The Conversation

Nemo is actually a 'false clownfish'. Motoya Kawasaki/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Anemonefish, or clownfish, were made famous by the 2003 Disney-Pixar film Finding Nemo, and are about to play a starring role in the sequel, Finding Dory. They are well known for their special relationship with anemones, which provide a safe place to call home.

But anemonefish face a number of threats. Some researchers have warned of an increase in the wild-caught anemonefish trade, as happened following Finding Nemo.

Anemones, on which anemonefish depend, are threatened by warming seas in a similar way to corals. In fact anemones were affected by the recent coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, which recent updates show has left a third of coral colonies dead or dying in the north and central parts of the reef.

So will Nemo be left homeless?

A healthy (left) and bleached (right) bubble-tip anemone (Entacmaea quadricolor) on the Great Barrier Reef. Ashley Frisch Nemo and his 27 cousins

There are 28 species of anemonefish. Although some people call this group “clownfish”, technically this name is only used for one species, Amphiprion percula. “Nemo” (A. ocellaris) looks similar, but is actually known as the “false clownfish”.

Anemonefish are famous for their special relationship with anemones. Although they can survive in aquariums without anemones, in nature they rely on anemones for protection from predators.

The pink anemonefish (Amphiprion perideraion) in a bleached anemone (Heteractis magnifica) at Christmas Island. JP Hobbs.

In return for providing a safe home, the resident anemonefish will provide nutrients and defend the anemone from predators such as butterflyfish. Both the number and size of anemonefish is linked to the size and number of anemones – and vice versa. Therefore, any decrease in one partner affects the other.

The collection of anemones and anemonefish for the aquarium trade has to be managed properly to ensure the future of anemonefishes. Anemonefish can be easily bred in captivity and this provides a reliable source for aquarium enthusiasts without impacting wild populations.

Cinnamon anemonefish (Amphiprion melanopus) in a bleached anemone (Entacmaea quadricolor) on the Great Barrier Reef. Ashley Frisch

Ten species of anemones are inhabited by anemonefish. The highest diversity of anemonefish occurs in Indonesia, where anemonefish species outnumber anemones. As a result, different species of anemonefish have learnt to share the same anemone.

In most other locations, anemonefish aggressively prevent other species from entering their anemone. Anemonefish species differ in the number of anemone species they associate with.

Clark’s anemonefish (Amphiprion clarkii) in a bleached anemone (Cryptodendrum adhaesivum) at Christmas Island. JP Hobbs.

Clark’s anemonefish (A. clarkii) can live in all ten anemone species and is widely distributed throughout the Indian and Pacific Oceans. In contrast, McCulloch’s anemonefish (A. mccullochi) inhabits only one species of anemone and occurs only on reefs around Lord Howe Island.

After hatching, anemonefish larvae use their keen sense of smell to find their preferred anemone species and avoid unhealthy (bleached) anemones.

Anemones in hot water

Anemones are closely related to corals and get their colour from microscopic algae (zooxanthellae) that live symbiotically within the tissue of the anemone. Like corals, anemones expel their algae and turn white when they become stressed.

This process – termed “bleaching” – is usually in response to periods of elevated seawater temperatures. All ten species of anemones are susceptible to bleaching, which can result in a decrease in the size and number of anemonefishes and reduced reproduction.

McCulloch’s anemonefish (Amphiprion mccullochi) in a bleached anemone (Entacmaea quadricolor) at Lord Howe Island. Justin Gilligan.

If seawater temperatures remain high for too long, then bleached anemones will die. In 1998, a prolonged period of elevated water temperatures in Japan resulted in mass mortality of bleached anemones and local extinction of anemonefish.

In March 2016, the Great Barrier Reef experienced a severe bleaching event due to elevated water temperatures associated with a strong El Niño event. There was mass bleaching of both corals and anemones.

Marine biologist Jean-Paul Hobbs studying anemonefish (Amphiprion mccullochi) and their host anemones (Entacmaea quadricolor) at Lord Howe Island. Justin Gilligan.

In April 2016, elevated water temperatures also caused mass bleaching of corals and anemones off north-west Australia, including Christmas Island. Bleached anemones have also recently been reported elsewhere in the Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean and in the Red Sea.

The future of the bleached anemones and their resident anemonefish will depend on how quickly the water temperature returns to normal. If the temperature decreases swiftly, bleached anemones can regain their colour (reabsorb zooxanthellae) and survive.

However, the frequency and intensity of bleaching events are predicted to increase as the climate changes. Consequently, there are serious concerns about the ability of anemones and anemonefish to cope with rising water temperatures.

Reducing global greenhouse gas emissions will limit subsequent bleaching events and help ensure the future of Nemo and its relatives.

Jean-Paul Hobbs currently receives funding from Curtin University and Christmas Island Divers Association. His past research on anemones and anemonefishes has been funded by James Cook University, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Lord Howe Island Marine Park, Parks Australia, WA Department of Fisheries, Wet n Dry Adventures Christmas Island and the Australian Government Department of the Environment.

Ashley J Frisch has received funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

The problems caused by mass bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef have continued to deepen, with the latest estimates based on results from our surveys showing that 35% of corals are now dead or dying along the northern and central sections of the reef north of Townsville.

We have been tracking this severe bleaching event for months, documenting the damage as abnormally high water temperatures caused the coral to bleach, losing the algae that live within their tissues and supply most of the corals' energy.

Although corals can recover from bleaching when water temperatures drop, they can also die if they are without their algae for too long. From our surveys, we estimate this has now happened to one-third of the corals on reefs north of Townsville and to half of the corals on reefs that were hit hardest by the bleaching event.

