Yarra Climate Action Now!

The horrific fires that have occurred here in Victoria have killed hundreds of people and destroyed over 1800 homes. They are Australia’s largest peacetime natural disaster and much work needs to be done to help those that have lost loved ones and property. Beyond the immediate issues of how to put the fires out and provide adequate aid to those affected, debate is raging over what made them so particularly fierce, and how to avoid so many fatalities in future fires.

One of the issues being debated is the role of climate change. While no single event can ever be attributed to climate change, it is very likely that climate change had a hand in creating the conditions that allowed the fires to spread so quickly and burn at such high temperatures.

Since the fires started, many scientists have been discussing this issue in the media. Below is a selection of their comments.

David Jones, from the Bureau of Meteorology in the Sydney Morning Herald

Melbourne reached 46.4 degrees on Saturday, the highest in 154 years of record-keeping, overshooting the previous high set on Black Friday - January 13, 1939 - by 0.8 degrees and far exceeding the temperature on Ash Wednesday in 1983, which was 43.2 degrees.
"We've never seen anything like this in Victoria's history," David Jones, from the bureau's National Climate Centre, said yesterday. "You don't usually break records by much. You might beat it by point one of a degree or point two."
"Records being broken by that much are just unheard of," Mr Jones said. "You just don't break records with that kind of margin in a stable climate. It's an extraordinary event, this one."


ANU climate scientist Dr Andrew Glikson in the Canberra Times

…Australia [is] now in a ''hell to high water state'', with the Victorian bushfires and Queensland floods offering a glimpse into a future where ''extreme events hit hard and fast''.
''It has long been predicted that global warming will manifest itself through a series of extreme weather events, the result of high energy cyclones generated over warming ocean water, rising air plumes over land and increasing temperature contrasts between evaporating water surfaces, cloud masses and warm land air currents.
''Close connections are documented between global warming trends and the increased frequency of heat waves.''


Professor Neville Nicholls in The Age

Monash University’s Professor Neville Nicholls, who has spent 35 years researching climate, said the scene for Black Saturday was set with the "chronic drying" of the environment due to the 12-year drought. Then came the January heatwave which, in terms of temperatures - with record-breaking jumps of more than two degrees in places - was so extraordinary Nicholls describes it as "mind-boggling".
"The really crucial thing linking this to climate change is the three-day heatwave rather than the really hot temperatures on the day of the fires. By then, the situation was already primed . . .
"I think it is beyond reasonable doubt that global warming and the enhanced greenhouse effect has exacerbated the severity of this tragedy,” said Nicholls, who for decades worked at the Bureau of Meteorology as a senior principal research scientist.


CSIRO’s Kevin Hennessy on The World Today

[there has been a] "radical increase in the fire weather risk since about the year 2000. And we've looked at records back to 1973. So it does appear to be unusual. And it is coincident with a very strong decrease in rainfall that we've seen over the last 12 years in south eastern Australia."


Professor David Karoly, Victoria’s Chief Climate Change Advisor on Lateline

"it is not possible to attribute any single event to climate change. However, climate change … has loaded the dice and has increased the probability of these sorts of events occurring.

"So what we're seeing is a shift in the climate that allows these sorts of severe fire weather events to occur much more commonly. And unfortunately, the changes that are in train already mean that they'll become much more common over the next 10 and 20 years in addition to what we've seen in the last 10 years."


Professor David Karoly again writing in Realclimate

Of course, the impacts of anthropogenic climate change on bushfires in southeast Australia or elsewhere in the world are not new or unexpected. In 2007, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report WGII chapter “Australia and New Zealand” concluded.
An increase in fire danger in Australia is likely to be associated with a reduced interval between fires, increased fire intensity, a decrease in fire extinguishments and faster fire spread. In south-east Australia, the frequency of very high and extreme fire danger days is likely to rise 4-25% by 2020 and 15-70% by 2050.
…it is clear that climate change is increasing the likelihood of environmental conditions associated with extreme fire danger in south-east Australia and a number of other parts of the world.


It is obvious from the comments above (which have also been reflected in comments by the United Firefighters Union and Tim Flannery) that our Federal Government needs to reassess its climate change policies. These fires have opened a window from which we can glimpse our future. It is a frightening view. Five per cent emissions cuts are not enough, and playing a spoiler role in international negotiations is only going to make matters worse. If we are clever we will learn from this tragedy and act to prevent it becoming a common occurrence.

A group of ten Australian economists slammed the Rudd government's proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), and called for a science-based policy to achieve 25%-40% cuts in emissions by 2020.

YCAN NOTE: The economists advocate targets that are based on the partially out of date findings of the IPCC's 2007 report. It is possible that rich countries cutting their emissions by 25-40% by 2020 will not be enough to avoid runaway climate change.

