a natural part of the human condition. 

It makes me think of what Jesus says (in John 4:48): 

“Unless you people see signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe” when, in fact, he’s already standing right in front of them.
Is it too late to mitigate the effects of climate change?
Yes, and no.

 A certain amount of change is inevitable. 

It’s as if we’ve been smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for 30 years. 

We can’t expect to see no effect.
There’s all the difference in the world, though, between a future where we continue to depend on fossil fuels and a future where we transition rapidly to clean energy. 

There is still a possibility of avoiding the most widespread dangerous impacts if we act now. That’s what I talk about in my Global Weirding video, “it’s too late to do anything about climate change, right?”
When I have heard your talks or read your speeches, you sound more optimistic than many other scientists. 

Why?
Fear won’t motivate us to act long-term. For long-term, sustained action, we need hope. If we give up hope, we won’t be able to fix this problem.
That’s why I spend so much time looking for (examples) of hope, of people making a difference. If we don’t have hope for a better future, then yes —it is too late.
What changes have you seen among Christians since you began to speak out?

 How is it that you are changing evangelical minds on this issue where others before you have been unsuccessful?
When it comes to our opinions about climate change, what matters most is our political affiliation.

 The most concerned group in the U.S. today is Hispanic Catholics. And the least concerned? White Catholics — with white evangelicals right behind them.
Don’t all Catholics have the same Pope, and isn’t he very concerned about climate change? 


Yes. 

And so these findings highlight how it isn’t where we go to church on Sunday — or not — that really matters when it comes to forming our opinions on climate change. For many of us, our political affiliation takes priority in writing our statement of beliefs today.
What does rejecting the science of climate change have to do with our politics?
Despite the “sciencey-sounding” objections we hear all the time — “it’s just a natural cycle,” they say, or “scientists haven’t been studying this long enough to be sure” — the real reason why most people are saying it’s not real is because they want to avoid action. We’ve been told that acting on climate requires the government telling us what type of car to drive or how to set our thermostat or even ruining the economy and threatening our personal liberties. That isn’t true at all. There are libertarian and free-market solutions to climate change, in addition to policy solutions. Which one should we choose? That’s the conversation we should be having.
Have other Christians who are scientists joined you?
Many of my fellow scientists have reached out in the past few years to tell me they support what I am doing and, in some cases, they even share my faith. But overall, from the Christian community, the reaction has been more negative than positive. The number of Christians who regularly attack me each week is depressing. But this makes me treasure those who support me even more. For example, the Christian conservation organization — A Rocha International — has invited me to give the John Stott London Lecture in London in November, on “Climate and Faith in the Public Arena.” John Stott was a famous Anglican theologian and thought leader in the evangelical world who passed away several years ago. I am incredibly honored to be giving this lecture in the church where he served for so many years.
What can a concerned Christian citizen do in his or her congregation to launch a discussion on climate change?
What we should not do is come in with a bunch of scientific facts and arguments in order to pick a fight or focus on what divides us. Instead, start a conversation on what unites us: that we’ve been given this amazing world by God, who loves us and who has made us into people who are concerned about the poor and about those who are suffering in this world — suffering that is being exacerbated by a changing climate today. We can find common ground when we share from the heart. This approach is exemplified in a sermon I gave earlier this year at an evangelical church near Philadelphia, called “How climate change affects the poor,” and by a talk I gave at Pepperdine University, a Christian college in California, called “Loving our global neighbor.”
 Elizabeth Eisenstadt-Evans is a freelance writer and nonparochial Episcopalian priest.

Press link for more: Lancaster Online

Advertisements

Does a Warming Planet Reallly Need More Coal? #StopAdani 

Australia Debates: Does Warming Planet Really Need More Coal?