The scale of the damage

For this latest survey, my colleagues and I carried out in-water surveys of corals on 84 reefs, spanning 1,300 km from Townsville to the Torres Strait, between mid-March and mid-April this year. We counted the number of coral colonies that were either recently dead, bleached completely white, partially bleached or healthy, as well as quantifying the percentage cover of hard corals and other organisms at each reef.

When you’re underwater, it’s easy to spot corals that have recently died due to bleaching because their white skeletons are coated in a thin film of greenish-brown algae. Over time, the algae grows to form a thick mat that obscures the skeleton – a hallmark of long-dead corals that are not victims of the recent bleaching. Our surveys did not include these colonies.

Corals that are bleached totally white, having lost nearly all of their symbiotic algae, have an extremely low chance of recovering because it takes several months for the algae to come back. In contrast, most corals that are only partially bleached will survive and recover quickly.

In the reef’s central section, between Cairns and Townsville, colonies tended to be partially bleached instead of completely white or dead. We estimate that fewer than 5% of colonies will die on many of these reefs.

But on the reef’s northernmost section, north of Cooktown, we estimate that more than half of the coral colonies on many reefs have died.

What do these figures really mean?

Corals are made up of tiny modules, called polyps, that are joined together to form colonies. Most of the polyps in each colony can reproduce, and this obviously means that larger colonies can produce more larvae.

Similarly, reefs with more different colonies living on them can produce more larvae overall, providing a supply of new corals that can disperse to nearby damaged reefs and kick-start their recovery.

In places where corals have died on just a few reefs among many other healthy reefs, the supply of larvae from the neighbouring healthy reefs can facilitate more rapid recovery.

But in places where coral deaths are spread across most of the reefs, such as the stretch north of Cooktown, the coral larvae needed to recolonise the reefs have to travel much longer distances and this slows down the recovery.

Recovery prospects

This shows why coral bleaching is particularly damaging to reefs: its effects can be apparent over a scale of thousands of kilometres. Other disturbances, like cyclones, can also kill lots of coral, but their effects are usually more localised, meaning that recovery is easier.

Based on previous bleaching events, it can take several decades before these reefs recover, and much longer before the oldest and largest colonies are able to re-establish themselves. Some areas of the reef that were severely bleached in 1998 still haven’t recovered. The fear is that the time between bleaching events is now shorter than the time needed for reefs to recover.

Ocean currents are crucial to reef recovery, because of the importance of dispersing coral larvae for repopulating damaged reefs. On the Great Barrier Reef, the East Australian Current helps to transport larvae from north to south. However, this current begins its southward path at around 18º South (just north of Townsville), meaning that this current will be little help (and will in fact be an active hindrance) to the recovery of the most severely bleached reefs beyond that.

Another factor that impedes recovery is that bleached corals have lower reproductive output after a bleaching event. This means that even colonies that don’t die this year will contribute fewer larvae in the coming years.

Fixing the damage?

Coral bleaching events happen mainly when ocean temperatures are abnormally warm. Consequently, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the main way we can help to prevent more global bleaching events from striking in the future.

Improving water quality and controlling outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish are also very important, because reducing coral loss due to these other factors can increase the resilience of the reef to bleaching.

Technological approaches, like shading reefs or artificially restocking reefs, might be considered for specific small reef sites, but they are not feasible for the conservation of the 2,300 km Great Barrier Reef, or for coral reefs on a global scale.

Mia Hoogenboom receives funding from Australian Research Council.

Ten years ago, An Inconvenient Truth opened in cinemas in the United States.

Starring former US vice president Al Gore, the documentary about the threat of climate change has undoubtedly made a mark. It won two Academy Awards, and Gore won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to communicate human-induced climate change.

An Inconvenient Truth (AIT for short) is the 11th-highest-grossing documentary in the United States. According to Texan climatologist Steve Quiring:

AIT has had a much greater impact on public opinion and public awareness of global climate change than any scientific paper or report.

But has the film achieved what it set out to do – raise public awareness and change people’s behaviour in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Measuring the film’s impact

A public survey by the Pew Research Center for People & the Press found that in the months following the documentary’s release, the percentage of Americans attributing global warming to human activity rose from 41% to 50%. But how do we know whether AIT contributed to this increase?

Several studies have experimentally tested the impact of viewing the film. A UK study found that showing selective clips from AIT resulted in participants feeling more empowered and more motivated to make lifestyle changes to fight climate change.

Similarly, surveys of moviegoers and students found that watching AIT increased knowledge about the causes of global warming and willingness to reduce greenhouse gases. However, this increased willingness didn’t necessarily translate into action. A follow-up survey conducted a month later found little change in behaviour.

One novel approach found a 50% increase in the purchase of voluntary carbon offsets in areas where AIT was shown. This is encouraging evidence that the film did lead to tangible behaviour change. But again, the effect wasn’t long-lasting. A year later, there was little difference in carbon offset purchases.

An analysis of drivers of public attitudes towards climate change found a significant relationship between media mentions of AIT and public perception of the urgency of climate change. In other words, the film produced a significant positive jump in the general public’s perceptions of the issue.

This study also found that polarisation decreased after the release of AIT, pouring cold water on the claim that Al Gore polarised the climate debate. Rather, the polarised positions on climate science among Democratic and Republican leaders (one party broadly accepting the science, the other significantly rejecting it) was found to be the key driver of public polarisation on climate change.

This led the study’s author, Robert Brulle, to state:

I think this should close down forever the idea that Al Gore caused the partisan polarisation over climate change.

This body of research underscores the difficulties confronting any public awareness campaign. AIT was successful in raising public awareness of climate change, increasing willingness to change behaviour and, in some cases, actually changing behaviour.