This is their statement:

The Australian government is to be congratulated for its decision to take part in the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) cannot be regarded as consistent with the government's expressed goal of a global agreement to stabilize the climate. Among a number of serious flaws, the proposed target of a 5 per cent reduction in emissions (with a 15 per cent reduction conditional on a global agreement) is simply inadequate to deal with the problem.

In our view the CPRS fails on the following criteria:

First, while there can be no doubt that a high carbon price will result in a significant transformation of the Australian economy, it must be remembered that such transformation is the actual goal of an emissions trading scheme. It is ironic that while the usual purpose of compensation packages is to ease the pain of such transformation, in the case of the Rudd Government's package compensation is being used to prevent such a transformation. The CPRS actually rewards the major corporate emitters for failing to act despite having been on notice since at least 1997 that the emission reduction targets would be adopted.

Second, the most significant consequence of the global financial crisis is to increase uncertainty and, in turn, reduce new investment. The creation of more ambitious emission targets would provide certainty that would stimulate major investment in renewable energy infrastructure. The consensus scientific and economic opinion is that the consequences of failing to address climate change will dwarf the costs of the current financial unrest.

Third, the Rudd scheme structures the compensation opportunities for energy-intensive, trade-exposed corporations in such a way as to provide an incentive for these corporations to expand production and emissions. This will effect further restructuring of Australian industry that consolidates its energy-intensive character to the disadvantage of low-energy, energy-efficient industries.

Fourth, the proposed compensation of trade-exposed energy-intensive industries is underpinned by the implicit notion that government should ensure a level, and thus competitive, playing field. Yet the proposed compensation package will benefit industry sectors dominated by international corporations which hold considerable market power. The proposed compensation package will further enhance that market power not create competitive markets.

Fifth, the Rudd government has designed a scheme in which every tonne of emissions saved by households frees up an extra permit for the aluminium or steel industry to expand their pollution. In addition to destroying the moral incentive for households to 'do their bit' to reduce emissions, this design feature renders all other policies aimed at reducing emissions pointless. For example, households who spend $7,000 installing photovoltaic solar panels might believe that they are helping to reduce emissions but in fact the only impact of such investment will be to slightly lower the demand, and in turn the price, of the fixed number of pollution permits issued by the government.

Sixth, the Rudd scheme fails to cost the complex administrative arrangements that will be required in order to effect the auctioning, the free allocations and the redistribution of permit revenues across the economy.

The CPRS is based on neither sound economics nor sound science. We call on the Government, or the Senate, to make major improvements to the proposed 'solution' to Australia's rapidly rising greenhouse gas emissions.

These improvements should include:

• Lifting the targets to 25-40% by 2020 based on the latest scientific evidence
• Abolishing the free permits granted to the biggest polluters
• Ensuring that individual action results in lower emissions, not lower carbon prices

Unless these major flaws in the CPRS can be fixed the government should introduce a carbon tax as a matter of urgency.

In the meantime, we would strongly urge all Australian governments to immediately introduce incentives to maximise investment in the development and use of renewable and low-emissions technologies.

Dr James Arvanitakis University of Western Sydney

Dr Lynne Chester Curtin University of Technology

Dr Richard Denniss Executive Director of The Australia Institute, Adj Associate Professor ANU

Assoc Prof Steve Keen University of Western Sydney

Dr Andrew Mack Macquarie University

Prof Barbara Pocock University of South Australia

Prof John Quiggin University of Queensland

Dr Stuart Rosewarne University of Sydney

Dr Ben Spies-Butcher Macquarie University

Prof Frank Stilwell University of Sydney

The following article was first published on the New Matilda website under the title “Now Is Not the Time for Politics”


"And I'm sure when this is delivered ... we'll get attacked from the left, from the right." Kevin Rudd, 7.30 Report, 11 December 2008.


Questioned about the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on the ABC's 7.30 Report in December, Kevin Rudd gave us a neat summary of his Government's climate change policy-making philosophy and demonstrated how we ended up with a completely inadequate emissions reduction target of 5 to 15 per cent by 2020, massive giveaways to big business at the expense of the Australian public and a position that can only help to derail international negotiations on a global emissions reduction deal.

It comes down to basic political algebra. The ALP, in the absence of a clear ideological position on an issue, aims to make policy by seeking a "balance" between the left and right of the political spectrum, and arriving at some middle ground. On climate change they are claiming to have done just this — they have consulted with big business, unions and environmentalists and come out with a policy that they claim "gets the balance right" between these competing forces. While this process can be considered flawed at the best of times, its application to climate change is downright dangerous.

Why? Because no matter how skilled a negotiator you are, it's impossible to strike a deal with the laws of physics and chemistry — which leads to our first question for the PM: "Where are the scientists?" The climate change problem is not the same as an ideological battle on industrial relations or the privatisation of essential services.

