the rise of the mammoth

Climate change has many known impacts, rising sea levels, destruction of coral reefs, increases in severe storms and the list goes on… but this week I heard about one impact that really took me by surprise. As more of the permafrost beneath the Russian tundra melts due to global warming, increasing numbers of well-preserved Mammoths are coming to the surface. Taking advantage of this opportunity Russia has begun mining the remains of these long-extinct woolly mammoths to meet a growing demand for ethical ivory.

We can only assume that as things continue more and more unforeseen impacts will come to our attention. If they are all as harmless as the surfacing Mammoths things might not be so bad… I can only hope that the human race is able to adapt its behaviours before we have a chance to find out.

green energy and the IPA

Nearly all the major papers ran stories on green energy and the bill hikes last week. The general conclusion of these articles was that green energy is not the reason for large increases in electricity bills seen across Australia. All of these articles did however quote one source as stating that ‘prices were pushed up by renewable energy initiatives’ so I thought I’d have a little look into the source of this information.

This claim came from none other than Julie Novak of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). Julie claims that ‘renewable energy initiatives are hurting families because they push up the price of electricity’. This view is in direct contrast to the original information published about price hikes which explained that the ‘increases will allow energy providers to increase investment in infrastructure and improve network security and reliability of supply’ – nothing even remotely related to green energy!

So it turns out that the Institute of Public Affairs, Julie Novak’s employer, is a Liberal associated think tank funded by Exxon-Mobil, BHP Billiton, Caltex, Shell and Esso. Other backers include electricity and mining companies.

The Institute of Public Affairs is a known advocate of global warming scepticism, and has even funded University of Queensland research projects in conjunction with key anti-climate change scientists…. So it is really is no wonder that they have produced media releases trying to dirty the name of renewable energy.

solar flares and climate change

This week I heard about some interesting science which entered the climate change debate… for years now people have argued about the effect of the suns activity on the earth’s climate, with global warming sceptics claiming that the heating of the planet is the result of a natural, cyclical solar phenomenon. Well…. recent research suggests that an increase in the sun’s activity actually cools the earth rather than heats it. The new data shows that as solar activity fell at the end of one of the sun’s 11 year cycles, the light and heat reaching the Earth actually rose. This means that over the past century overall solar activity has been increasing and should therefore have cooled the Earth, but as it is global temperatures have actually increased.

still no agreement on emission reduction targets

The world’s two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases are yet to reach agreement on emission reductions targets at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in China this week. That is China and the US. The committee made progress on the issues of forestry, technology transfer and financing poor nations to cope with climate change but the two big payers blocked discussion on the key topic of emission reduction targets – a key feature of any realistic warming management plan. Obviously this is a very scary result… we need to reduce emissions now if we are ever going to be able to halt change. Hopefully China and the US will be able to rise to the challenge and lock in required reduction targets before the UN climate summit starting in Mexico next month.

is consensus from the committee really possible?

This week Julia has been busy forming her climate change committee. She says the committee will start from the position that a carbon price is required to reduce pollution and encourage investment in low-emission technologies.

Personally I think the committee will have a hard time coming to a decision on the carbon price… Firstly we have independent Tony Windsor whose interest will ultimately be focused on keeping the price for agriculturalists low… then we have a number of representatives from energy, petroleum and mining companies, and the NAB (which is one of the biggest funders of coal based projects in Australia).

In true Abbott fashion the opposition has refused two places on the committee, rejecting the stipulation that its members must commit to a carbon price from the outset.

big trouble in little china

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting is currently being hosted in China to secure a post-2012 global treaty on tackling climate change. Little progress has been made since world leaders failed to broker a deal in Copenhagen last year and the delegates were told they had to break the stalemate ahead of another UN climate summit in Mexico starting next month.

The final goal of the process is a treaty aimed at curbing greenhouse gases, which could potentially be clinched late next year at a UN summit in South Africa, in time to replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires at the end of 2012.

The Chinese Government was one of the major roadblocks to reaching an agreement at Copenhagen last year. As host for this year’s convention it seems they may have changed their tune – “China said it wanted to foster a spirit of cooperation at this week’s conference” reported the Brisbane Times today.