However, the effect didn’t last long. This indicates that persistent communication efforts are required to promote sustained behaviour change.

Scientists critique An Inconvenient Truth

While AIT was effective among the general public, there is no tougher crowd for a science documentary than scientists. A survey of members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union found that among the scientists who had seen and rated AIT, 72% said the film was either somewhat or very reliable.

To put this in perspective, only 12% of scientists who had read Michael Crichton’s contrarian novel State of Fear rated it as somewhat or very reliable.

Going into more detail, an edition of GeoJournal had four scientists critique the scientific accuracy of AIT. Unfortunately, the panel was made up of two mainstream scientists and two contrarian scientists – a false-balance form of coverage that actually causes confusion rather than increases literacy in the context of media coverage. (For an incisive look at false-balance coverage of climate change, watch John Oliver’s statistically representative climate change debate.)

A statistically significant climate change debate

The outcome is somewhat predictable, with mainstream scientists reporting a more positive assessment of the accuracy of AIT than the contrarian scientists. Nevertheless, a useful overview of the exercise is provided by Texan climatologist Gerald North, who concluded that while there were some inaccuracies in AIT, on the whole it represented mainstream scientific views on global warming.

Ultimately, the factual inaccuracies in AIT were deemed inconsequential and don’t undermine the main message of the film.

Inspiring others

While most of the research into the impact of AIT investigates the direct effect on viewers, a potentially more significant impact is the film’s role in inspiring others to follow Gore’s example in communicating the issue of climate change to others.

Personally, I can attest to this influence. Before 2006, I hadn’t given much thought to the climate change issue. Watching AIT raised a number of questions about the human role in global warming.

With the issue salient in my mind, I got into conversations with family members who happened to reject the scientific consensus on climate change. This precipitated the founding of Skeptical Science, which led to me becoming a researcher in climate communication at the University of Queensland.

I’ve spoken to or know of many other climate communicators whose awareness of the issue dawned with their viewing of AIT. While the direct effect of the original screening of the film may have dissipated, the impact of those inspired to communicate the realities of climate change persists.

For me, the film precipitated a series of events that ultimately redirected the course of my life. An Inconvenient Truth wasn’t just behaviour-changing, it was life-changing.

No lab experiment can quantify that level of impact.

John Cook does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Australia is a land of extreme weather. Events such as the 2009 Victorian bushfires, the 2011 Queensland floods and Cyclone Yasi in 2013 are stark examples of climate-related risks faced by Australian households. Many homes are built in high-risk locations including floodplains, coastlines and bushfire-prone land.

The Climate Institute has today released a report detailing the critical role Australian housing plays in the economy, and the risks housing faces with a changing climate.

It also sets out the role of banks and insurers in promoting risk reduction and climate adaptation for Australian housing.

Built on sand

Housing represents many Australians' biggest financial commitment – including those who rent rather than buy. Housing accounts for up to one-third of the economy, through direct and indirect means and across sectors such as finance, insurance and construction. With population projections forecasting continued growth and attraction to risky locations, banks and other financial institutions have a crucial role to play in minimising the economic threat posed by climate change.

But while the role of land-use planning and insurance with regard to climate risks has been well documented, the role of banks as gatekeepers to housing finance has been largely overlooked.

As the Climate Institute’s report points out, banks have a “unique ability and incentive” to steer housing purchases, because they are the main providers of residential financing. As such, they have large financial liabilities if homes are lost to fires, floods or other climate effects.

There are a range of tactics banks might use to reduce or mitigate climate risk. For instance, they could favour lending on homes that meet specific risk-reduction requirements, such as raised floor levels for homes in flood zones, or fireproof construction materials in bushfire-prone regions. This approach could also be used in setting mortgage insurance premiums as well as the mortgages themselves. Another approach is to better apportion their exposure - by lending on a reduced percentage threshold of the total property value.

Westpac has a Climate Change Position Statement and both the Commonwealth Bank and NAB have committed in reducing carbon. But more needs to be done for housing.

If banks continue under a business as usual approach, they face the risk that many properties will be devalued over time, through continued exposure to extreme weather events. This represents a significant financial liability, especially when you consider that a home loan typically takes 30 years to play out – a similar time scale to the many climate impacts expected for Australia.

Banks are already making moves to restrict lending based on location.

But the report outlines several other things banks could do, such as:

• examine climate risk exposure in their current lending practices

• use their role as financiers to support good policy, by engaging policymakers and financial regulators

• encourage stakeholders, including the public, private sector and civil society sectors, to develop ways to minimise climate impact risks for housing

• ensure losses are addressed in an equitable way.

A climate insurance policy

The report also details how the insurance sector assesses risk to housing, and how it might improve its approach in the future, given the intersection of urbanisation, population trends and the trend towards living in climate-threatened areas.

The insurance sector has historically been seen as the messenger of housing market signals, because of its keen focus on assessing weather-related risk. But the 2011 Queensland floods highlighted many weaknesses in relying on insurance alone.

Many properties did not have adequate flood insurance, leaving many people without a home after losing their house to the floods. The Australian and Queensland governments and the private sector struggled to co-ordinate a cost-effective response, partly because of previous bad land-use planning decisions, but also because of the lack of adequate insurance cover.

A federal government levy helped the affected regions to “build better back”. Some chose to rebuild in the same high-risk locations.

Critically, gaps identified in building codes, land use and climate resilience still require a more co-ordinated response. The current Stage 2 coastal law reforms in New South Wales offer a potential example of how competing interests might be balanced.

At face value, this issue is a no-brainer. After all, risk mitigation is bread and butter for lending institutions and insurers, and we already know that extreme weather events are forecast to increase in frequency and severity. National resilience is required.