By JACQUELINE WILLIAMS

October 14, 2017
Australia Debates:

An enormous expansion at Abbot Point, Australia’s most northern deep water coal port, is planned as part of a controversial mining project.
David Maurice Smith for The New York Times
ABBOT POINT, Australia — In a desolate corner of northeastern Australia, about 100 miles from the nearest town, a grassy stretch of prime grazing land sits above a vein of coal so rich and deep that it could be mined for decades.
The Australian government is considering a proposal to build one of the world’s largest coal mines in this remote locale, known as the Galilee Basin, where acacia and eucalyptus trees grow wild between scattered creeks.
An Indian conglomerate, the Adani Group, has asked for a taxpayer-financed loan of as much as $800 million to make the enormous project viable, promising to create thousands of jobs in return.
But the plan has met intense opposition in Australia and abroad, focusing attention on a question with global resonance: Given the threat of climate change and the slowing global demand for coal, does the world really need another giant mine, especially at the public’s expense?
Adani has proposed building six open-cut pits and five underground complexes capable of producing as much as 66 million tons of coal a year. New infrastructure to support the mine — a rail line to the coast and an expanded port — would also make it economically feasible to extract coal from at least eight additional sites in the Galilee Basin.
That could more than double coal output in Australia, which already produces more coal than any other nation except China, the United States and India. About 88 percent of the 487 tons of coal mined in Australia is exported.

Mick Derrick, center, a volunteer from the North Queensland Conservation Council, conducting a survey in Townsville, Queensland, about the proposed Adani coal mine.
David Maurice Smith for The New York Times
For many environmentalists, what happens in this mining case is a test of the world’s commitment to fighting climate change. Its failure would register as an unmistakable sign of an international shift away from the fossil fuels behind climate change. But if Australia agrees to subsidize the mine — even though several commercial banks have shunned it — the project would demonstrate the lasting allure and influence of the coal industry.
“How it can be constructed — at a time when the whole world is committed to move away from fossil fuels — is madness that most people just can’t understand,” said Geoffrey Cousins, president of the Australian Conservation Foundation.
The project, known as the Carmichael mine, has provoked strong resistance in part because of its proximity to the Great Barrier Reef, a natural wonder that is already dying because of overheated seawater blamed on climate change. Adani plans to deliver most of the coal to India on shipping routes that critics say would further damage the ecosystem of the world’s greatest system of reefs.
The debate over the mine has dominated headlines in Australia for months and fueled one of the most fervent environmental campaigns in the nation’s history. Protests have grown in size and frequency, and polls show Australians who oppose the mine outnumber those who support it by more than two-to-one.
A group of Indigenous Australians is also challenging Adani’s claim to the land.
But Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull supports the project, and it just needs financing to proceed. A government agency established to support private-sector infrastructure investment is reviewing Adani’s loan request, and the company has said it is also lining up money overseas.
“This is a tipping point,” said Maree Dibella, a coordinator of the North Queensland Conservation Council, referring to the mine’s role in the global campaign against coal.

The Collinsville coal mine, the oldest in Queensland. Proponents of a new mine say it would bring thousands of jobs to Queensland.
David Maurice Smith for The New York Times
Around the Galilee Basin, where a population of less than 20,000 is scattered across an area the size of Britain, opinion is divided.
Bruce Currie, a cattle farmer who lives near the site and has traveled to India to investigate Adani’s record, said he is worried the mine will drain too much groundwater, calling it “yet another burden our small business has to bear.”
Several hours drive north in Collinsville, one of the area’s oldest mining communities, Roderick Macdonald, 57, a retired miner, said Adani had come to the town promising to build mining camps and employ local people.
“From what I can hear and see, Mr. Adani’s going to do nothing for this town,” Mr. Macdonald said, referring to Gautam Adani, the billionaire founder and chairman of the company.
But others in the region are more hopeful. Mining accounts for as much as 7 percent of the Australian economy, and the northeastern state of Queensland, where the Galilee Basin lies, has suffered a downturn in recent years because of slowing demand for natural resources, especially from China.
“I need jobs for Queenslanders,” said the state’s premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, of the Adani proposal.


Roderick Macdonald, a retired miner in Collinsville, Queensland. “From what I can hear and see,” he said, the proposed coal mine project would “do nothing for this town.”
David Maurice Smith for The New York Times
Towns along the coast have been vying for potential contracts with the mine for maintenance work, construction and other services. “People are really rooting for this because of the economy,” said Stephen Smyth, a local union leader, who started working in underground mines at 17.
The Carmichael mine, he added, is “offering that thing of hope, hope for a better life, secure employment and better wages so people can live a reasonable life.”
Adani has said the project will create as many as 10,000 jobs in the region. But a consultant hired by Adani said the employment claim was overstated in court testimony given in a case where a conservation group was looking to block the mine. Critics have also noted that other mines in Australia may need to scale back production if Carmichael opens, meaning job losses elsewhere.
A host of Australian celebrities — including the rock band Midnight Oil — and international groups have urged Mr. Turnbull to kill the project, arguing that such a large mine would violate Australia’s commitment in the Paris climate accord to work to prevent temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.
In April, Mr. Turnbull met with Mr. Adani and later told reporters that the mine “will create tens of thousands of jobs,” adding, “Plainly, there is a huge economic benefit from a big project of this kind, assuming it’s built and it proceeds.”
If Adani and other mines in the Galilee Basin go ahead and reach maximum production, coal from the region would release as much as 700 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year, or nearly as much as Germany generates in emissions, according to a study by Greenpeace.


