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

Six months out from the state election and NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet adds a new dimension to the term 'city-centric'

 

The Daily Telegraph, 8 September 2022, p.5:

NSW will be a thriving economy of six cities with fast rail, ambitious affordable-housing targets, more apartments and townhouses, and more defence and space jobs under a bold new plan from Premier Dominic Perrottet.

The state government and the Greater Sydney Commission will today unveil a discussion paper on the six-city plan – which includes Lower Hunter and Greater Newcastle City, Central Coast City, Illawarra-Shoalhaven City, Western Parkland City with the new Western Sydney International Airport at its centre, as well as the Central River City and Eastern Harbour City.

Map of the one and only newly created 'region' NSW Premier & Liberal MP for Epping Dominic Perrottet and Minister for Cities & Liberal MP for Pittwater Rob Stokes apparently care about.....

Six Cities Discussion Paper Mapping

NSW Greater Cities Commission, The Six Cities Region: Delivering global competitiveness and local liveability, September 2022, excerpts from the Discussion Paper's 68 pages:

• We are actively and effectively managing climate vulnerability, proactive climate proofing, urban heat and planning, and designing our built environments to withstand flooding, bushfires and coastal erosion.

• As we grow, we must ensure our region strengthens its resilience in the face of the increasing climate-related risks and natural hazards of drought, bushfire, floods, extreme heat and overexposure to UV radiation that are already impacting our communities. This is embodied in the objectives and priority actions set out in the NSW Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

• The 2019–2020 bushfires across eastern Australia caused loss of life, property, infrastructure and devastating impact on communities, vegetation, wildlife and ecosystems across our region. There were additional health and economic impacts from the thick smoke blanketing the region for months.

  In early 2020, major flooding impacted parts of Greater Sydney, the Central Coast City and the Illawarra-Shoalhaven City. Floods returned to parts of the region in late 2020, 2021 and 2022, causing more devastation, disruption and landslips.

  
  

One might be forgiven for thinking that the Perrottet Government has its sights squarely fixed on those zones where the bulk of the state population (therefore the bulk of registered voters) are to be found. That it is the issues, concerns and aspirations of voters living between the Illawarra-Shoalhaven and Newcastle-Upper Hunter which matter most when it comes to planning and implementing climate change mitigation, resilience measures and urban design & development. 

Seemingly wider regional New South Wales and its high climate risk communities will only get noticed between now and the March 2023 state election if the smaller number of regional voters outside of those "six cities" manage to transform themselves into very politically prickly problems for the government in Macquarie Street.

Cartoons of the Week

John Shakespeare

A reminder of just how long the global political class have been fully aware of the "Possibility of Catastrophic Climate Change"

 

Memorandum to United States of America President James "Jimmy" Carter, dated 7 July 1977

Description:

FROM: US OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY.

SUBJECT: Release of Fossil co2 and the Possibility of a Catastrophic Climate Change 

Memorandum to United States... by clarencegirl

 

How the US National Academy of Sciences saw author of this memo, Frank Press:

Frank Press [4 December 1924 – 29 January 2020] served as the 19th president of the National Academy of Sciences from July 1, 1981 to June 30, 1993. As NAS president, Press also led a reorganization of the Academy’s operating arm, the National Research Council. He believed that the landmark 1986 report, Confronting AIDS — which warned that the toll of the AIDS epidemic would become far worse and urged a massive national response — was the most significant report issued while he was president. In fact, he told the Research Council’s governing body that the report, “may well rank among our most important contributions to the public welfare.” A report examining the cause of the 1986 space shuttle Challenger explosion was another key report issued during his tenure.

From 1977 to 1981, Press was national science adviser to President Jimmy Carter and the second director of the recently formed White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In this role, Press was key in establishing a science and technology exchange agreement between the U.S. and China, which enabled thousands of Chinese students to study in the U.S. — many of whom went on to become U.S. citizens. He also focused on “increasing government commitment to basic research, evaluating the impact of federal regulations on the economy, and providing analyses of a national energy policy,” according to documents at the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library and Museum. In addition, Press was on the presidential science advisory committees during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and served on the National Science Board under President Richard Nixon.