Quantifying this risk will be easier if financial institutions utilise access to relevant data on issues like coastal risk. Some of these data are becoming more freely available. Recognising the value of climate data is a trend that should continue. For a robust and resilient future, governments and the private sector should end their tango over who should pay for the information and agree that financial climate risks are best faced with eyes wide open.

Tayanah O'Donnell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

On May 19, India’s all-time temperature record was smashed in the northern city of Phalodi in the state of Rajasthan. Temperatures soared to 51℃, beating the previous record set in 1956 by 0.4℃.

India is known for its unbearable conditions at this time of year, just before the monsoon takes hold. Temperatures in the high 30s are routine, with local authorities declaring heatwave conditions only once thermometers reach a stifling 45℃. But the record comes on the back of an exceptionally hot season, with several heatwaves earlier in the year. So what’s to blame for these scorching conditions?

Much of India is in the grip of a massive drought. Water resources are scarce across the country. Dry conditions exacerbate extreme temperatures because the heat energy usually taken up by evaporation heats the air instead.

The complex relationship between droughts and heatwaves is an area of active scientific research, although we know a preceding drought can significantly amplify the intensity and duration of heatwaves.

India’s drought was a possible factor in the earlier heatwaves in April over central and southern India. However, Rajasthan, where 51℃ was recorded, is always bone-dry in May. So the drought made no difference to the record temperature.

The El Niño effect

We have also experienced one of the strongest El Niño events on record. While the current event has recently ceased, its sting is certainly still being felt.

El Niño episodes are associated with higher-than-average global temperatures and have also been a factor in some of India’s past heatwaves. However, there is no direct connection to El Niño in Rajasthan, because its climate at this time of year is so dry anyway.

India also has an extreme air pollution problem. Caused largely by domestic fuel and wood burning, it kills up to 400,000 people every year. This pollution, made up of fine particles called aerosols, also has the effect of cooling the local climate by reflecting or absorbing sunlight before it reaches the ground, thus reducing the likelihood of the most extreme high temperatures.

So although India is no stranger to extreme heat at this time of year, the smog has kept record-breaking high temperatures at bay – until now. This is what makes the record in Phalodi remarkable.

Longer-term heat extremes

A study published in 2013 analysed annual trends in extremes and found no significant change in the intensity of extreme Indian temperatures between 1951 and 2010. The high levels of local air pollution were probably behind the lack of change.

However, the study found a significant increase in the frequency of extreme temperatures and a remarkable trend in the duration of warm spells in India, as the map below shows. Warm spells, defined as at least six days of extreme temperatures relative to the location and time of year, increased by at least three days per decade over 1951-2010 – the largest trend recorded globally.

Global trends in ‘warm spell duration index’, which shows that the duration of heatwaves in India has increased markedly relative to the 1961-90 average. Data are also available via www.climdex.org. J. Geophys. Res.

It is worth keeping in mind that these trends are annual and are influenced by extremes all year round. However, monthly trends in the frequency of Indian temperature extremes for May, which can be found on the CLIMDEX climate database, show an increase over the past 60 years.

Based on local station data, the Indian Meteorological Department reported that many northern states experienced an average of eight heatwave days each March-July between 1961-2010. Trends in “normal” and “severe” heatwaves increased over this time, and in particular over the last decade of the analysis.

Some Indian regions also tended towards longer and more intense heatwaves after an El Niño, and northwestern states of India, where Phalodi is located, tend to experience more intense events anyway. Trends in the intensity of extreme temperatures are less clear and vary across the country.

Different spatial and temporal scales and methods of quantifying extreme temperature hamper a direct comparison of the two studies described above. However, they both document an increase in the frequency of extreme temperatures over India, which is consistent with many other regions worldwide. Heatwave indices and the hottest yearly temperature have only increased significantly in a relatively small region of western India.

What will the future bring?

Most climate models do not do a great job of capturing observed trends in heatwaves over India, because large-scale models struggle to accurately represent the localised effect of aerosols.

It is therefore difficult to use them in great detail for future projections, particularly if pollution levels continue or even increase. However, if air pollution is reduced, temperatures will rise with a vengeance. We know this from experience over Europe, where summer temperature trends were virtually zero up to the 1980s and very strong afterwards, once air pollution was controlled.

Even though this is the hottest time of the year for the region, the recent weather should not be dismissed as regular. It is feasible that India’s pollution problem has been “hiding” extreme heat spikes.

While any clean-up activities will have many positive local health impacts, these are likely to cause more intense heatwaves in future. This will be amplified by background warming due to climate change, which is also likely to drive increases in the frequency of temperature extremes.

Last year India and neighbouring Pakistan suffered similarly atrocious conditions, killing thousands of people. This year’s death toll is already over 1,000, with numbers sure to rise further.

India is already highly vulnerable to the health impacts of oppressive heatwaves and, as climate change continues, this vulnerability will grow. It is therefore imperative that heat plans are put in place to protect the population. That’s a difficult prospect in places that lack communications infrastructure or widespread access to air conditioning.

In the longer term, this episode shows that the global warming targets agreed in Paris have to be taken seriously, so that unprecedented heatwaves and their deadly impacts don’t become unmanageable in this part of the world.

Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Andrew King receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.

Geert Jan van Oldenborgh receives funding from the following projects: European Climate Extremes: Interpretation and Attribution (EUCLEIA), and World Weather Attribution (WWA).

Perception is everything when it comes to Great Barrier Reef tourism. Reef image from www.shutterstock.com

The removal of an entire section on the Great Barrier Reef from an international report on World Heritage and climate change has been justified by the Australian government because of the impact on tourism.

