Is It True, Or Did You Read That in The Australian?

Duty Calls

Having been exposed to it for a while now, I thought that by now I have gotten used to the, um, let’s say outlandish or cobbled together coverage of climate change and climate policy related topics in The Australian. But… I was wrong. Geoffrey Lehmann, Peter Farrell, and Dick Warburton (LFW) have taken it upon themselves to, um, again, what word to use… interpret climate science and climate policy their way in a magazine extract (Quadrant magazine, March 2011, 3(3)) printed in The Australian’s Inquirer (April 9-10, 2011, pp. 1 & 6). Of course The Australian did not waste any time supporting the misrepresentation of climate change-related facts.

Duty calls! Let’s go on a fact-finding mission.

Fact #1: None of them has a proven track-record in anything climate change-related, but they have read and build most of their arguments on the Hartwell Paper.

LFW begin their authorial “masterpiece” by declaring that Dr David Viner’s statement – or as they call it “millenarian prediction” -  about snowfall becoming a rarity was “a dud”. They move on to claim that in 2000, there was a “pause” in global warming and that it has not “resumed” since then. They base their statement on a NASA satellite image showing dated January 7, 2010, showing Great Britain entirely covered in snow.

Fact #2: They should have read the entire article instead of just taking a convenience sample out of context. At the end of the article (to which they are referring to), one can read the following: Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said. If anything, he got the time “wrong”, but then again, it is still in line with recent climate science suggesting a stronger-than-expected and sooner-than-expected climate forcing (e.g., UNEP Science Compendium 2009: 8).

Fact #3: Global warming has not paused since 2000. Different reports (e.g., Murphy et al., 2009) show that, overall, 2005 was one of the hottest years. Globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

Fact #4: Unfortunately, the authors’ chain of causalitydoes not extend beyond two links: snow + eyes = science and no global warming. Well, unfortunately for the authors, it is a little bit more complicated than that. Again I would like to refer to a nice summary of the climate science on skepticalscience.com: Warming causes more moisture in the air which leads to more extreme precipitation events. This includes more heavy snowstorms in regions where snowfall conditions are favourable. Far from contradicting global warming, record snowfall is predicted by climate models and consistent with our expectation of more extreme precipitation events.

LFW then actually get the explanation of an emissions trading almost right – although emissions trading scheme is not necessarily the same as a cap-and-trade systemNSW’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme, for example, is an emissions trading scheme, but one that is based on baseline-and-credit approach. Anyways, they move on to criticise the effectiveness of Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) and claim that it is “perverse to create a reward for otherwise uneconomic activities”. One problem with this statement is their definition of a CDM: “Credits are awarded only if a certifier hypothesises before an emissions-reducing activity is undertaken, that it would not occur unless the credits were awarded: the creditable activity must be uneconomic without the credits”. This is simply too inaccurate.

Fact #5: Firstly, let’s get the definition right. Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol defines the clean development mechanism: The purpose of the clean development mechanism shall be to assist Parties not included in Annex I in achieving sustainable development and in contributing to the ultimate objective of the Convention, and to assist Parties included in Annex I in achieving compliance with their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments under article 3. In layman’s terms, it allows developed countries to satisfy their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol by helping developing countries to reduce their emissions.

Moving on to the issue of “uneconomic activity”. Again, the authors are not sufficiently accurate. What they meant to say (Right, guys? Guys?) is that CDM projects must be “additional”, i.e., emission reduction projects creating those credits must be shown to be “in addition to” reductions that would have otherwise occurred. The proposed CDM project must be able to demonstrate that CDM funding played a central role in determining whether to realise the project or not. The CDM project must be unattractive due to some financial, legal, or institutional barrier without the additional economic incentive provided by, e.g., an emissions trading scheme. Given that the authors speak of rich and poor countries, this may make the functioning of the CDM even easier to understand. Ideally, this links to other UNFCCC activities related to cooperation and support, such as technology transfer to and capacity building in developing countries – which may lack the governance and/or financial structure to see through emission-reducing activities on their own. In addition, a CDM must be measurable, independently verified, address leakage and permanence, and the overall project quality.

As for the “hypothesising” part, CDM projects have to go through a set of defined milestones from the conceptual idea through to actual project realisation, and be approved by the CDM Executive Board. An overview of the entire CDM process can be found on the UNFCCC’s CDM website.

Is the system perfect? Certainly not. But LFW compare apples with oranges when  they link emissions trading to the causes of the Global Financial Crisis and the collapse of Enron and Lehman Brothers. They claim that the market is not the best mechanism for setting a carbon price because Enron and Lehman Brothers were active participants in the international carbon market.