Press was among the first generation of geophysicists who benefited from and contributed to revolutionary developments associated with the evolution of the field of plate tectonics, and he quickly became a leader in this area of research. He received the National Medal of Science in 1994 “for his contributions to the understanding of the deepest interior of the earth and the mitigation of natural disasters.” He was the recipient of many other awards and honors, including the gold medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Japan Prize, and the Vannevar Bush Award.

Prior to his positions in Washington, D.C., Press was professor of geophysics and chair of the department of earth and planetary sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1965 to 1977. He had also held academic appointments at Columbia University and the California Institute of Technology, and was the chair of the U.S. delegation to the 1960 Nuclear Test Ban Conference in Geneva. Press received his undergraduate degree in physics from the City College of New York in 1944 in his Ph.D. in geophysics from Columbia University in 1946.

Upon completing his service as NAS president at age 69, Press accepted a four-year appointment as the Cecil and Ida Green Research fellow at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, and remained active as an adviser to several organizations — both public and private — for many years.

Global Climate Change Response 2021": Advice that Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg & the rest of the Cabinet Ministers, are determined to ignore

 

Moody’s Investor Services, Research Announcement, 12 October 2021:

Moody's - Financial firms that take rapid, predictable pace to zero financed emissions will win the race



Singapore, October 12, 2021 --

• Financial firms are under rising regulatory and commercial pressure to support the global sustainability drive

• Those that take a rapid, well-communicated and measurable pace to net zero financed emissions will be able to preserve their credit quality

As the race to net zero emissions accelerates, banks, insurers and asset managers will need to ramp up climate risk assessments and set clear goals for reaching net zero in their financed emissions, says Moody's Investors Service in a new report. A delayed and disorderly carbon transition would pose the greatest risk to financial firms, while a rapid, well-communicated and measurable transition would keep risks lower.

"Financial firms will lend to and invest in green businesses and new technologies as the transformation to a low-carbon economy creates vast financing opportunities. At the same time, they will help fund the capital needs of corporate clients in carbon-intensive sectors who are aligning their business strategies with low-carbon business models," says Alka Anbarasu, a Moody's Senior Vice President.

Across the G-20, financial firms hold $22 trillion in loans and investments subject to carbon transition risk. Green lending and investments will bring major commercial opportunities to financial firms, but the credit impact of carbon transition will begin to hit home in the second half of this decade when scrutiny of their interim climate goals is likely to intensify.

"A scenario in which concerted action to achieve carbon transition is delayed beyond the end of this decade by uncoordinated government and regulatory policies poses the greatest threat of losses for the financial industry. It risks triggering sudden, large-scale and drastic action in later years by governments, firms, and regulators to limit climate change, hurting the quality of loans and invested assets," says Sean Marion, a Moody's Managing Director. [my yellow highlighting]

Financial firms adopting a rapid but predictable shift towards climate-friendly finance will best preserve their credit quality. In this scenario, financial firms integrate climate risk considerations into their strategic decisions, business processes, governance structures and risk management frameworks, while setting out clear goals for reaching net zero in their financed emissions.

Subscribers can access the report "Financial institutions - Decarbonizing finance: Financial firms need to rise to the challenge of supporting carbon transition" at: http://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_1298854

Australia's Morrison Government appears to be living proof of that old adage, birds of a feather do flock together

IMAGE: Woodcut illustration of Vultures — Vector by ronjoe

Anyone who has been delving into Scott Morrison & Angus Taylor’s 98 page AUSTRALIA’S LONG-TERM EMISSIONS REDUCTION PLAN: Modelling and Analysis (Dept. of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources: DISER) document and, attempting to pin down where within its content examples of genuine modelling relying on science, fact-based assumptions and realistic projections, might have seen the name McKinsey & Company crop up on no less than 76 occasions.

That name rang a bell. Here is a brief background…….