The Guardian reported that all mention of Australia has been removed from the report released on Friday. An Environment Department spokesperson was quoted as saying that “recent experience in Australia had shown that negative commentary about the status of World Heritage properties impacted on tourism”.

Australia is the only populated continent that was not mentioned in the report, which was produced by UNESCO, UNEP, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. It comes in the wake of one of the Great Barrier Reef’s most significant coral bleaching events – one widely attributed to climate change.

What’s to hide?

In its purest sense, it could be argued that it is important for the world to know about the impacts climate change is having on some of its most famous natural wonders. This has the potential to precipitate national and global policy change that might ultimately help the reef.

It could also be argued that much of the damage to perceptions of people around the world has already been done. The final episode of David Attenborough’s documentary on the Great Barrier Reef – which discusses the widespread bleaching in detail – arguably has far more potential to influence would-be tourists contemplating a visit to the reef.

News coverage of the events has reached audiences as far afield as the United States and Britain. And a recent picture essay on The Conversation provides evidence of the bleaching, observing the phenomenon as “a huge blow to all Australians who cherish this natural wonder and to the tourists who flock here to see the reef”.

The impact on tourism

Given that the issues on the reef are well known and widely covered, would the UNESCO report really have had an impact?

The Cairns tourism industry is a vital export earner, not only for the region but for the nation. The region has more than 2.4 million visitors per year, contributing A$3.1 billion to the economy, with the Great Barrier Reef as its anchor attraction.

Adding complexity to the issue, there is debate locally as to how widespread the coral bleaching reported by scientists really is.

The tourism industry in Cairns has been quick to counter scientists’ claims with its own. Tour operator Quicksilver has responded with Reef Health Updates featuring a marine biologist who claims that as the water cools through winter, many of the coral are likely to regain their colour.

Tourists have also been interviewed for the campaign, emerging from the water amazed and astounded at the diversity of colour and marine life they have seen.

Regional tourism organisation Tourism Tropical North Queensland has also begun a campaign to showcase undamaged parts of the reef.

Tourism is a perception-based activity. Expectations of pristine waters and diverse marine life on a World Heritage-listed reef are what drives the Cairns and North Queensland tourism industry in Australia.

We know from past research that perceptions of damage to the natural environment from events such as cyclones do influence travel decisions, but we do not yet know how this translates to coral bleaching events.

Researchers in the region are working to collect data from tourists about how their pre-existing perceptions of coral cover and colour match their actual experiences.

This will provide evidence of the impacts of the bleaching event on the tourist experience and also shed light on what has shaped tourists’ perceptions prior to visiting. Currently, we only have anecdotal evidence from operators and the tourist interviews in the Quicksilver video on what these impacts really are.

What impact could this have on the reef?

From another perspective, tourism is particularly valuable to the reef because it is a relatively clean industry that relies on the preservation, rather than depletion, of the resource for its own survival.

The Great Barrier Reef is a resource of value to both tourism and other industries. In the past, the reef has narrowly escaped gas mining, oil spill disasters and overfishing, not to mention the ongoing impacts of land-based industries along the coast that drains to it.

It is important to remember that the original World Heritage listing was “born out of a 12-year popular struggle to prevent the most wondrous coral reef in the world from being destroyed by uncontrolled mining”. This raises questions about whether the comparative economic importance of mining and other industries could increase if tourism declines.

The message about the threats to the Great Barrier Reef is already in the public domain. Research is still being done on the true impact of the bleaching event and associated perceptions on the tourism industry, and the results are not yet conclusive.

Rather than bury information that many people globally already have access to, perhaps the Australian government could think more creatively about how it is addressing the issues and promoting this as a positive campaign for “one of the best managed marine areas in the world”.

Allison Anderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

La Trobe University becomes the first in Australia to move towards fossil fuel divestment after pressure from students, staff and alumni. Nils Versemann from www.shutterstock.com

La Trobe University this week became the first Australian university to commit to full fossil fuel divestment, having pledged to do so over the next five years. This is the result of campaigning by staff and students at university campuses.

The university holds an investment of A$40 million in a managed fund. Over the next five years it will work with the fund manager to create a portfolio that does not invest in the 200 most carbon-intensive listed companies.

The university reported:

The change was in response to suggestions by a group of students and staff passionate about reducing the impact of climate change and lobbied university leaders to change its investment strategy.

Even though such decisions have been criticised on the basis that there is a trade-off between sustainability and profitability, Vice-Chancellor John Dewar argued that these were actually compatible.

This is a relatively enlightened view, based on the premise that decisions based on sustainable criteria actually perform better in the long run. This can occur through reducing risk and improving stakeholder relationships and, in turn, reputation.

Other Australian unis

Other universities have made smaller but similar decisions. In 2014, the Australian National University (ANU) announced it would divest from seven companies as a component of its Socially Responsible Investment Policy. This amounts to only 5% of the university’s domestic equity and the value of shares to be sold is around A$16 million.

In February this year, Sydney University put a freeze on new fossil fuel investments and it plans to reduce its investments in fossil fuel companies. But this action has been criticised as being tokenistic without a clear plan for full divestment.

Divestment campaigns have been significantly driven by the activist group 350.org, which has reported:

Over the last two years, more than 180 institutions representing US$50 billion in assets have committed to divest. There are now more than 500 active divestment campaigns under way at universities, cities, churches, banks and other institutions.

Benefits for the university

Universities are in the perfect position to take the lead in enacting the values that they have been built upon.

In this regard La Trobe University has a key platform on sustainability, which states:

We will operate sustainably and ethically … The University’s response to climate change, and to sustainability more broadly, requires us to consider carefully our ethical choices and everyday practices.

This divestment decision is fully in line with the university’s espoused values and strategies.