Fact #6: While it is true that both companies have been involved in emissions trading, it seems highly unlikely that emissions trading alone led to the demise of those two companies. Enron’s collapse had to do with recorded assets and profits being inflated or even nonexistent. The company established numerous limited liability special purpose entities, allowing Enron to place liability so that it would not appear in its accounts. Lehman on the other had faced significant losses subprime mortgage crisis, holding on to large positions in subprime and other lower-rated mortgage tranches when securitising the underlying mortgages. And of course, some ‘creative accounting’ was also involved towards its end.

Have financial services firms been dissolved since then, given the risk of fraudulent behaviour? Have the accounting scandals around the big consulting companies stopped? The E&Y’s, pwc’s, etc., are all still around. Insurance policies are still being sold, despite cases of insurance fraud. What then is the argument? That because there have been cases of fraudulent or wrongful behaviour, this does not permit a generalising statement about the entire market/system? Hmm…

The authors also fail to mention that despite incidents in the EU, such as the phishing scam last year, or the suspension of the spot market early this year as the result of allowances theft, the EU is improving its registries and their security. One would wish for the same level of transparency in other markets. Emissions trading is an emerging marking, and thus more likely to be at risk to fraud as rules and regulations for operating those markets are – for now – less developed or standardised. And despite all the criminal activity, US$118.5 billion worth of emissions permits were still traded across the EU ETS in 2009.

What is more, emissions trading was never really intended to be a money-making market, but a finite market to ensure an environmental outcome.

Furthermore, according to LFW, the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme market crashed three times since 2005.

Fact #7: Setting the cap for an ETS right, the maximum number of allowances available, requires good knowledge of historical emissions of the entities covered by the scheme. This was not the case in the first phase of the EU ETS (2005  -  2007). As a result, the EU’s ETS market crashed once. In 2007 – after the release of verified emissions data in March 2006 for 2005. Actual emissions were much lower than expected, meaning that the EU ETS was in fact over-allocated. There were fewer emissions than allowances, the price for permits dropped to nearly zero. This problem has been rectified in the second phase of the EU ETS 2008 – 2012) with actual emissions data being available, National Allocation Plans being carefully assessed by the European Commission, and allowances not allowed to be banked between phases I and II.

The risk of an over-allocation of permits in Australia seems rather low, given the existence of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System, which was introduced in 2007 to underpin the the introduction of an emissions trading scheme. Wait, 2007? Wasn’t that the Howard government? Yup. The issue in Australia is going to be about industry and household support.

LFW also put forward that businesses need certainty, and that neither emissions trading nor a carbon tax can provide that certainty.

Fact #8: In December 2009, Mr Wharburton has actually expressed his preference for the introduction of a carbon tax, claiming it provides the certainty businesses need/want.

Businesses already know that a price on carbon is very likely to come in the near future, be it in form of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme. But rather than coming to grips with the two different approaches and working proactively towards reducing any potential liabilities, any opportunity to randomly rant about the impacts of a “big bad tax on everything” on the poor Australian families is being used.

The selection and implementation of either emissions trading or a carbon tax depends on what is to be controlled: emissions or costs. Under an emissions trading scheme, companies will have to decide whether it is more economical to reduce their emissions or buy additional allowances from elsewhere. Thus, emissions trading provides companies with an incentive to reduce their emissions and to improve and invest in low-carbon technology to reduce emissions and costs.A carbon tax might provide certainty in the cost of compliance and lower administrative costs, making it possibly easier to plan long-term investments, that is, if the tax rate remains fixed or known for the period of the investment. However, under a carbon tax, there is no limit on the amount of emissions. In other words, there is no connection between released emissions and the degree of the tax because there is no cap on emissions. This potentially sacrifices environmental certainty for price certainty.

The problem is that when implementing a carbon tax, the government must decide on the level at which the tax should be set, particularly in the case of pre-existing taxes, or other potential distortions such subsidies to certain industries, fuels, or technologies. How will the tax be used? Should the tax income go directly into Greg Combet’s coffers? Should it be used to offset other taxes (i.e., the double-dividend effect)? Maybe it should be transferred across national boundaries to an international body and allocated to those most adversely impacted by either the costs of emission reduction or damage from climate change (i.e., adaptation and mitigation funding – yes, I know, that’s a good one)? Or should it be invested in specific abatement projects, such as renewable energy? Or as Mr Tony Abbott suggests, planting millions of trees?  And if the tax is intended to achieve a given overall emissions limit, the tax rate will need to be increased to offset the impact of inflation, new technological progress, and new emission sources. Furthermore, it is unlikely that political gamesmanship in the form of debates on industry support or exemption would be eliminated. There would still be the temptation to change taxes or push through (politically motivated) manipulations designed to benefit certain companies or industry sectors, undermining any long-term certainty and hindering necessary investments in low-carbon technologies.