The New York Times, 28 October 2021, p.6:

….a revolt has been brewing inside the world's most influential consulting firm, McKinsey & Company, over its support of the planet's biggest polluters.

More than 1,100 employees and counting have signed an open letter to the firm's top partners, urging them to disclose how much carbon their clients spew into the atmosphere. "The climate crisis is the defining issue of our generation," wrote the letter's authors, nearly a dozen McKinsey consultants. "Our positive impact in other realms will mean nothing if we do not act as our clients alter the earth irrevocably."

Several of the authors have resigned since the letter, which has never before been reported, came out last spring -- with one sending out a widely shared email that cited McKinsey's continued work with fossil fuel companies as a primary reason for his departure…..[my yellow highlighting]

The Hill, 27 October 2021:

... Since then, some of the letter's authors, who are consultants at McKinsey, have resigned from the company which is considered the world's most influential consulting firm, the Times reported.

Lawsuits, internal documents and interviews with four ex-McKinsey employees showed that McKinsey has advised at least 43 of the world's top 100 polluters in the past 50 years, per the Times.

The investigation by the Times found that those clients alone, excluding some of McKinsey's other clients who also contribute to pollution, accounted for over one-third of global carbon emissions in 2018.

At least one consultant who resigned specifically cited McKinsey's work with fossil fuel companies as his main reason for leaving. The Environmental Protection Agency has noted that "burning fossil fuels changes the climate more than any other human activity."

“Walking away from these sectors might appease absolutist critics,” D.J. Carella, a spokesman for McKinsey, said to the Times, adding that it "would do nothing to solve the climate challenge."…. [my yellow highlighting]

The New York Times, 6 November 2021:

A House committee has requested documents related to the firm's advice to drug makers and potential conflicts of interest with the F.D.A.

In a new assault on the global consulting giant McKinsey & Company, Congress on Friday started an investigation into the firm's role in the opioid crisis, sending a letter demanding records related to its "business practices, conflicts of interest and management standards."

The 12-page letter, which was sent by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, asked for names of McKinsey clients in the health care industry as well as documents connected to its work with opioid manufacturers, distributors and retailers. The committee is also looking at how McKinsey's consulting for drugmakers may conflict with work it has done for the Food and Drug Administration.

By advising opioid makers and "the federal agency regulating their conduct," McKinsey "may have had a significant negative impact on Americans' health," the committee said.

The letter was signed by the committee's chairwoman, Representative Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, who requested that McKinsey produce the documents by Nov. 19. McKinsey has a policy of not identifying its clients or the advice it gives.

A spokesman for the firm on Friday said McKinsey had "received the committee's letter and will engage directly with the committee regarding their requests."

This year, McKinsey agreed to pay all 50 states more than $600 million to settle investigations into how it had helped "turbocharge" opioid sales, focusing mostly on its work with Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin. McKinsey did not admit any wrongdoing.

The request on Friday follows a narrower one on Aug. 23, from a bipartisan group of six U.S. senators seeking records from the F.D.A. on its work with McKinsey at the same time that it was regulating opioid manufacturers, calling that relationship "a potential conflict of interest." The senators asked for more information about the firm's work with the F.D.A. division that approved certain classes of drugs, including prescription opioids.

OxyContin and similar painkillers can be addictive and prone to abuse. From 1999 to 2019, nearly 500,000 people in the United States died of opioid overdoses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention…..  [my yellow highlighting]

Reuters, 18 August 2021:

… McKinsey earlier this year reached agreements with state attorneys general to pay $641 million to resolve claims it helped drug manufacturers, including OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma, to design marketing plans and boost sales of painkillers.

Lawsuits by cities, counties and others followed, and Breyer now oversees at least 51 cases…. [my yellow highlighting]

The New York Times, 3 December 2019 - updated 24 February 2021:

Just days after he took office in 2017, President Trump set out to make good on his campaign pledge to halt illegal immigration. In a pair of executive orders, he ordered “all legally available resources” to be shifted to border detention facilities, and called for hiring 10,000 new immigration officers.