This is the very reason students and staff are increasingly pressuring universities to ensure they take action. Students are looking to their places of study for leadership. The student population frowns upon conflict between values and actions, which affects decisions as to where they will study.

Even though climate-interested investors are increasing in numbers, the outcomes for the economy and investors depend on getting traction with other investors.

There needs to be a pool of funds that can be invested in similar ways. It is not just the impact of ethical investment funds here that can bring about change; increasingly we see the impact of what are called Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) funds.

These funds invest in companies based on the measurement and reduction of their impact in terms of the environment, social and governance criteria.

Is it meaningful?

However, one argument is that divestment does not drive change and that institutions can exert more influence by staying invested. This can occur through influencing company strategies and decision-making; in this way, using a voice rather than exiting the market is seen to be more effective.

Other criticisms are that such decisions are simply public relations exercises that will not actually influence the behaviours of these fossil fuel companies. It is argued that there are always other investors who will continue to invest in these companies and so the net effect is negligible.

But increasingly owners of companies (investors) are realising their influence on company behaviour. They understand that by pooling funds investors can influence companies’ climate behaviour. Hence there is scope for investors, in this case universities, to be more active and to use the power of their investment holdings transparently to change corporate behaviours.

This may be by divestment, but it can also be by using the influence and power of their shareholdings through discussion and negotiation with the companies. There is scope for universities to form a bloc to do so collectively, although such an approach has not been much in evidence so far.

So will La Trobe University’s actions to divest from fossil fuels bring about changes in the behaviour of fossil fuel companies? Probably not, but as a leader in the sector in this regard it will not harm the university’s reputation, and it may build momentum and form the basis of such action increasingly being seen as a new norm.

Suzanne Young does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Pragmatism, not idealism, will give Brazil's Atlantic forests the best chance of survival. Guilmann/Wikimedia Commons

Earth is in a land degradation crisis. If we were to take the roughly one-third of the world’s land that has been degraded from its natural state and combine it into a single entity, these “Federated States of Degradia” would have a landmass bigger than Russia and a population of more than 3 billion, largely consisting of the world’s poorest and most marginalised people.

The extent and impact of land degradation have prompted many nations to propose ambitious targets for fixing the situation – restoring the wildlife and ecosystems harmed by processes such as desertification, salinisation and erosion, but also the unavoidable loss of habitat due to urbanisation and agricultural expansion.

In 2011, the Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration, a worldwide network of governments and action groups, proposed the Bonn Challenge, which aimed to restore 150 million hectares of degraded land by 2020.

This target was extended to 350 million ha by 2030 at the September 2014 UN climate summit in New York. And at last year’s landmark Paris climate talks, African nations committed to a further 100 million ha of restoration by 2030.

These ambitious goals are essential to focus global effort on such significant challenges. But are they focused on the right outcomes?

For restoration projects, measuring success is crucial. Many projects use measures that are too simplistic, such as the number of trees planted or the number of plant stems per hectare. This may not reflect the actual successful functioning of the ecosystem.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the scale are projects that shoot for outcomes such as “improve ecosystem integrity” – meaningless motherhood statements for which success is too complex to quantify.

One response to this problem has been a widespread recommendation that restoration projects should aim to restore ecosystems back to the state they were in before degradation began. But we suggest that this baseline is a nostalgic aspiration, akin to restoring the “Garden of Eden”.

Beautiful, but not particularly realistic. Wenzel Peter/Wikimedia Commons An unrealistic approach

Emulating pre-degradation habitats is unrealistic and prohibitively expensive, and does not acknowledge current and future environmental change. While a baseline that prescribes a list of pre-degradation species is a good place to start, it does not take into account the constantly changing nature of ecosystems.

Instead of a “Garden of Eden” baseline, we suggest that restoration projects should concentrate on establishing functional ecosystems that provide useful ecosystem services. This might be done by improving soil stability to counter erosion and desertification, or by planting deep-rooted species to maintain the water table and reduce dry land salinity, or by establishing wild pollinator habitats around pollinator-dependant crops such as apples, almonds and lucerne seed.

Natural ecosystems have always been in flux – albeit more so since humans came to dominate the planet. Species are constantly migrating, evolving and going extinct. Invasive species may be so prevalent and naturalised that they are impossibly costly to remove.

As a result, land allocated for restoration projects is often so altered from its pre-degradation state that it will no longer serve as habitat for the species that once lived there. Many local, native species can be prohibitively difficult to breed and release.

And present-day climate change may necessitate the use of non-local genotypes and even non-local native species to improve restoration outcomes. Newer, forward-thinking approaches may result in the generation of novel gene pools or even novel ecosystems.

Projects should focus on targets that are relevant to their overarching goals. For example, if a restoration project is established to improve pollination services, then the abundance and diversity of insect pollinators could be its metric of success. As we argue in correspondence to the science journal Nature, restoration should focus on helping to create functional, self-sustaining ecosystems that are resilient to climate change and provide measurable benefits to people as well as nature.

An excellent example of a successful, large-scale restoration project with targeted outcomes is Brazil’s ongoing Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact. This has committed to restoring 1 million hectares of Atlantic forest by 2020 and 15 million hectares by 2050.

This project has clear objectives. These include restoring local biodiversity (for conservation and human use, including timber and non-timber forest products); improving water quality for local communities; increasing carbon storage; and even creating seed orchards that can be either sustainably harvested or used to provide more seeds for sowing as part of the restoration.

This project has clear social objectives as well as ecological ones. It has created new jobs and income opportunities. Local communities are contributing to seed collection and propagation, while the project gives landowners incentives to abide by laws against deforestation. For forests, this is the kind of pragmatic approach that will bear the most fruit.