As mentioned above, many opinions are actually based on the London School of Economics and Political Science Hartwell Paper, a report demanding a radical change of approach to international climate policy. Of course, the authors conveniently chose to conceal the fact that principal Funding was provided by the Japan Iron and Steel Federation and Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, and the Foundation Hoffmann. I leave it to you to closer investigate the two latter foundations, but the first two should be interesting. Especially given Japan’s reluctance to extend the Kyoto Protocol and ambition to develop an “alternative” to the Kyoto Protocol.

I will not go into too much detail here, but in my opinion, the Hartwell Paper offers little insight into how this alleged needed change is to be achieved, let alone how it is going to be financed. It focuses on criticising the sobering outcome of the COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009 (we conveniently ignore events in 2010), stating that the Kyoto Protocol has failed – influenced by Japanese interest much? Instead, they call for credible long-term global commitments and methods to invest in energy innovation (Hartwell Paperp.34). Energy innovation in this context refers to an article by Galiana and Green published in Nature, in which they argue that a fostering technology revolution, not setting emission targets is the key to addressing climate change. How is this different to the Kyoto Protocol and UNFCCC? How is replacing one global agreement with another one be the better option? You still would have to deal with 195+ countries (195 parties to the UNFCCC plus any other countries that would want to join the credible commitment). And don’t the Kyoto Protocol and UNFCCC have mechanisms that are intended to trigger that technological revolution?

A discussion of the technological and commercial viability of renewable energy will not be part of this little post, but I am surprised to see LFW taking a critical stance towards carbon capture and storage technology – and rightfully so.

LFW also mention Bjorn Lomberg, author of “The Skeptical Scientist”, saying that there are many worthwhile cause to fund with our taxes and philanthropic dollars that rank ahead of global warming, such as ensuring safe drinking water and educating both sexes in poor countries, eliminating malaria and other tropical diseases, maintaining biodiversity and cleaning up real pollutants. That, by the way, is the same Bjorn Lomberg who is now is urging world leaders to invest heavily in clean energy.

Fact #9: Many of these worthy causes have to deal with challenges of climate change. according to the Climate Change Synthesis Report by the University of Copenhagen, the observed temperature rise to date, about 0.7oC, is already affecting health in many societies. Beyond the direct impacts on health, climate change also affects the underlying determinants of health – quantity and quality of food, water resources, and ecological control of disease vectors. The risks arise from direct stresses (e.g. heat-waves, weather disasters, workplace dehydration), from ecological disturbance (e.g.altered infectious disease patterns), and disruptions of ecosystems on which humanity depends (e.g. health consequences of reduced food yields), from population displacement and conflict overdepleted resources (water, fertile land, fisheries). Biodiversity is at risk because of changed weather and climate patterns  (see, e.g., UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium 2009). And “real” pollutants? seriously?

What do they think we are trying to achieve? Just trying to adapt because adaptation to adverse climate change, if and when it does occur, may be the best and only viable strategy? Having to adapt to climate change may mean that it is already to late, while mitigation may provide us with the opportunity to alleviate some of the worst effects, to prevent a runaway effect of dangerous climate change.

First Round of Formal UN Climate Change Negotiations in 2011 to Take Place in March/April in Bangkok, Thailand

The UNFCCC COP 16 Bureau decided on Tuesday, 25 January that the next round of AWG-KP and AWG-LCA meetings, as well as workshops pursuant to the Cancun Agreements, should take place in Bangkok from Sunday, 3 April through Friday, 8 April 2011. These meetings and workshops are to be preceded by preparatory regional group meetings from 30 March to 2 April.

The meeting adds to the June session in Bonn, Germany and the next COP/CMP (17) in Durban, South Africa. More sessions are likely to be added.

In Mexico last month, the Cancun Agreements set governments more firmly on the path towards a low-emissions future and support enhanced action on climate change in the developing world. Pledges made by parties in Copenhagen and Cancun so far are inadequate to achieve the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5-2°C.

UNFCCC meetings this year will aim to fill in the details of many of those plans, including greenhouse gas cuts necessary to prevent a dangerous runaway climate change effect.