Coal awaiting export at the Abbot Point port.
David Maurice Smith for The New York Times
Australia has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, but the coal it sells to India and other countries would not be counted in its total.
It is unclear if India even needs the extra coal. After years of big increases in coal consumption, the growth rate slowed last year as the nation has improved energy efficiency and shifted to solar, wind and hydropower. India’s coal-fired power plants are running below 60 percent of capacity, a record low, experts say.
That has raised questions about the economics of the Carmichael mine. Australia’s four largest banks have publicly ruled out financing it, and analysts have argued that the mine would face stiff competition from local sources of coal in India and elsewhere.
Globally, coal consumption actually decreased by 1.7 percent in 2016, according to a BP report on energy trends, leading the company to declare that “the fortunes of coal appear to have taken a decisive break from the past.”
Critics worry Adani could default on the government’s loan or flood the market, lowering prices worldwide and allowing coal to make a comeback as an energy source.
The Adani Group’s business record has also drawn scrutiny. The conglomerate, whose interests span natural resources, logistics, energy and agriculture, has faced allegations in India of environmental degradation, money laundering and bribery, but it has denied any illegal activity.


Mike Brunker, a member of the Whitsunday Regional Council, supports the coal mine, viewing it as a potential creator of much needed jobs in the area.
David Maurice Smith for The New York Times
Adani leased about 460 square miles of land in the Galilee Basin nearly a decade ago. It can take two to three days to get to the site from the coast, with the last leg of the trip on unpaved roads. Surveying, soil testing and design work has begun, including on an airstrip, mining camp, access roads and the rail link, said Ron Watson, a spokesman for Adani Australia.
Coal from the mine would be transported by rail about 240 miles through grazing land to Abbot Point, the nation’s most northern deep water coal port, which is already used to ship coal to China, Japan and South Korea. Adani has signed a 99-year lease of the port and plans an expansion that would allow it to double the amount of coal going through.
From the air, the piles of coal and equipment at Abbot Point are a striking contrast with the turquoise waters of the Coral Sea. The closest coral of the Great Barrier Reef is just 12 miles away.
A 30-minute drive southeast from Abbot Point is the seaside town of Bowen, where parts of the Nicole Kidman epic “Australia” was filmed a decade ago during better times. Now, the streets are dotted with “For Sale” signs beyond the main drag.
“We had miners living in the high parts of town,” or the most expensive neighborhoods, said Mike Brunker, who represents Bowen in the Whitsunday regional council and is a supporter of the mine for the jobs it is projected to bring. “That was the boom time. They had to leave, they had to go to other mines, or they’ve just gone broke.”
Further up the coast is Townsville, home to Adani’s headquarters in Australia, where protesters sometimes congregate and residents exemplify the conflicts felt by many in the region.
“You don’t know what’s good for us,” one man snapped at an environmental activist conducting a survey recently.
Not too long after, another resident told the activist, “I oppose the mine even though I applied for a job.”

Press link for more: NYTimes.com

Investing in the age of #ClimateChange #StopAdani 

Countries who’ve signed the Paris Climate Agreement are looking for ways to curb carbon emissions
Marija Kramer is Head of Responsible Investment Business at Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS). 

She is responsible for all aspects of responsible investing (RI) offerings, including policy development, as well as research and data screening services covering more than 13,000 global companies for institutions seeking to fully integrate ESG into their investment decision-making.

 Kramer also oversees new product development and strategic alliances in all regions of the world where RI solutions are delivered to ISS clients.

Christopher P. Skroupa: Have we reached a tipping point for mainstream investors on the issue of climate change?
Marija Kramer: I would say so. Unprecedented votes this year on climate change resolutions at some of the largest energy companies, including Exxon Mobil, would suggest mainstream institutions have crossed the Rubicon on the materiality of climate change.