At its heart, climate change is an issue based in the physical sciences — heat is being trapped in our atmosphere and changing the climate cycles of the planet. No amount of consultation with stakeholder groups and interested parties will change that. Lobby groups, whether they represent business, welfare or environmental interests, have no place determining what Australia's and the world's greenhouse gas emissions targets should be. Where they do have a very important role to play, is in determining what actions are taken or how targets are met. But targets must be decided by scientists.

Neither Kevin Rudd nor Penny Wong mentioned scientists in their spruiking of the atrocious Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Not one prominent climate scientist has come out in support of the scheme; in fact many have denounced it. What Kevin Rudd refers to as "the left" actually includes a majority of the world's scientists. Without a basis in science the CPRS is a joke.

Currently, a precautionary scientific consensus is emerging around the need to stabilise atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at well below 350 parts per million (ppm), probably closer to 300ppm to avoid runaway climate change. (These figures are carbon dioxide only, not carbon dioxide equivalent.) Our current levels are around 390ppm, and Rudd's recently announced targets, if adopted by the rest of the world, would have us stabilising at around 450ppm — resulting in hundreds of millions, if not billions of human deaths over the next 100 years.

Our second question for Rudd is perhaps more of a tired groan. Yet again in justifying bad climate change policy the archaic dichotomy is trotted out: environment or economy? How many times does it have to be said? Without healthy ecosystems that enable us to breathe clean air, drink unpolluted water, grow sufficient food and live relatively disease, drought and fire-free, there is no economy, society or human civilisation.

It is unclear whether Rudd and his ministers actually believe in this dichotomy, or just use it when convenient. The proposed economic stimulus package, which includes a $507 million increase in the solar hot water rebate and $3.3 billion for ceiling insulation, shows that the government can put forward initiatives that benefit both the economy and energy efficiency. It's a good start but this piecemeal approach is far from sufficient as an emissions reduction policy. Furthermore, a lot more money has been allocated for counter-productive measures like the $12.7 billion worth of electoral bribes to taxpayers, which encourage consumption and thereby will probably increase emissions.

A climate change policy-making process that would actually give us a chance to get it right would involve scientists deciding on emissions targets for 2020 and 2050 and planning a trajectory to meet them. Then, a thorough, participatory process with the general public and business could be held to determine how these targets are to be met. The Federal Government would take these policies and processes to international negotiations and would actually be setting a good example rather than destroying the goodwill extended to Australia following its ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

In the meantime, while Rudd is busy congratulating himself on his politically laudable balancing act, Australians are left to ponder when climate science will be given appropriate credence in policy making and when the outdated and destructive environment-economy divide will finally stop being spouted in political rhetoric.


www.newmatilda.com

From the Yarra News publication:

Burnley Neighbourhood Centre in Richmond is offering free training in household energy and water conservation to people who volunteer to help turn the centre into an EcoLiving demonstration site.

The training is available as part of the Greener Houses Growing Greener Neighbourhoods project running in five neighbourhood houses in Melbourne’s northern suburbs.

The five neighbourhood houses will be developed into environmental showcases. Burnley Neighbourhood Centre will be retrofitted with water and energy saving fittings and other environmental appliances to create a display building for residents wanting to learn how to make their own homes more environmentally friendly.

To help with the makeover, the Centre is looking for volunteers who would like to help create an environmental showcase and learn skills to implement in their own home. Training will be provided by experts from Moreland Energy Foundation.

People interested in volunteering are encouraged to contact Burnley Neighbourhood Centre on 9428 9901 or email burnleync@yarranet.net.au.

While in Canberra for the Climate Action Summit, one of our members was able to attend a meeting with the federal member for Melbourne and Finance Minister, Lindsay Tanner.

Four delegates from the Summit went along to the meeting, YCAN was the only group represented in the Melbourne electorate, with other people there from Darebin Climate Action Now, Moreland Climate Group and Rising Tide from Newcastle.

The discussion ranged over a number of topics, including the recent Climate Action Summit (see blog post below) and YCAN’s activities in the seat of Melbourne. Mr Tanner discussed the difficult political nature of the climate change issue, where on one side you have people and businesses directly and immediately affected by policies to stop climate change, while on the other you have the science and general public concern over an issue that is diffuse and will impact progressively over time. The discussion also touched on the government's funding for carbon capture and storage (clean coal), and the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism, which has been incorporated into the atrocious Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

The minister seemed to be aware of the recent climate change science, although it is unclear whether he understood the implications of runaway climate change.

The YCAN delegate summed up the main conclusions from the meeting:

“While Lindsay Tanner may be aware of the seriousness of climate change, and the threat is poses to humanity’s survival, it is clear that the Federal Government will not show leadership on this issue until it is forced to by the Australian people. Politicians will only respond to political pressure. This means that every single Australian who cares about climate change has to start doing something POLITICAL about it. This can range from writing letters, joining your local climate action group, attending rallies and changing your vote, to non-violent direct action, such as the blockading of coal infrastructure.