The logistical challenges were daunting, but as luck would have it, Immigration and Customs Enforcement already had a partner on its payroll: McKinsey & Company, an international consulting firm brought on under the Obama administration to help engineer an “organizational transformation” in the ICE division charged with deporting migrants who are in the United States unlawfully.

ICE quickly redirected McKinsey toward helping the agency figure out how to execute the White House’s clampdown on illegal immigration.

But the money-saving recommendations the consultants came up with made some career ICE workers uncomfortable. They proposed cuts in spending on food for migrants, as well as on medical care and supervision of detainees, according to interviews with people who worked on the project for both ICE and McKinsey and 1,500 pages of documents obtained from the agency after ProPublica filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act…. [my yellow highlighting]

The New York Times, 9 January 2019:

A judge in Virginia reopened a more than two-year-old case on Wednesday to consider accusations that the powerful consultancy McKinsey & Company had defrauded his court while advising a bankrupt coal company…..

McKinsey already faces similar claims of misconduct from Mr. Alix in the bankruptcy of another energy company, Westmoreland Coal, in Texas…. [my yellow highlighting]

Financial Times, 20 February 2019:

McKinsey has agreed to a $15m settlement with the US Department of Justice to resolve claims that the influential consulting firm failed to properly disclose conflicts of interest in bankruptcy cases over two decades.

The settlement on Tuesday is among the largest made by a bankruptcy professional accused of failing to comply with disclosure rules, according to the justice department, and adds to the mounting scrutiny of the professional services giant.... [my yellow highlighting]

Consulting.us, 4 December 2020:

The USTP [US Trustee Program] started the mediation with McKinsey in 2019 after noting that the consulting firm withheld “critical details” about connections to parties with a potential economic interest in the $1.4 billion Westmoreland bankruptcy case.

Westmoreland Coal emerged from Chapter 11 in June 2019. McKinsey, however, will forgo its fees for the advisory work performed, which the watchdog estimates at millions of dollars…. [my yellow highlighting]

"There is no country in the world which does climate change delay quite like Australia" and Prime Minister 'Scotty From Marketing' Morrison will double down on his refusal to act as the federal election draws closer

 

The Guardian, 13 November 2021:

The Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, and the emissions reduction minister,  Angus Taylor. Photograph: Darren England/AAP

In April this year, Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, said that “we will not achieve net zero in the cafes, dinner parties and wine bars of our inner cities”. This explains why he turned to the salt-of-the-Earth hard-workin’ rural folk at McKinsey – one of the biggest billion-dollar multinational consulting agencies on the planet – to produce the Australian government’s long-awaited modelling explaining the pathway to “net zero by 2050”.

In some parallel universe, the task may have gone to Australia’s chief science agency, the CSIRO (a former employer of mine). But it was revealed at Senate estimates a few weeks back that despite the CSIRO applying for the tender, the government rejected them and paid McKinsey $6m to model the changes Australian society must go through to decarbonise within 30 years. This choice makes sense in the context of recent leaks to the New York Times that revealed McKinsey has advised 43 of the 100 biggest corporate polluters, including “BP, Exxon Mobil, Gazprom and Saudi Aramco”. 1,100 of its employees signed an open letter pleading the consultancy reveal the carbon impacts of its clients.

We’ll never know exactly what the Australian government asked of the agency, but we finally know what got spat out the other end: an extremely weird document blatantly designed to protect the interests of Australia’s fossil fuel industries while creating the illusion of ambitious climate action. It was delayed until the final Friday of Cop26 to avoid embarrassment during the global deliberations, so we knew it’d be bad. But it’s worse than expected……

.... of the various pathways modelled in this document, Australia’s government picked the one that doesn’t even reach net zero by 2050. Their preferred scenario, “The Plan”, hits 2050 with a whopping 94 megatonnes of emissions remaining, or 215 if you exclude questionable offsets. They reached the point of 85% reduction in emissions, and very simply gave up. This ignored 15% is breezily labelled “further technology breakthroughs” in the document. It’s both amusingly honest and stunningly irresponsible.