 So it’s not just leading climate scientists who agree that the release of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere contribute to climate change.

What we’re seeing now is that investors are focused on how a changing climate brings two highly impactful risks: transition and physical.

 Transition risks are linked to the political commitment to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

 For example, a government may choose to introduce a tax on greenhouse gas emissions that could leave several companies with unburned fossil fuel assets but support the emergence of renewable energy technologies. 

These policy and technology-related changes could directly affect the value of an investor’s portfolio.
Physical risks are linked to extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts or hurricanes that arise as a result of global temperature rises, with proponents of this argument pointing to recent storms that hit Texas, Florida and the Caribbean islands as evidence of this. 

The financial losses that can be felt by these hurricanes, alongside the more obvious humanitarian and environmental devastation triggered by the events, are materially significant for global investors far more so today than ever before.

Skroupa: How does the landmark Paris Climate Accord affect investors?
Kramer: With the adoption of the Paris Climate Accord at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP 21) in December 2015, there is a global consensus to combat climate change. 

It is the world’s first legally binding commitment to limit global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels, with a stretch target of 1.5°C.
Part of the agreement includes ensuring that financial flows are consistent with the 2-degree target. 

Meeting this target requires a global effort to shift capital from carbon-intensive to low-carbon industries, but also heavily invest in energy-efficiency in the former. 

Significant investments in renewable energy, smart-grids and energy-efficient storage systems will be needed as well as a fade out of fossil fuel subsides.

Some countries are considering using carbon pricing, taxes and cap and trade systems as financial mechanisms to curb emissions.

 The net effect of this is that many investors are beginning to measure the carbon exposure of their portfolios and, where needed, rebalancing portfolios to offset the presence of high carbon-emitters with companies that have lower greenhouse gas emissions or are on a path to reduce them in the future.
Skroupa: How can investors manage climate-related risks and opportunities?
Kramer: Performing a carbon footprint analysis is the first step for investors who want to understand their portfolios’ impact on the climate and vice versa. 

A carbon footprint analysis shows a portfolio’s carbon emissions based on the ownership it has of the underlying investments.
For example, if an investor owns 1% of a company, the investor also owns 1% of the company’s carbon emissions and the portfolio footprint is the total of these ‘owned’ emissions. 

The analysis shows where the largest exposures are located (specific companies and sector-wide), which can in turn trigger an internal conversation around the strengths and limitations of the current investment strategy.
The next step would be to add more information to the analysis to determine if the investments are on a 2-degree pathway. 

Innovative tools, such as Climetrics, a climate impact rating for funds, also provide investors with much needed insight on the climate change impact of funds’ portfolio holdings, as well as asset managers’ own applications of climate impact as an investment and governance factor.
Skroupa: As an ESG data, analytics, research, and advisory provider, how is ISS supporting investors in the age of climate change?
Kramer: ISS-Ethix supports investors globally with developing and integrating responsible investing policies and practices into their strategy, and execute upon these policies through engagement and voting.

 Our climate solutions enable investors to understand what climate change means for their investments by providing timely data and actionable intelligence on climate change risk and its impact on investments.
ISS-Ethix can also provide reports that enable investors to understand their carbon footprint and wider climate impact, complying with disclosure frameworks such as the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, the California Department of Insurance’s Coal Disclosure, Article 173 of the French Energy Transition Law, the Montreal Pledge and specific guidelines for investors in other jurisdictions.
The transition to a low-carbon economy requires a massive transformation, including transition efforts to be made by global capital markets. Faced with this new reality, investors have to start asking themselves the following questions: Will my current investments make sense in a 2-degree world, and how can I spot the largest risks and opportunities in the transition to a low-carbon economy?

Press link for more: Forbes

This Isn’t “The New Normal #ClimateChange #StopAdani #auspol #qldpol 

This Isn’t ‘the New Normal’ for Climate Change — That Will Be Worse
David Wallace-Wells

October 11, 2017 10:12 am


A Fountaingrove Village homeowner surveys her destroyed home she and her husband have owned for four years, on October 9, 2017, in Santa Rosa, California. Photo: David McNew/Getty Images

It’s been a terrifying season for what we used to call natural disasters.

For the first time in recorded history, three hurricanes arose simultaneously in the Caribbean. 

Harvey and Irma ravaged a series of islands then turned north and hit the U.S. mainland. 