The biggest unsolved issue is finding a successor to the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol, which obliges almost 40 developed nations to cut greenhouse emissions by at least 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 during the period 2008-12. Japan, Russia and Canada have announced they will not extend cuts beyond December 31, 2012 unless all major emitters, including China and the United States sign up for a binding deal. Last week, Japan announced plans to propose an alternative to the Kyoto Protocol in coming months. The move underlined Japan’s intent to regain the trust of developing countries, many of which blame Japan’s opposition to extending the Kyoto Protocol for causing a major delay in UNFCCC negotiations.

Reconstruction in Queensland – But Where?

Today, Queensland Premier Anna Bligh announced the formation of a new Queensland Reconstruction Authority to determine if infrastructure, and even entire suburbs, should be rebuilt in flood-affected and flood-prone parts of Queensland.

The new Queensland Reconstruction Authority will replace and have more power than the recently established rebuilding taskforce under Major General Mick Slater. It will still need the approval of Parliament and will be the first item on the agenda when the House resumes next month.

She said

The reconstruction authority will be charged with working with local governments to determine, in some cases, whether we should be rebuilding exactly the same thing in exactly the same place, whether it’s a bridge, or whether it’s a suburb.

and

The last thing we want to do is rebuild in the same place and see that home flooded again in two or three years’ time.

Part of the task will be to speak with affected residents and discuss whether their homes need to be rebuilt on stilts or new sites altogether. This makes sense, and the different response to Victoria’s approach to rebuilding after the Black Saturday bushfires is commendable. While most Royal Commission recommendations were accepted or are being taken under consideration, the only recommendation rejected was the one referring to relocation.

Brisbane is built on the river’s natural flood plains. Brisbane has a subtropical climate. Relying on the dam system alone seems somewhat imprudent. And just as much as family homes were affected, so were businesses.

In our paper “Firm relocation as adaptive response to climate change and weather extremes“, we discuss significant disruptions to firm operations, for instance through droughts, floods, or sea level rise, which might ultimately create the necessity of a geographical shift of firm and industrial activities away from highly affected regions. The framework we propose may serve as a decision making tool, which can be of use to firms considering relocating or flood-proofing their facilities.

2011 Queensland Floods: Commission to investigate whether flooding could have been prevented

This Monday (17/01/2011), clean-up efforts continued in flood affected suburbs of Brisbane. While businesses in the CBD area recommenced their operations, 22.000 households were still without power. Supermarkets in several suburbs encountered supply shortages of fresh produce such as fruit and vegetables. There were also bottlenecks in the supply of fuel. Road closures and damages to transportation infrastructure caused problems with public transport. The City Cat ferry service, an essential part of Brisbane’s local transport, will be out of service for 90 days.

Prime Minister Anna Bligh meanwhile announced a Commission of Inquiry into the state’s flood disaster. The purpose of the commission is to investigate whether the flooding in Brisbane, Toowoomba and in the nearby Lockyer Valley could have been prevented. The Commission will be headed by Queensland Justice Cate Holmes, with Deputy Commissioners Jim O’Sullivan, a former Queensland Police Commissioner and Phil Cummins, an international expert on dams.

Subject to enquiry will be the disaster preparation and planning by federal, state and local governments. Large parts of the population were unprepared for a flood disaster. Past days have also seen the emergence of a debate on whether warnings from meteorologists were not sufficiently considered, and whether water from the Wivenhoe Dam should have been discharged earlier. The partial opening of the dam to prevent an overflow had contributed significantly to the flood disaster.

The Wivenhoe Dam was built after the major flooding in 1974 further upstream to protect Brisbane city from flooding, and to ensure a reliable water supply. In recent years, during the ongoing drought in Australia, water levels of the dam fell below 15% and caused concerns about Brisbane’s drinking water supply. However, due to the heavy tropical rains over the last weeks of the dam was filled to almost 200% of capacity.

An important question for Brisbane and the surrounding South-East Queensland region will be the future urban development. Large parts of Brisbane are built on flood plains, and the expansion of the city is continuing. The South-East Queensland region has seen a strong increase in population and a construction boom. Brisbane alone had a population increase of 2.7% in 2008/2009. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) classified the region as hot spot for national disasters, especially flooding, storm surges and sea level rise.

What the UN ban on geoengineering really means – environment – 01 November 2010 – New Scientist

What the UN ban on geoengineering really means – environment – 01 November 2010 – New Scientist.

Fresh off the press: Firm relocation as adaptive response to climate change and weather extremes

Our newest publication titled ‘Firm relocation as adaptive response to climate change and weather extremes’ is now available from Global Environmental Change.  The paper suggests that climate change might create the necessity for firm relocation away from highly affected regions.  It develops a framework for assessing firm relocation due to climate change impacts and discusses the relocation framework in relation to two case examples, the Australian pastoral industry and electricity generation in Victoria, Australia, which is one of the most bushfire-prone regions of the world.