“The point is the government won’t act until everyone else does.”

(c) Greenpeace/Belevi

“Please be aware, the police have informed us that we are not allowed to move beyond the north face of Parliament House. If you do decide to leave this area and form a ring around parliament, the police may ask you to move on, and if you don’t, they may arrest you.”

Despite that warning, on the morning of February third, over two thousand people formed a human ring all the way around the Australian Parliament House in Canberra. Mothers, fathers, grandparents, children, students, scientists, people from all walks of life and from all over Australia, committed what for some was their first act of civil disobedience.

We were dressed in red to symbolise the climate emergency that the world is facing. This colour also symbolised anger, anger at the inadequate response to climate change from our Federal Government, and anger at the extreme danger this inadequate response puts us in.



This action was the last official event of Australia’s first Climate Action Summit. This summit brought together over 500 people representing about 150 climate action groups from all over Australia, for three days of discussion, skills sharing, network and policy development and campaign strategising. Yarra Climate Action Now had four delegates in attendance. It was an exhausting, educational, sometimes frustrating, and inspiring experience.

By the end of the three day summit, we were well on the way to establishing a national community level climate action network, which would enable all the groups to work together and coordinate our activities. We had also set our overarching campaign objectives and key dates for nationally coordinated actions. We took part in discussions on key policy issues and skill-share workshops.

The key campaign objectives for 2009 are:

1. Prevent the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) from becoming law.

2. Build community-wide action to demand green jobs, a just transition and 100% renewable energy by 2020.

3. Build community support for a goal of stabilisation at 300ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and strong international agreement in line with what science and global justice demands. Communicate this position to the Copenhagen Conference of Parties and advocate for the Australian government to adopt this position.

These objectives are consistent with the climate science as it currently stands, and mean that the grass-roots movement, together with a few larger environment groups such as Greenpeace, are setting the agenda for the development of sensible climate change policy. No other groups, or government for that matter, are yet to base their climate change policies on climate science. Please contact us if you would like further information on these objectives.

For coverage of the summit and the action see:

ABC News

The Age I and II

Canberra Times

Greenpeace blog I and II

In May of last year, the State Government announced that a feed-in tariff would be introduced in Victoria. A feed-in tariff is a mechanism for encouraging the take-up of solar photovoltaic energy generation (otherwise known as solar panels). It has been very successful in Germany, transforming its solar power industry into a €2 billion export earner which employs 57,000 people.

The German feed-in tariff pays householders a premium rate for the energy that they produce from their solar panels, thereby reducing the pay-back period and encouraging take-up. This is called a gross feed-in tariff. However, unlike Germany’s model, Victoria’s feed-in tariff will only pay householders for the extra energy they feed into the grid left over after their own use, rather than the total energy produced. This is a net feed in tariff. Considering the Victorian model limits the size of eligible arrays to 2kW (which produces less electricity than the average household uses), it will be ineffective and will not result in mass take-up of solar technologies.

It was revealed last year when the decision was first announced, that the Victorian Environment Minister, Gavin Jennings was for a gross model, while the Energy Minister Peter Batchelor was in support of a net model. Mr Batchelor was able to convince Premier Brumby because he produced figures that showed a gross model would increase electricity costs to households by about $100 a year.

Last week, in a series of reports, The Age revealed that calculations by the State Government of the cost of a gross feed-in tariff was actually between $18 and $37 per year per household, and that the $100 a year figure was produced by Peter Batchelor at the last minute. It also revealed that senior state bureaucrats supported the gross feed-in tariff, claiming the State Government’s preferred model would be ineffective.

Peter Batchelor has yet to respond to questions on how he arrived at the $100 a year figure, and where it came from, considering his own department had already come up with a much lower cost figure in a detailed analysis. Did the Victorian Energy Minister simply make up the figures in order to quash a policy he didn’t like? A policy that would have seen thousands of jobs created and growth in a crucial renewable energy industry? And if he did, why did he do it when he knew the cost was not actually that great?

If these allegations are true, then Peter Batchelor has a lot to answer for. We still await his response.

To read the excellent series of investigative reports on this issue in The Age, click here, here and here.

It is not too late for the State Government to change its policy, adopt a gross feed-in tariff, and expand it to bigger solar photovoltaic systems and to commercial and community buildings as well as households. This is a policy that would do wonders for the take-up of solar energy technology, which is an essential plank of a science-based and just response to climate change.

There is currently a campaign to encourage the Federal Government to adopt a national gross feed-in tariff. Australia is a solar energy superpower, and our governments are failing to take advantage of it. To find out more and sign the petition, visit this website.