Billionaires declared to be bad for the planet - especially those who send C02-e emitting rockets into space

OXFAM, Policy and Practice, Briefing Note, 7 November 2022, excerpt:

Carbon Billionaires: The investment emissions of the world’s richest people

Overview

The world’s richest people emit huge and unsustainable amounts of carbon and, unlike ordinary people, 50% to 70% of their emissions result from their investments. New analysis of the investments of 125 of the world’s richest billionaires shows that on average they are emitting 3 million tonnes a year, more than a million times the average for someone in the bottom 90% of humanity.

The study also finds billionaire investments in polluting industries such as fossil fuels and cement are double the average for the Standard & Poor 500 group of companies. Billionaires hold extensive stakes in many of the world’s largest and most powerful corporations, which gives them the power to influence the way these companies act. Governments must hold them to account, legislating to compel corporates and investors to reduce carbon emissions, enforcing more stringent reporting requirements and imposing new taxation on wealth and investments in polluting industries…...

Investments billionaires make help shape the future of our economy, for example by backing high carbon infrastructure, locking in high emissions for decades to come. Our study found that if the billionaires in the sample moved their investments to a fund with stronger environmental and social standards, it could reduce the intensity of their emissions by up to four times.

The role of corporates and investors in making cuts to carbon emissions that are needed to stop global warming of more than 1.5°C will be a hot topic at the upcoming 27th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Egypt. Yet despite the corporate spin, their actions fall far short of what is actually needed to stop catastrophic climate breakdown.

Governments should tackle this issue with data, regulation and taxation. They must systematically report on the emissions of different income groups in society, instead of relying on averages which obscure carbon inequality and undermine effective policy making….

In 2021, research conducted by Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) revealed that the richest 1% (around 63 million people) alone were responsible for 15% of cumulative emissions and that they were emitting 35 times the level of CO2e compatible with the 1.5°C by 2030 goal of the Paris Agreement.⁷ Similar findings have been reported by economists Thomas Piketty and Lucas Chancel.⁸ Another study drew on public records to estimate that in 2018 emissions from the private yachts, planes, helicopters and mansions of 20 billionaires generated on average about 8,194 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2e).⁹ By contrast, any individual among the poorest one billion people emits around 1.4 tonnes of CO2 each year.¹⁰

More recently, Twitter accounts tracking private jet travel have brought the issue of carbon inequality to public attention with revelations that, in a matter of just minutes, billionaires are emitting more CO2 than most people will emit in a year.¹¹…..

The billionaire space race has highlighted how a single space flight can emit as much CO2 as a normal person will in their lifetime.¹²12 Adding fuel to the fire, this same group of people have the resources to avoid the consequences of climate change, which will be felt most heavily by the poorest people….

Every person on earth emits carbon, but the sources of these emissions change the further up the income scale you move. A person’s total carbon footprint can be divided into personal consumption emissions, emissions through government spending and emissions linked to investments.

For the majority of society, people’s emissions from investments are minimal. But for the richest in society this is reversed, with emissions from investments becoming the biggest source – for the top 1%, between 50% to 70% of their emissions, according to one estimate.¹⁴ This mirrors income inequality, where the majority of people derive their incomes from work but the richest derive most of theirs from returns on their investments.

This paper begins with the world’s very richest people and examines the scale of their investment portfolios in order to make an estimate of their investment emissions…..

The 35-page paper can be read and downloaded from here.

Grafton Loop of the Knitting Nannas speaking plainly to the Minister for Climate Change & Energy and Labor MP for Prospect (NSW), Chris Bowen

 

Hon Chris Bowen

Minister for Climate Change and Energy

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT

Email:

EnergyMinisters@industry.gov.au

Chris.Bowen.MP@aph.gov.au

Dear Minister Bowen

Federal Government Climate Policy

The Grafton Loop of the Knitting Nannas Against Gas and Greed is a community group which was formed in 2012 in response to plans by the NSW Government to foist a gas mining industry on our NSW Northern Rivers region. As you may be aware, the determined campaigning of grass roots community groups, including various regional loops of Knitting Nannas, forced the abandonment of these plans. Because of our ongoing concerns about climate change and the impact it will have on future generations, the Nannas have remained active since the removal of the immediate gas threat to our region.