Summary of Climate Finance Pledges Put Forward by Developed Countries | World Resources Institute

From the World Resources Institute:

The Copenhagen Accord commits developed countries to collectively provide resources “approaching USD$ 30 billion for the period 2010 – 2012” to support developing countries’ climate efforts. This so-called “fast-start” finance will help developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, mitigate (reduce) their greenhouse gas emissions, and adapt and cope with the effects of climate change. These pledges also present an opportunity to build trust between developed and developing countries in the international climate arena, in turn fostering progress towards a comprehensive post-2012 international climate agreement.

WRI has carried out a preliminary analysis based on available information on countries’ immediate and long term pledges announced thus far. The accompanying table sets out both the amounts and the mechanisms by which funding would be delivered. WRI has also looked at whether these pledges will provide “new and additional” funds compared to what developed countries already provide through official development assistance.

This is the Summary of Climate Finance Pledges Put Forward by Developed Countries.

The Green Apple: How Can Cities Adapt to Climate Change?

New York City–and other major metropolises around the globe–face an epic challenge in coping with the impacts of global warming.

NEW YORK CITY—Here is how climate change could shut down a city: On the morning of August 8, 2007, a thunderstorm paralyzed the largest rail transit system in the U.S.—New York City’s subway—during morning rush hour. Flash floods deposited more than 7,000 kilograms of dirt and debris on tracks that stretch more than 1,350 kilometers and carry 1.5 billion passengers annually. A December 1992 storm had a similar impact, including flooding portions of Lower Manhattan and the East River Drive.

Read the full article from Scientific American here.

Finance for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation

Support (and finance) for developing and least-developed countries’ efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the potential impacts of climate change has been pledged by many countries since the COP15 in Copenhagen last year. The Copenhagen Accord outlines significant funding commitments from developed countries to developing countries to address adaptation (and mitigation), prevention of deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), and technology development and transfer.

The two essential funding commitments as outlined in the Copenhagen Accord are the US$30 billion in “fast-track funding”

to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010-2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation.

and an additional US$100 billion a year by 2020

to address the needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.

While the funding commitments have been outlined by developed countries and many funding sources exist (e.g., the financial mechanisms under the UNFCCC), there is still uncertainty about the actual delivery and governance of the process (or, in other words: how, when, to whom, and for what). WRI‘s Athena Ballesteros has written an interesting little article on the next steps for climate finance for Cancun and beyond. In a nutshell, she calls for the delivery of the fast-track funding and ensuring that developed countries are keeping their pledges through transparent reporting and disclosure, clarification on what new sources of funding could contribute to adaptation efforts, improved transparency and governance.

One of the challenges at the Climate Change Talks in Bonn at the moment is defining what constitutes “new and additional resources”. Different donor countries have different definitions, and there is the question whether fast-tack and longterm funding should/could/can replace existing official development assistance. While the discussion continues, the International Institute for Environment and Development has released a paper outlining two options for defining a balance of the demands and requirements of donor and recipient nations. For the fast-track funding, climate financing should be counted as new and additional only if it comes on top of a baseline of predefined projections of development aid. For the longer-term climate finance, only assistance generated from novel funding sources, such as international air transport levies and currency trading levies, should be included.

Getting the sourcing of funds, transparency, governance, and developing objectives right is not only essential for achieving a binding post-Kyoto commitment, but also for creating (and rebuilding) mutual trust at climate change negotiations, be they in Bonn, Bali, Copenhagen, or Cancun. It is essential that developed countries accept responsibility for their emissions, but at the same time, developing countries must demonstrate a commitment towards sustainable development and a low-emission trajectory themselves as well. Simply dumping technology and funds onto countries where there is no appropriate governance system in place is a recipe for failure. Just as much as is simply telling developing countries they “are doing it wrong” and to improve for the worse their economic development.

What is required is an open and honest debate about who can bring what to the table – developing countries transparent, verified and guaranteed funding commitments, developing countries a plan on how to use the funds and technology. This might be the right approach to break the negotiation stalemate around “I want more”, “I cannot give more”, “I didn’t do it”, and “we need to consider our economic situation”.

Climate Intervention Schemes Could Be Undone by Geopolitics

As global warming intensifies, demands for human manipulation of the climate system are likely to grow. But carrying out geoengineering plans could prove daunting, as conflicts erupt over the unintended regional consequences of climate intervention and over who is entitled to deploy climate-altering technologies.

A very interesting piece on geoengineering by Prof Mike Hulme over at Yale’s Environment 360.