However Dai Bingguo (China’s top foreign policy official) also indicated China would hold firm on some of the key disputes with the United States and other developed nations that have led to the current gridlock.

If discussion remains at a gridlock we will have an even further delay on action, and as Christina Figueres (UNFCCC executive secretary) point out it is in no-one’s interest to delay… “Quite the contrary, it is in everyone’s interest to accelerate action in order to minimise negative impacts on all” Figueres said.

big business turning green?

The other week the chairman of BHP CEO expressed concerned for Australia’s future and urged the that we must get on board with carbon reduction policies and clean energy… this week on of the big four banks has joined the climate change debate by expressing that they will favor the funding of energy efficiency and clean energy projects over new coal-fired power stations.

Westpac’s statement coincided with the release of a Greenpeace report which showed that Australia’s major banks provided loans worth $5.5 billion to the coal industry over the past five years, seven times more than the $784 million lent to the renewable energy sector (Manning 2010).

I think this is great, don’t get me wrong but what’s with all the big corporations all of sudden becoming anti-coal when they have been entwined with the industry for decades. With my pessimistic hat on I can only assume they are trying to tap the previously untapped profits which could be gained though the clean energy sector and the development of new technologies…

an emphasis on doubt

Public policy is generally implemented under circumstances where the risk of opposing choices is known (Resnik 1987:13). One of the major issues with climate change policy is that the exact extent of risks is not known. Across the globe Governments have successfully avoided action on climate change by focusing on this unknown risk. Boykoff and Boykoff (2004) believe that it is exactly this doubt that has prevented international action to curb practices contributing to global warming. Unfortunately when the associated risks of a decision are unknown society often turns to a ‘wait and see’ approach (Sterman and Booth-Sweeney 2007); regrettably this approach just doesn’t work with climate change, where further time without action means increasing accumulation of gases in the atmosphere locking us into future global change.

So where does the blame lay?… In 1998 a draft report of a proposal compiled by industry opponents of action regarding global warming was leaked to the press. Among the ideas in the proposal was a ‘campaign to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry’s views of climate science and train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify’, with the major goal being to ‘raise questions about and undercut the prevailing scientific wisdom’ (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004:133). ARTICLE: Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty. I have no doubt that this sort of deliberate manipulation occurred in many developed countries, persisting until very recent times.

The uncertainty and complexity surrounding climate change, its impacts and implications have long hampered efforts to raise its profile on the national and international agenda. Mixed messages, academic controversy and political scheming have frustrated a pubic who have a key role to play in any likely mitigation strategies (Lowe et al 2006:435).

time lags and climate perception

The nature of climate change as a highly complex and globally elusive hazard makes it difficult to pinpoint, understand and manage. The time lags between release of the emissions of heat-trapping gases and subsequent impacts on the climate mean that the connections between actions today and their effects on climate is difficult to perceive (Moser and Dilling 2004 pp35). Global warming is a ‘creeping’ environmental problem – creeping environmental problems are particularly difficult to prevent or remedy, as the very nature of the problem combine with the nature of human behaviour and societal decision making work against early detection and action (Moser and Dilling 2004 pp35).

I think the public is also questioning about climate science because it is outside the realm of normal science (Kuhn 1962). They were measuring the levels, the data built up, then one day they concluded that they just weren’t normal results anymore. We don’t know the answer. It is not like a puzzle with a known solution and acceptable answers outlined by a paradigm (Kuhn 1962 pp36). We cannot conclude the extent of our influence or what the real results of climate change will be….

management and change

Another factor which ensures the continuation of the climate controvery is that management solutions require extensive change on our part – change to our social routines and norms (Gross 2008 pp44). Individuals are not likely to welcome or tolerate policies that may lead to significant alterations to the current way of life (Lowe et al 2006 p439). As such we remain with no convinced action, a ‘wait and see’ approach.

And there is no quick fix… Seacrest et al (2000) claims that climate change would be more likely to become a major national issue if it can be blamed on a sinner, if we thing it is solvable, and if, despite their difference, attentive public agree that the impacts will be serious, certain, and soon (Seacrest et al 2000 pp253). As it is, mixed messages, academic controversy and political scheming (Lowe et al 2006) place policy at a stand-still, preventing the motivation necessary to inspire real change to standard social routines.