The Nannas are delighted that our new Federal Government has responded to community concerns about the existential threat of climate change by committing to greater emission cuts than the former government.

While this is a good first step, we are concerned that what you are doing is far short of what is actually required. As we understand it, your proposed cuts are in line with a temperature rise of 2°C not the 1.5° which is in line with the Paris goal. Scientists keep advising that much more is needed – much faster. Indeed the bushfires and floods in Australia as well as the climate-induced disasters elsewhere are making this very plain.

In addition the Nannas are extremely concerned that your Government has adopted a “business as usual” approach to the fossil fuel industry – an approach that is completely inconsistent with your apparent commitment to do better on climate change.

We are concerned that you see no problem with the opening of new coal and gas mines.

We are concerned that your colleague, Minister King, recently announced 46,758 sq km of new petroleum acreage for exploration in Commonwealth waters to the north of the country.

We are appalled that Minister King also indicated your Government’s support of the pie-in-the-sky technology of carbon capture and storage (CCS) so beloved of the fossil fuel industry by approving two permits for off-shore greenhouse gas storage areas north of WA and the NT. And there are a further three to come. We are also very concerned that taxpayer funds continue to be wasted on subsidies to CCS which are another form of “green-washing” by polluters intent on pursuing their damaging businesses.

If the fossil fuel industry had been concerned about the election of a government committed to greater climate action, they must be collectively rubbing their hands in glee, because nothing has really changed from the policies of the previous government.

As you are undoubtedly aware, more Australians than ever before are concerned about climate change and they expect more consistent and effective action from their government.

We urge you, Minister Bowen, to improve your government’s action on climate change.

Yours sincerely

Leonie Blain

On behalf of the Grafton Nannas

Cc Hon Tanya Plibersek, Minister for Environment and Water

The Abbott-Turnbull- Morrison Coalition Government's approach to creative accounting in national climate change ledgers has been receiving some attention since the Prime Minister's attendance at UN COP26

 

The Saturday Paper, Post, 9 November 2021:

Multiple investigations indicate Australia is significantly underreporting its emissions, as COP26 organisers ramp up pressure on the nation to strengthen its 2030 emissions target.

What we know:

• Australia is among of a host of countries systematically underreporting emissions to the UN, including the removal of substantial emissions from megafires fanned by climate change (The Washington Post); 

• Separate analysis of satellite imagery of land clearing indicates Australia is also probably understating emissions from deforestation (The Guardian); 

• Resources Minister Keith Pitt made international headlines for his promise that Australia will continue exporting coal “for decades to come” (France 24); 

• Analysis by Global Witness finds there “there are more delegates at COP26 associated with the fossil fuel industry than from any single country” (BBC); 

• COP26 organisers are working out a plan to pressure countries like Australia that have not strengthened their 2030 targets at the summit to do so in 2022 (The Guardian); 

• The Morrison government has unveiled a plan to partner with the private sector to fund 50,000 electric vehicle charging stations (ABC); 

• Industry groups criticised the electric vehicle plan for failing to include subsidies, tax incentives, sales targets or minimum fuel emission standards.