Days later came Maria, the third storm this season to register among the top-four most devastating hurricanes in dollar terms to ever make landfall in the U.S. (Maria seems likely to be remembered as among the worst humanitarian disasters America has ever seen, with 40 percent of Puerto Rico still without running water, power out for likely six months, and native agriculture devastated for a full year.)


 For years, we’ve conceived of climate change in terms of sea level, meaning it was often possible to believe its devastating impacts would be felt mostly by those living elsewhere, on the coasts; extreme weather seems poised to break that delusion, beginning with hurricanes. And then the unprecedented California wildfires broke out over the weekend, fueled by the Diablo Winds, killing 17 already and burning through 115,000 acres across several counties by Wednesday, casting even the sky above Disneyland in an eerie postapocalyptic orange glow and lighting up satellite images with flames visible from space.

 The smoke was visible from there, too.
It is tempting to look at this string of disasters and think, Climate change is here. 

Both hurricanes and wildfires are made worse by warming, with as much as 30 percent of the strength of hurricanes like Harvey and Maria attributable to climate change, and wildfire season both extended and exacerbated by it. 

As the journalist Malcolm Harris put it blithely on Twitter, “There didn’t used to be a major natural disaster every single day.”

What that means is that we have not, at all, arrived at a new normal. 

It is more like we’ve taken one step out on the plank off a pirate ship.

But the truth is actually far scarier than “welcome to the new normal.”

 The climate system we have been observing since August, the one that has pummeled the planet again and again and exposed even the world’s wealthiest country as unable (or at least unwilling) to properly respond to its destruction, is not our bleak future. 

It is, by definition, a beyond-best-case scenario for warming and all the climate disasters that will bring. 

Even if, miraculously, the planet immediately ceased emitting carbon into the atmosphere, we’d still be due for some additional warming, and therefore some climate-disaster shakeout, from just the stuff we’ve put into the air already. 

But of course we’re very far from zeroing out on carbon, and therefore very far from stalling climate change.

 A recent debate has centered around the question of whether it is even conceivably possible for the planet to pull up short of one-point-five degrees Celsius of warming, which means, at the absolute very least, we have 50 percent more warming to go (since we’re at about one degree already). But even most optimistic experts expect we’ll at least hit two degrees, and possibly two-point-five or even three. 

That means as much as 200 percent more warming ahead of us.

 And what that means for extreme weather and climate disasters is horrifying.

Watch: How Climate Change Is Creating More Powerful Hurricanes
Of course, there is also an enormous variance in weather, and we shouldn’t expect, say, that next year’s hurricane season will be necessarily as bad as this one, or worse, or that next year’s wildfire season will be as bad as this one, or worse, even as the planet continues to warm.

 We are probably dealing with a lot of bad luck in 2017 (and that’s not even counting the earthquakes, unrelated to climate, that shook Mexico last month, reducing whole neighborhoods to rubble). But, over time, the trend lines are inarguable: Climate change will give us more devastating hurricanes than we have now, and more horrible wildfires, as well as more tornadoes and droughts and heat waves and floods.
What that means is that we have not, at all, arrived at a new normal.

It is more like we’ve taken one step out on the plank off a pirate ship. 

Perhaps because of the exhausting false debate about whether climate change is “real,” too many of us have developed a misleading impression that its effects are binary. 

But global warming is not “yes” or “no,” it is a function that gets worse over time as long as we continue to produce greenhouse gas. 

And so the experience of life in a climate transformed by human activity is not just a matter of stepping from one stable environment into another, somewhat worse one, no matter how degraded or destructive the transformed climate is.

 The effects will grow and build as the planet continues to warm: from one degree to one-point-five to almost certainly two degrees and beyond.

 The last few months of climate disasters may look like about as much as the planet can take. 

But things are only going to get worse.

Press link for more: NYMag.com

Jane Goodall: “We dont have unlimited time” to save the Planet #StopAdani 

Jane Goodall: ‘We Don’t Have Unlimited Time’ to Save the Planet

Jane Goodall has been at the forefront of the conservation movement for decades, helping to illuminate human understanding of wildlife and the need to protect it. 

But never has the challenge been as urgent as now, she told TIME.


“When I began there wasn’t any particular need for conservation the way there is now,” Goodall said.

 “If we carry on with business as usual, it will be too late.”