Martin Breed is an ARC DECRA Fellow who receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Andrew Lowe receives funding from the Australian Federal and State governments to undertake research on habitat restoration. He is Principal Advisor - Biodiversity Research Partnerships, for the South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources; a member of the Board and Chair of the Technical Advisory Committee for Trees for Life - a not for profit restoration organisation; and on the Scientific Advisory Committee of Greening Australia - a not for profit restoration organisation.

Nick Gellie is a PhD candidate who receives scholarship funding from the Australian Research Council

Peter Mortimer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Ruling the roost: flying-foxes can suddenly arrive in huge numbers when the right trees bloom. Justin Welbergen, CC BY-NC-ND

The conflict between urbanites and wildlife recently developed a new battleground: the small coastal New South Wales town of Batemans Bay, where the exceptional flowering of spotted gums has attracted a huge influx of grey-headed flying-foxes from across Australia’s southeast.

In response to intense and highly publicised community concern, federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt has announced he will seek an immediate National Interest Exemption to facilitate dispersal of these bats – a move that risks undermining legal protections afforded to this and other threatened species.

Similar conflicts are occurring elsewhere in NSW, such as the Hunter region, where some unscrupulous members of the public lit a fire in a flying-fox roost at Cessnock.

With the ongoing expansion of the human urban footprint, animals are increasingly confronted with urban environments. Human encroachment into natural habitats generally negatively affects biodiversity. However, urban landscapes can present wildlife with an irresistible lure of reliable food supplies and other resources. While urban wildlife can provide a range of benefits to health and wellbeing, it can also be cause for frustration and conflict.

Urban human-wildlife conflict is a growing area of management concern and scientific research. But the research suggests that the current strategies for addressing NSW’s conflicts between humans and flying-foxes might not have the intended results.

Flying-foxes increasingly find themselves in urban areas. Justin Welbergen Ruling the urban roost

Australian flying-foxes are becoming more urbanised, and the noise, smell and droppings from their roosts can have huge impacts on local residents.

A fundamental problem underlying current approaches to urban roosts is a lack of understanding of the extraordinary mobility of flying-foxes. They are some of the most mobile animals in Australia, with movements that range from foraging trips of up to 120 km in a single night to long-distance nomadism covering thousands of kilometres in a single year.

Nomadic movements of an adult female grey-headed flying-fox, tracked over a period of four years and currently at Batemans Bay. John Martin & Justin Welbergen, unpublished

While roosts can remain active for decades, they are more like backpacker hostels than stable households, housing a constantly changing clientele that comes to visit local attractions. Roosts are connected into large networks through which flying-foxes move in response to changes in local food resources.

This explains the sudden influx in places such as Batemans Bay where preferred food suddenly becomes abundant. But it also highlights the importance of a national approach to flying-fox management and conservation.

Intense local flowerings of Eucalypts, such as spotted gums, produce copious amounts of nectar and pollen, which attract large numbers of flying-foxes and other species for several weeks. When a relatively small local flying-fox population that is tolerated by its human neighbours suddenly increases tenfold, it can place severe pressure on the local community.

Despite their transient nature, these influxes are often wrongly interpreted as population explosions, leading to calls for culling. In comparison, more humane tactics – such as using loud noise or vegetation removal to disperse the flying-foxes – can seem like a more balanced response. But does dispersal actually work?

Council workers in Charters Towers, Queensland, using ‘foggers’ to disperse flying-foxes from a local roost. Australasian Bats Society Shifting the problem elsewhere

There is now ample evidence to show that dispersals are extremely costly and can exacerbate the very human-wildlife conflict that they aim to resolve.

Most dispersals result in the flying-foxes returning the original roost as soon as the dispersal program ends, because naïve new individuals continue to arrive from elsewhere. Overcoming this can take months or years of repeated daily dispersal.

Other dispersals result in flying-foxes establishing new roosts a few hundred metres away, typically within the same urban environment in locations that we cannot control. This risks shifting the problem to previously unaffected members of a community and to other communities nearby.

Former flying-fox roost at Boonah, Queensland, that contained thousands of flying-foxes before it was destroyed in June 2014. Justin Welbergen

While flying-foxes are often portrayed as noisy pests, they serve our economic interest by providing irreplaceable pollination and seed-dispersal services for free. What’s more, those same bats that annoy people during the day work tirelessly at night to maintain the health of our fragmented forests and natural ecosystems.

So it is in our national interest to manage conflict at urban roosts, by using approaches that balance community concerns with environmental considerations.

Flying-foxes perform irreplaceable ecological roles in our natural environment. Steve Parish

To be considered “successful”, a dispersal should permanently reduce conflict to a level that is acceptable to the community without causing significant harm to the animals. However, dispersals are currently implemented at the local council level with little or no monitoring of the impacts in or outside the immediately affected area. This makes it hard to assess whether they have been successful.

For example, it is not uncommon for flowering to cease and flying-fox numbers to decline naturally during the period of active dispersal. This gives the community a false sense that a permanent solution has been achieved, when in fact the issues will recur the next time the trees blossom. There is thus an urgent need for urban roosts to be managed with properly defined and applied criteria for success.

Evidence-based management

Unfortunately, lack of research effort directed at “ugly” and “less popular” Australian animals means that very few evidence-based management tools are available to deal with contentious roosts.

Research targeting a few key areas would greatly help efforts to improve urban roost management. For instance, we do not know how flying-foxes choose their roost sites, which leaves us unable to design “carrot solutions” by creating more attractive roost sites elsewhere.

Intensive tree-flowering events are relatively infrequent and hard to predict. This means that it is difficult to prepare communities for a sudden influx of flying-foxes.