G7 Summit June 2021 confirms aim to eliminate unabated international thermal coal power generation from global power generation mix by 2030

“Recognising that coal power generation is the single biggest cause of greenhouse gas emissions, and consistent with this overall approach and our strengthened NDCs, domestically we have committed to rapidly scale-up technologies and policies that further accelerate the transition away from unabated coal capacity, consistent with our 2030 NDCs and net zero commitments. This transition must go hand in hand with policies and support for a just transition for affected workers, and sectors so that no person, group or geographic region is left behind. To accelerate the international transition away from coal, recognising that continued global investment in unabated coal power generation is incompatible with keeping 1.5°C within reach we stress that international investments in unabated coal must stop now and we commit now to an end to new direct government support for unabated international thermal coal power generation by the end of 2021, including through Official Development Assistance, export finance, 14 investment, and financial and trade promotion support. This transition must also be complemented by support to deliver this, including coordinating through the Energy Transition Council. We welcome the work by the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) and donors plan to commit up to $2 billion in the coming year to its Accelerating the Coal Transition and Integrating Renewable Energy programs. These concessional resources are expected to mobilize up to $10 billion in co-financing, including from the private sector, to support renewable energy deployment in developing and emerging economies. We call on other major economies to adopt such commitments and join us in phasing out the most polluting energy sources, and scaling up investment in the technology and infrastructure to facilitate the clean, green transition. More broadly, we reaffirm our existing commitment to eliminating inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, and call on all countries to join us, recognising the substantial financial resource this could unlock globally to support the transition and the need to commit to a clear timeline.” [CARBIS BAY G7 SUMMIT COMMUNIQUÉ, Our Shared Agenda for Global Action to Build Back Better , 13 June 2021, excerpt]

Students Win Landmark Climate Case. In Global First, Judge Determines That Federal Environment Minister Has Duty Of Care To Protect Young People From Climate Change

 

The group of teenagers took the federal government to court on behalf of "young Australians everywhere".

(ABC News Brendan Esposito)

Final Media Release

STUDENTS WIN LANDMARK CLIMATE CASE. IN GLOBAL FIRST, MINISTER HAS DUTY OF CARE TO PROTECT YOUNG PEOPLE FROM CLIMATE CHANGE

SYDNEY MAY 27, 2021: Eight high school students have welcomed today’s landmark judgment in the Federal Court of Australia that found the Federal Environment Minister has a duty of care not to cause them harm from climate change.

The students brought the class action against Minister Sussan Ley in September 2020, asking the court to recognise the Minister has a duty to protect young people around Australia from foreseeable future climate change harms.

The students alleged that approving a major extension to the Vickery coal mine in northern New South Wales would breach the Minister’s duty. An injunction was not ordered but there will be further submissions on what the duty means for the Minister’s decision and the mine.

“I am thrilled by today’s judgement,” says Ava Princi, 17, one of the students.

“I’m thrilled because this is a global first. We understand it is the first time a Court of law,anywhere in the world, has ordered a government to specifically protect young people from the catastrophic harms of climate change.

“My future - and the future of all young people - depends on Australia joining the world in taking decisive climate action.”

“But this case is not over. While the Court stopped short of preventing the Minister from approving the Vickery mine extension today, it has ordered parties to come together to find a way forward. We are still optimistic that the climate harms from this mine will not happen.”

In Sharma and others v Minister for the Environment the Court accepted evidence brought by independent experts that carbon emissions released from mining and burning fossil fuels will contribute to wide-ranging harms to young people.

The judgment means the Environment Minister should not make decisions that harm young people, however the judge stopped short of preventing the Minister from approving the Vickery Extension Project.

The judge called upon the parties to confer on orders over the future of the proposed project.

“I feel elated by this decision,” says Laura Kirwan, 17, another student behind the class action.

“This is a victory for young people everywhere. The case was about young people stepping up and demanding more from the adults whose actions are determining our future wellbeing. Our voices are powerful and I hope this case inspires more young people to push for stronger, fasterand deeper cuts to carbon emissions.

“Our futures depend on it.”

ENDS

Avi Prince, 17 years of age,  media statement here.

On 22 April 2021 two Australian fossil fools came out to frolic under the public gaze - Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison at the virtual Leaders Summit and Saudi Arabian Oil Company director Andrew Liveris on the ABC program Q&A

Two fossil fools currently roaming wild in Australia
Saudi Arabian Oil Company director Andrew Liveris (left) and Prime Minister Scott Morrison (right)
IMAGE: Crikey, 16 September 2020

In March 2020 Australian Prime Minister & Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison created the National COVID-19 Co-ordination Commission Advisory Board with the aim of building a fossil fuel led economic recovery.