As RenewEconomy’s Michael Mazengarb pointed out on Twitter, they also modelled a scenario in which emissions reductions go all the way to zero, albeit also reliant on offsets. That has a near-zero impact on economic growth, but it’s explicitly dismissed because this scenario also results in worse outcomes for the coal and gas mining industries.

Coal and gas sent overseas is responsible for roughly three times Australia’s annual domestic emissions. If the 72 coal projects and 44 oil and gas projects in Australia are realised, this will become six times Australia’s domestic emissions. They won’t all be realised, but you get an idea of their wide-eyed fantasies of growth. It’s this massive engine of planetary warming that the net zero plan ring-fences. Snarling at threats to fossil fuel companies feels like the only imperative this document takes seriously.

There is a reserved concession to the possibility that the coal export industry may shrink, with one graphic showing future coal exports dropping by 50%, by 2050. But in the same chart, gas exports increase by 13%. Both are laughable, considering the International Energy Agency’s “net zero by 2050” global scenario sees the total global consumption of both coal and gas drop to near-zero by 2050.

Part of why this discrepancy exists is that the IEA’s net zero scenario is limiting warming to 1.5C, but the government is targeting 2C, which allows for worse emissions into the future at the cost of more severe and catastrophic impacts of warming, particularly in the Global South. In fact 1.5C is not mentioned a single time in the hundreds of pages of the report. Like the 85%, it just breezily gives up part-way there.

Fundamentally, what McKinsey has laid out for us is that if you take the laziest, slowest and most bad-faith approach to climate action, it’s very cheap and not immediately disruptive. Take credit for technological advancements that occur in other countries, continue extracting and emitting in the interim, and slap it all with a counterfeit climate action label to avoid scrutiny. Being a tech free rider while worsening the problem you claim to be solving is a wonderfully tempting climate philosophy.

Of course, McKinsey’s modelling buries an important caveat in the guts of the PDF: the physical consequences of climate change are not included in their modelling. That means they count the benefits of falling back to slower action and worse emissions, and ignore the consequences.

In reality, we cannot ignore the consequences. Climate change is a physical problem in which the accumulation of greenhouse gases heats our habitat and hurts us, very badly. A tower of greasy tricks deployed to protect the fossil fuel industry changes nothing about the laws of atmospheric physics, and the pain we experience when governments don’t act fast enough…..

Truly, though, there is no country in the world that does climate delay quite like Australia. The hammy nationalism, the role of fantasy and trickery in its climate and energy rhetoric, and the total absence of shame in defending its role as a key cause of significant physical damage to Earth. It’s only going to escalate as the next federal election inches closer. Better strap in: it’s going to get even weirder. [my yellow highlighting]

Read the full article here.

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.

Adani may have captured Australian governments but it has yet to achieve a social license from the national population

Frontline Action on Coal

Media release: Tuesday, November 2 2021

Juliet Lamont IMAGE: supplied

Second QLD coal port shut down in a week by same two climate activists.

Kyle Magee IMAGE: supplied

Environmental activists have stopped work this morning at North Queensland Export Terminal (formerly Abbot Point Coal Terminal) in Bowen, Qld.

The port, owned by Adani, has been shut down by the same two climate activists who stopped work at Hay Point Coal Terminal in Mackay, QLD one week ago.

Juliet Lamont and Kyle Magee used steel tubing to lock themselves on to coal loading infrastructure at the port, to coincide with climate discussions at COP26 in Glasgow, UK. The pair are asking the international community to “Sanction Australia” over the government’s inability to respond to the climate crisis appropriately.

Ms Lamont, mother of two, said “I’m locking on at Adani’s coal port to ask the leaders of the world at COP26 to lock Australia out of negotiations and forge ahead with the urgent, bold and visionary work needed to save us. Now.”