Goodall listed a wide range of concerns, including poaching and deforestation, as key issues affecting wildlife, but highlighted climate change as the threat with the potential to do the most damage in the long term. 

Still, Goodall remains cautiously optimistic, citing the passionate people she has met who are working to tackle the issue and noting that there is still a small amount of time to act before some of the worst impacts of climate change become irreversible.

Thousands of people in Australia protest against the Adani Coal Mine This is a picture taken at the beautiful four mile beach Port Douglas Queensland 

The remarks come ahead of the release this month of the new documentary Jane, which relies on 50-year-old archival footage to tell the story of Goodall’s early work with chimpanzees in Tanzania. 

Goodall says she hopes viewers gain a better understanding of chimpanzees — and take action on the issues that threaten them and all wildlife.

“We don’t have unlimited time,” she said. 

“Do we or don’t we care about our grandchildren? 

We’ve been stealing their future.”

Press link for more: Time.com

Scientists have become angry! #ClimateChange #Coral #StopAdani 

The amazing biological fixes that could help save the Great Barrier Reef

October 3 2017

In just the past two years, up to half the coral on the Great Barrier Reef has died.

 The world has reacted differentially to this disaster. 

Publics have been shocked. 

Conservationists have cried.

 The tourism industry has fractured. 

Some opportunistic politicians have denied. 

And scientists, what have we done?

 We’ve become angry.
Scientists have known this was going to happen for years. I have been teaching climate change and coral bleaching as part of core curriculum since I first began as a young academic in 2001. We have been watching the world in disbelief; watching the world careen down a collision course with its own climate.
Somehow, we thought that common sense would prevail – that politicians and businesses and people would change course before it was too late. And then, suddenly, it was too late for half of the corals on the world’s largest contiguous reef system – our national natural treasure.
The only good news is that when scientists get angry, we get active. In response to two consecutive years of mass coral mortality, some scientists have ramped up the pressure on decision makers, demanding they rapidly adopt evidence-based policies on energy.
Bleaching corals off Port Douglas.


Bleaching corals off Port Douglas. Photo: Dean Miller

Some have ramped up efforts to reduce other reef stressors, such as poor water quality, to increase resilience. 

And some have ramped up their creative efforts to provide fixes, be they technological, sociological or biological.
It is the biological solutions that are fascinating me right now. 

Can we save a reef?

As a professor of marine ecology and the newest member of the board of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, I believe this question is paramount. 

We know the increasing temperature of ocean waters are threatening reefs around the world. We know that when ocean temperatures are too warm, for too long, coral animals eject their symbionts. That is, they throw the microscopic algae that live within them out into the sea.
That means they lose their colour, they bleach. But more importantly, they lose their major source of food. If the waters do not quickly cool, the ghostly white corals starve to death.
Coral bleaching has returned to the Great Barrier Reef in 2017.


Coral bleaching has returned to the Great Barrier Reef in 2017. Photo: James Cook University

Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, of the University of Queensland, was one of the first to study this process of bleaching and to warn us of the impending global ecosystem collapse.
Almost 30 years later, and a paradigm shift in conservation biology is almost complete. From “lock it up and let it live”, the pace of climate change has forced us to consider a more interventionist approach. We’re not quite at “whatever it takes”, but our science and the approach to conservation is changing as fast as the world around us. Chair of the marine park authority Dr Russell Reichelt​ says: “Everything is on the table. Leave no stone unturned”. 
Mature stag-horn coral bleached at Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef.

Mature stag-horn coral bleached at Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef. Photo: David Bellwood

So, scientists are busy in laboratories and reef sites all over the globe in a race to create, select, discover, and cultivate heat-tolerant corals that will withstand the next 50 years of warming oceans – before humanity must, inevitably, achieve net negative carbon emissions, or move to another more habitable planet.
Professor Ruth Gates, director of the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, is selecting the toughest corals and “pre-conditioning” others, preparing them for the heat bath.
Aerial view of the Great Barrier Reef of the Whitsundays in the Coral sea.


Aerial view of the Great Barrier Reef of the Whitsundays in the Coral sea. Photo: Alamy

Professor Madeleine van Oppen​, of the University of Melbourne and the Australian Institute of Marine Science, is creating hybrids and culturing multiple generations of their microscopic algae under heat-stress conditions. 