One Andrew N. Liveris - former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Dow Chemical Company, former director of DowDuPont, current director of Saudi Arabian Oil Company, self-styled advisor to Australian & US governments and an apparent chum of Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest of Cashless Welfare Card fame and Scott Morrison - became a Special Adviser to the Commission from April 2020 to September 2020 and head of the Commission's Manufacturing Taskforce.

Perhaps there is a hint in the following exchange as to why he is no longer mentioned in connection with the National COVID-19 Co-ordination Commission.

The man has a very large ego and a rather abrasive personality. He apparently also has a problem with basic maths.

ABC Q&A program, 22 April 2021 transcript, excerpts:

HAMISH MACDONALD:

Andrew Liveris, you’ve promoted this gas-led recovery. Many take the view that you’re committing us to fossil fuels for much longer than we need to.

ANDREW LIVERIS:

So, let me...

HAMISH MACDONALD:

Explain it. Justify it.

ANDREW LIVERIS:

...let me teach you a new term – fossil feedstock. OK? Let me...

NARELDA JACOBS:

Let me teach you a term.

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Yeah, please.

NARELDA JACOBS:

If you believe there’s a future in fossil fuels...

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Yeah.

NARELDA JACOBS:

...then you are a fossil...fool.

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Narelda...

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Thank you. I take it as a...I take it as a badge of honour that you would call me that. Fossil feedstock is all of your modern life. You want to live a modern life, you need a fossil feedstock. You can’t get carbon any other way. If you want a chemistry lesson, I’ll help you out the back.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Oh...

ANDREW LIVERIS:

What you’ve got to do...

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG:

Man...

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Andrew. Andrew.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG:

...you’re just...

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Listen.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG:

You’re so patronising. Like, just...

ANDREW LIVERIS:

But...

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG:

Seriously.

HAMISH MACDONALD:

Let’s just try and keep it respectful amongst all of us...

ANDREW LIVERIS:

And you’re not?

HAMISH MACDONALD:

...and stick to the policy...

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG:

Well, I’m not the one shaking my finger at people, mate.

HAMISH MACDONALD:

Folks, let’s just keep to the policy, if we can.

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Yeah. Well, you’re yelling.

HAMISH MACDONALD:

Uh, why is it that Australia...why is it that Australia needs a gas pipeline, for example, across the Nullarbor to bring it to the east coast from the west? Can you just justify this promotion of a gas-led recovery?

ANDREW LIVERIS:

There’s 850,000 Australians employed by industries that use gas as a feedstock. 850,000. At the current pricing levels, they’re paid Japanese spot price. Spot price. So, Japan gets cheaper gas than we do for our industry. Those industries you need for everyday life. And I’ll take the commentary that I’m patronising and I’m yelling, ‘cause I’m passionate about this, ‘cause there’s a gap in our knowledge base.

I’ll buy Malcolm’s discussion on gas as a firming fuel anytime. I totally agree with that. Gas as a segue to hydrogen, I also agree with that. That’s the fuel part. The feedstock part is not well understood, and it absolutely, totally makes me... Try to understand, why is it not understood in this wonderful country of ours? These jobs need to be not only protected, but we need to grow them. So, we... This sequester of carbon…

HAMISH MACDONALD:

So, how long do we need gas for as a transition fuel, then?

ANDREW LIVERIS:

So, again, you use the word ‘fuel’, OK, and I’m trying to actually...

HAMISH MACDONALD:

Yeah, I understand the point you’re making about feedstock, but...

ANDREW LIVERIS:

You do?

HAMISH MACDONALD:

...ultimately, this is a question that’s been put to you about a commitment to fossil fuels longer-term.

ANDREW LIVERIS:

So, remember...

HAMISH MACDONALD:

So, I’m just trying to understand what you...what period you see us using gas as a transition for.