Lamont and Magee, who were arrested just one week ago for shutting down operations in Mackay at Hay Point Coal Terminal, are aware that the actions they are taking will see them arrested again. Both have stated they are “willing to face the consequences” as “the climate crisis presents an alarming fate for the future of all Australians”. Both Lamont and Magee are currently on bail from their previous action.

Magee, a father of two, said ”If the Morrison government is serious about tackling climate change, they should cancel all new coal mines now, including the Adani Carmichael mine, and invest billions in sustainable alternatives. Anything less than that shows a dangerous lack of understanding of very clear science.”

As COP26 begins this week, Australia still has no plans to commit to any new 2030 emission reduction targets, even though investors and climate science experts warn that our current strategies to mitigate the effects of climate change are vastly inadequate. Australia is the largest coal exporter in the world, and without 2030 targets a 2050 target of net-zero is likely to be impossible to reach.

Ms Lamont said "I'd like the international community to put pressure on our untrustworthy Morrison government who have completely set their citizens adrift in a climate emergency."

Left behind in a changing world, the federal Nationals struggle for relevance

The Federal Nationals and Relevance

On 24 October federal National parliamentarians finally agreed to the Government taking a net zero 2050 target to the Glasgow Climate Conference. This apparently difficult decision followed some weeks of farcical posturing and chest-thumping by some of the 21 Nationals who are representatives in the national parliament.

Elsewhere in the nation the 2050 net zero target was accepted as necessary without fuss. All states and territories, whatever the political party in power, endorsed this target and are working towards meeting it. In addition some states, including NSW, have committed to substantial cuts in emissions by 2030.

Australia’s Paris commitment of cuts of 26-28% by 2030 is widely seen by scientists as inadequate if warming is to be kept to less than 2.0°C. However, our Paris target will not be increased despite the urging of the UK and other allies, with the Prime Minister claiming he will not increase the 2030 target because he made a commitment about this to the Australian people. It is far more likely that he cannot increase the 2030 target because of the Nationals’ point blank refusal to endorse any 2030 increase. Presumably many of the Nationals– and particularly the climate change denialists in the party– feel that they have already taken more than enough action on climate change.

There are a number of surprising and seemingly illogical aspects of the federal Nationals’ heads-in-the-sand position on climate matters.

• They do not seem to be aware that the Australian community across the regions, as well as in the major cities, is becoming more concerned about climate change and wants more effective government action.

• They are also apparently unaware of how big business enterprises are working to reduce their climate risk and advocating more action from government. And the Business Council of Australia (in contrast to its pronouncements before the 2019 election) is supporting net zero by 2050 and wants the Government to increase its 2030 target to 46-50% below 2005 levels.

• The impacts of climate change are affecting rural people as well as city dwellers. The Nationals divisive arguments about urban people pushing climate action which will harm people in the regions ignores the reality that climate impacts (longer droughts, extreme weather events, increase in bushfire severity) are increasingly hurting regional people. In relation to Covid we were often told, “We are all in this together.” The same statement obviously applies to climate change.

• The belief that our fossil fuel exports can continue well into the future is delusional. Most, if not all, of our markets will be phasing out their fossil fuel use as they work to reduce their emissions. If the Nationals are so concerned about those currently employed in fossil fuel industries, they should be working on effective transition plans. But they will first have to accept that time is up for these industries.

• They have ignored the significance of changed views in rural industries which are supporting strong emission targets and farming industry climate action. This includes the National Farmers Federation as well as the climate activist group Farmers for Climate Action.

• The fact that they ignore the opportunities for jobs and the economic boosts that will result from new industries that will be developed in the regions as fossil fuels are phased out, highlights two factors underpinning the federal Nationals’ beliefs. The first is their obsession with coal and gas and the big interests that benefit from them. The second is the level of denial about the reality of anthropogenic climate change in the party.

As a result of being left behind in a changing world, the federal Nationals struggle for relevance.

- Leonie Blain

Guest Speak is a North Coast Voices segment allowing serious or satirical comment from NSW Northern Rivers residents. Email northcoastvoices at gmail dot com dot au to submit comment for consideration