Her heat-tolerant symbionts can be taken up by bleached corals – but they’ve not yet prevented bleaching.
Other researchers are refining the cryopreservation process (snap-freezing) to produce algal seed banks. If they can get this working, one option might be to fly aeroplanes across the more than 2000 kilometres of the Great Barrier Reef spraying heat-tolerant symbionts across the bleached reefs – aerial first-aid for corals.
A reef flat exposed at low tide on the Great Barrier Reef.


A reef flat exposed at low tide on the Great Barrier Reef. Photo: Penguin Random House Australia

Not all scientists believe such biological fixes will be useful, compared with the rapid evolution already taking place on reefs around the world.
Professor Terry Hughes, director of the Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and one of our foremost researchers of reef diversity, is focused more on reducing carbon emissions and building reef resilience through consideration of social, as well as environmental factors. It may well be that we can’t beat rapid natural selection – already under way in vast numbers of surviving corals – in response to this very unnatural disaster.
Divers on the outer Great Barrier Reef off Port Douglas.


Divers on the outer Great Barrier Reef off Port Douglas. Photo: Jason South

It is true that reefs have moved and changed with climate in the past, but such changes occurred over tens of thousands of years, not hundreds. It remains to be seen how many of the coral species and strains can survive, reproduce and disperse with sufficient potential for heritable selection to heat stress.
Finally, not all scientists are convinced of the safety of “assisting evolution” – releasing selectively bred or genetically modified corals or algae on the reef. Memories of previous biological interventions gone wrong still scar our consciousness.
To keep ahead of the science, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is developing a policy for permitting such interventions – one that enables experimental trials on the reef under strict conditions.
Suffice to say, angry scientists are not standing still. We are exploring every possibility. For the burden of knowing the reef – and understanding what lies ahead – is eased by every effort we make to sustain our living treasures.


Professor Emma Johnston is dean of science at UNSW Sydney and host of Can We Save the Reef? airing on Catalyst, Tuesday, October 3 on ABC & ABC iview.

Press link for more: SMH.COM

Can We Save the Reef? #Catalyst #Science #StopAdani #ClimateChange 

Off Australia’s northeast coast lies a wonder of the world; a living structure so big it can be seen from space, more intricate and complex than any city, and so diverse it hosts a third of all fish species in Australia.


 The Great Barrier Reef as we know it — 8,000 years old and home to thousands of marine species — is dying in our lifetime. 
Can We Save the Reef? 

The epic story of Australian and international scientists who are racing to understand our greatest natural wonder, and employing bold new science to save it.

Press link for more: ABC.net.au

The Great Barrier Reef needs your help #StopAdani #Auspol #Qldpol #ClimateChange 

The Great Barrier Reef May Not Be Dead Yet, But It’s Not Far Off
Share this article and help save the reef.

Shock and dismay struck the Internet when Outside Magazine released an obituary stating that scientists had declared the Great Barrier Reef dead.

 Thankfully, these reports were not accurate. 

Although the 25 million-year old organism is in grave danger, it is not dead yet. 

Scientists and environmentalists are taking to social media to set the record straight.

Environmental reporter Tony Davis tweeted, “Reports of the Great Barrier Reef’s death are greatly exaggerated, say scientists, booing Outside Magazine.”

 And the Cornell Cooperative Extension at Rockland County, an environmental nonprofit organization, tweeted “Great Barrier Reef is Dying NOT Dead!

 ‘The message should be that it isn’t too late… not we should all give up.'”
It may be a relief to know that the GBR isn’t dead, but this scare should be taken as a wake up call, especially considering we are a big reason for the reef’s deteriorating health. 

Coral on the reef are dying due to a phenomenon called coral bleaching. 

Changes in condition, like warmer water temperatures, cause coral to become stressed, which causes the algae living in their tissues to leave. 

When this happens the coral turn white, hence the term coral bleaching, and the coral is left vulnerable and more susceptible to disease. 

According to a report by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, 93% of the reef is affected by bleaching.


How is this our fault? 

Two words: global warming.

 As our oceans temperatures continue to rise, more and more bleaching events are occurring and causing sections of the reef to die. 

According to a survey by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 22% of the reef’s coral are dead. 

If we want to save one of the seven natural wonder of the world, we need to act now.

Press link for more: Propeller.LA

We’re in a race against time! Demand climate action #StopAdani #auspol 

We’re in a race against time!
A most important video. Every thing is at stake & your actions will determine the future of humanity!