ANDREW LIVERIS:

The National COVID Commission work we did was for manufacturing, OK? It wasn’t for electricity. It wasn’t for doing the power balance, or any of that. The work we did was totally based on using the carbon for manufacturing. That’s the work we did. OK? I have no skin in the game to keeping natural gas for power, for anything other than a transition. There’s no reason to do that. Because it is an emitter. It’s not as big an emitter as coal, but it certainly is an emitter. So you’ve got to use it as a transition. That’s it. Until batteries become affordable and scalable, until we can actually get more Snowy Hydros. And why you need a gas pipeline is as much to provide that transition for that, but more for industry, which is why I’m trying to bring it back to the feedstock conversation.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Andrew, where are the 850,000 jobs that use gas as feedstock? 

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Fertilisers, plastics, chemicals, explosives… [my yellow highlighting]

NOTE: An estimated 16,511 persons are employed in the four industries cited by Mr. Liveris. See note below.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

And there are 850,000 people working in Australia making plastics?

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Yes, yes.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Is that right?

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Not plastics – all those industries I just said.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

I don’t think that’s true.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG:

No. Yeah.

ANDREW LIVERIS:

That is true. I can send you the data.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

I think you’ve exaggerated. I honestly think you’re way out of...

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Well...

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

...you’re way off the chart.

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Malcolm, I use the same people you used for research, as when you were prime minister. So, go talk to the people in Canberra.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

OK. Well...

ANDREW LIVERIS:

I mean, they’re the same...

MALCOLM TURNBULL

I don’t mind you mansplaining me. That’s alright. (CHUCKLES)

ANDREW LIVERIS:

I’m not. I’m not, Malcolm.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

You are, but it’s alright. It’s OK. It’s OK.

ANDREW LIVERIS:

That’s a pretty cheap blow.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

It’s OK. It’s OK. It’s alright.

NOTES:

1.Fertiliser Manufacturing in Australia in 2021 employed 3,557 persons.

2.Plastics Manufacturing & Plastic Bottle Manufacturing in Australia in 2020 & 2021 employed a combined total of 8,154 persons.

3.Explosives Manufacturing in Australia in 2020 & 2021 employed 3,527 persons.

4.Basic Organic Chemical* Manufacturing in Australia in 2020 employed 1,273 persons. *The modern term “basic organic chemical” now refers to chemicals derived from both organic and carbon sources such as petroleum & natural gas.

5.Industrial Gas Manufacturing in Australia in 2021 employed 2,005 persons.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison states that net zero emissions will be achieved through technology and "the animal spirits of our business community". I rather thought it was those very same animal spirits which had been globally polluting our atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution began in the 1700s

 

On 19 April 2021 at the Business Council of Australia Annual Dinner Prime Minister Scott Morrison informed the world that; “We are going to meet our ambitions with the smartest minds, the best technology and the animal spirits of our business community. We need to change our energy mix over the next 30 years on that road to net zero emissions…..It will be achieved by the pioneering entrepreneurialism and innovation of Australia’s industrial workhorses, farmers and scientists.

It will be won in places like the Pilbara, the Hunter, Gladstone, Portland, Whyalla, Bell Bay, the Riverina. In the factories of our regional towns and outer suburbs. In the labs of our best research institutes and scientists. It will be won in our energy sector. In our industrial sector. In our ag sector. In our manufacturing sector. That’s how you get to net zero.

It would appear that his first step on this journey is to make a token investment in ‘clean’ energy by way of $539 million in funding for new projects involving hydrogen product and capture & storage, which will apparently be fuelled by both black and brown coal – thereby increasing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions Australia releases into the atmosphere.

This folly was pointed out by ABC News on 21 April 2021:

Getting hydrogen into a pure, useable form takes a lot of energy and this process can produce a lot of emissions.

And so, that is why experts talk about different types of hydrogen — brown, black, grey, blue and green.

Only "green" hydrogen is produced entirely through renewable power and has zero emissions. The others use electricity made by coal (black or brown) or gas (grey), sometimes with carbon capture and storage (blue).

The Government call its hydrogen plans "clean" — a combination of hydrogen from gas and renewables.

The Climate Council says the term is "misleading" for average Australians.

Its website states: "Proponents of fossil-fuelled hydrogen have used this to describe fossil fuel hydrogen linked to carbon capture and storage, as well as renewably sourced hydrogen."

"Only the variety of hydrogen generated with renewables … belongs in our zero emissions future."….

The government insists real progress is being made on CCS technology.

However, many climate scientists believe, when it comes to fossil-fuel energy production, CCS is not a serious alternative to wind and solar power.

Some, like the Climate Council, see it as an attempt to prolong the use of fossil fuels.

"The Gorgon CCS trial has been a big, expensive failure. It is capturing less than half the emissions needed to make CCS viable," the Climate Council's website states.

"CCS is extremely expensive and cannot deliver zero emissions."

"There are still no successful projects operating anywhere in the world."

While The Guardian on April 2021 published these telling quotes:

Harry Guinness, a former Liberal adviser and chief executive of the centre-right thinktank the Blueprint Institute, said the US was planning to spend about 35 times what Australia allocated in the last federal budget on green stimulus, and the government would need to commit to serious finance if Australia was to make a transition to net zero by 2050 as Scott Morrison has said is his preference…..

“Our friends and allies are going to want to see tangible commitments. They’ve been quite clear about that, it’s no mystery,” Guinness said. “If we are in the game of bringing technologies down the cost curve we need finance and incentives, including pricing carbon. Actions speak louder than words.”

Tony Wood, the Grattan Institute’s energy program director, said there was little detail in what the government had announced on Wednesday, making it hard to assess, but that Australia was spending significantly less on hydrogen than some other countries.

He said Australia was also offering support for hydrogen made with fossil fuels where others were backing “green hydrogen” made with renewable energy only.

“I don’t see any evidence that Australia has developed positions that are leading the world,” he said…..

Announcing the funding on Wednesday, Morrison said hydrogen was “zero emissions gas”.

The Greens said as the government planned to support hydrogen made with fossil fuels as well as renewable energy its commitment was “just more cash for coal and gas”. The party’s leader, Adam Bandt, said it paled next to multibillio-dollar green hydrogen commitments by other countries including South Korea, Germany, Spain, France, Japan and Saudi Arabia.

“This government’s obsession with coal and gas is about to cost Australia as other countries invest heavily in green hydrogen, giving them the edge as future markets open up,” Bandt said. “With all our wind and sunshine, this is Australia’s competitive advantage to seize, but it is being lost.”…..

Richie Merzian, the Australia Institute’s climate and energy program director, said it appeared the government was “once again using climate action to support fossil fuel companies”. He said that under current commitments it was possible by 2030 the US would have halved its emissions and the UK cut its emissions by two-thirds but Australia was sitting on a 26% cut while still subsidising fossil fuels…..

I was talking to a public servant climate policy in his portfolio the other day who said 'at least when we were in enviro (dept) we felt like climate policy might relate vaguely to the environment. Now we're just the department for coal and gas. No ones even pretending anymore '

— Polly Hemming (@pollyjhemming) April 21, 2021

Morrison must think the Australian electorate and every OECD government around the world are so monumentally stupid as to not realise that these announcements (and their lack of detail, fuzzy timelines or no guaranteed funding) are solely for the benefit of US President Joe Biden 's two-day virtual Leaders Summit which began on 22 April 2021, with a weather eye out for the twelve-day UN Climate Change Conference (COP 26) to be held in Glasgow during November 2021.

By the time all his half-promises and evasions concerning zero emissions have failed to meet the 2050 target date, Scott Morrison will be 81 years of age and I will be long dead - having lived all my life in a country which only genuinely attempted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for six short years between June 2007 to September 2013.