We need a new language. #ClimateChange #StopAdani #auspol 

Climate optimism has been a disaster. 

We need a new language – desperately | Ellie Mae O’Hagan
Ellie Mae O’HaganThursday 21 September 2017 23.24 AEST

 A flooded home in Houston, with tattered US flag


A flooded home in Houston. ‘Major parts of the dominant global superpower have been decimated by two Katrina-dwarfing storms in less than a month.’ Photograph: David J Phillip/AP

In 1988, when the scientist James Hansen told a senate committee that it was “time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here”, those who took him seriously assumed that if they just persisted with emphasising that this terrible fact would eventually destroy us, action would be taken.

 Instead, the opposite happened: when confronted with the awful reality of climate change, most people tended to retreat into a panglossian vision of the future, or simply didn’t want to hear about it.

A lot of work has been done since to understand why climate change is so uniquely paralysing, most prominently by George Marshall, author of the book Don’t Even Think About It. 

Marshall describes climate change as “a perfect and undetectable crime everyone contributes to but for which no one has a motive”. 

Climate change is both too near and too far for us to be able to internalise: too near because we make it worse with every minute act of our daily lives; too far because until now it has been something that affects foreign people in foreign countries, or future versions of ourselves that we can only conceive of ephemerally.

It is also too massive. 

The truth is if we don’t take action on climate change now, the food shortages, mass migration and political turmoil it will cause could see the collapse of civilisation in our lifetimes. 

Which of us can live with that knowledge?
It’s not surprising, then, that some years ago climate activists switched to a message of optimism.

 They listened to studies that showed optimism was more galvanising than despair, and they began to talk about hope, empowerment, and success stories.

 They waited for some grand extreme weather event to make the final pieces fall into place. 

Maybe the submerging of New Orleans would be it; maybe some of the rich white people who were battered by Hurricane Sandy would use their privilege to demand action. 

Maybe Harvey or Irma – or now Maria – would cause us to snap out of our stupor. 

It hasn’t happened.

Instead what I think a message of optimism has done is create a giant canyon between the reality of climate change and most people’s perception of it.

 An optimistic message has led to complacency – “people are saying it’s doable so it will probably be fine” – and championing success stories has convinced people that the pathetic, threadbare action taken by governments so far is sufficient.

 I’ve lost count of the sheer number of politically engaged, conscientious people I’ve met who have simply no idea how high the stakes are.

It may be that if the time for a mass movement is not now, there won’t be one

The fact is, nobody knows how to solve the riddle of persuading the public to demand action on climate change.

 I certainly don’t have the answers.

 But I do think we need to contemplate that something is going disastrously wrong here – that perhaps it’s time to get back to the drawing board and rethink how we talk about climate change.
Two significant things have happened since that senate committee hearing in 1988: the first is the Paris agreement in 2015 to try to limit warming to 1.5C – research out this week shows this is still possible. 

The second is that major parts of the dominant global superpower have been decimated by two Katrina-dwarfing storms in less than a month. 

Circumstances have changed in the past 30 years: climate change is a material fact now, and we have a specific target to aim for, to limit the damage it will cause.
‘We have to challenge the pervasive silence on climate change.’ George Marshall, the author of Don’t Even Think About It, speaks at a Guardian event.

A new campaign could centre on the demand for governments to meet the 1.5C target, emphasising how dire the consequences will be if we don’t.

 People don’t need to imagine what climate change looks like any more: they can see it in the sea water that has enveloped the islands of the Caribbean, the drowning houses in Houston, the communiques from those who couldn’t escape, and prepared themselves to lose everything.

 In Britain we’ve seen floodwater inundate entire villages; a pub that became a thoroughfare for a swollen river. 

This is what catastrophe on our doorsteps looks like, and perhaps it’s time we link these images to climate change with as much gusto as the fossil fuel industry denies it.
Could the language of emergency work?

 It has never been tried with as much meteorological evidence as we have now, and we’ve never had a target as clear and unanimous as the one agreed in Paris. 

The one thing I know is that the events of the last few months have changed the game, and this is the moment to start debating a new way to talk about climate change. 

It may be that if the time for a mass movement is not now, there won’t be one.

• Ellie Mae O’Hagan is an editor at openDemocracy, and a freelance journalist

Press link for more: The Guardian