Furthermore, the acceptability of various flying-fox management options differs between sections of the community, so it is difficult to find optimal solutions. Social scientists are currently trying to help identify priority areas that promote long-term viability of flying-foxes while also easing conflict with humans.

The extreme mobility of flying-foxes means that a uniform federal approach for management is needed. Justin Welbergen/WildPhotos.org

Local, state and federal governments continue to allocate considerable funds for dispersal responses, even though such actions are high-risk activities for local communities and are unlikely to provide long-term solutions. We argue strongly that targeted research is needed to better inform land managers and affected communities of flying-fox ecology and provide them with low-cost, low-risk, evidence-based tools for dealing with urban roosts.

Flying-foxes don’t care about legislative borders, and state-based responsibility for wildlife management leads to discontinuity in approaches between jurisdictions. While flying-foxes are being monitored at the national scale, this initiative needs to be combined with a uniform federal approach for managing flying-foxes in our human landscapes. Otherwise, conflicts such as those faced by the residents of Batemans Bay will continue unabated.

Justin Welbergen is President of the Australasian Bat Society, a not-for-profit organisation that aims to promote the conservation of bats, and receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Peggy Eby represents the scientific community on the NSW Flying-Fox Consultative Committee, a not-for-profit stakeholder group that assists government in developing strategies for conserving and managing flying-foxes in NSW. She works as an ecological consultant to government and industry.

Ancient air bubbles preserved in Antarctic ice. The Ellsworth Mountains Project

The unfortunate manner in which the latest phase of restructuring of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has played out has raised questions about Australia’s scientific capability and our ability to meet international responsibilities.

Faced with a budget cut of A$115 million, some 275 staff have apparently been identified for redundancy (though the final number may be as high as 317). Many of them are scientists contributing to long-term sea, air and climate science programs. The restructure is geared towards focusing CSIRO’s attention on the question, as framed by chief executive Larry Marshall, of “how can we find solutions for the climate we will be living with?”

The problem is that the programs at threat form the backbone of national and international research efforts. Virtually all of them are critical for helping us mitigate and adapt to future climate.

In 1979, the great scientist Carl Sagan wrote:

We live in an extraordinary age. These are times of stunning changes in social organisation, economic wellbeing, moral and ethical precepts, philosophical and religious perspectives, and human self-knowledge … Had we been born fifty years later, the answers would, I think, already have been in.

Australian scientists do indeed live in extraordinary times, but not necessarily for the best of the reasons. We may be living through a remarkable period of discovery, but recent events are a timely reminder that we must all work harder to manage the precious resources available to science if we’re not to threaten decades of investment and hard work.

Global response

The cuts have been met with very public protests, including those by former US vice-president Al Gore and the World Climate Research Program.

The most public of all staff to be earmarked (so far) for redundancy is Dr John Church. He is arguably the world’s leading expert on global sea level rise, a role that is more important than ever for adapting to the effects of climate change. It’s a decision so extraordinary it was even reported in The New York Times.

The facilities at risk from CSIRO cuts are used by research teams around the world.

The threat to close the “Ice Lab” involves a facility unique in the world for analysing ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice, helping understand future climate-carbon feedbacks.

The Tasmanian Cape Grim atmospheric station is crucial for monitoring greenhouse gas levels in the southern hemisphere. Only last week it confirmed CO₂ concentrations now exceed 400 parts per million, likely the last location on the planet to do so.

And just last month, CSIRO staff (of which Dr Church was a senior author) led a Nature Climate Change article showing anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have dominated global sea level rise since 1970. This is crucial work for understanding the source(s) of sea level rise. Such work can inform major infrastructure projects such as Brisbane Airport’s new runway, which is being constructed four metres above minimum required standards to accommodate future coastal flooding.

A wider problem

The funding gap CSIRO faces is a story common to many in the scientific community. Some sectors in the 2016 budget continue to enjoy some funding increases, such as the A$200 million for Antarctic science and A$100 million for Geoscience Australia.

But others have experienced cuts, most notably the Australian Research Council. The ARC has received a further 10% cut on the back of a succession of cuts over recent years.

Putting aside the effect on staff morale and the observation that government science spending has a strong multiplier effect on economic growth, the shortfall of funding in some quarters has immediate implications for how we best co-ordinate our efforts as a community.

Targeted, industry-focused projects are an essential part of a thriving scientific culture in Australia. But the threatened erosion of public science and the loss of capacity in areas of expertise CSIRO has taken decades to build represent a loss to all.

While the recent focus has been on climate science, there are salutary lessons from events of recent months if we are to minimise the impact on this research field and others in the future.

Where to from here?

Like any sector, science needs stability. The cuts have to stop and ideally reverse. If we keep trimming budgets, there will come a point where whatever capacity we have will only be a token effort.

The recent announcement that a CSIRO climate change centre will be established with 40 staff in Hobart is most welcome, but details are sketchy. A major concern regarding all these decisions are how these cuts and developments align with the efforts of the rest of the community.

Reports that the Bureau of Meteorology and Australian Antarctic Division learnt of the proposed cuts in capacity only after the decisions had been made are remarkable if true.

If a realignment of priorities in an institution is to take place, we need to make sure that these decisions are made with wider consultation and as much lead-in time as possible so the scientific community can make the best of a bad situation.

Recently, the Australian Academy of Science announced a welcome, urgent review of national climate science capability. (If you’re part of the community, submissions must be made by June 5, so hurry.)

Announcing cuts that have implications for others without discussion doesn’t help science, it only stifles findings. I hope the CSIRO climate change science centre has been developed in consultation with others and the 40 staff identified are the number truly required.

We need to make sure everyone is talking to one another. Only last week, the CSIRO released its Australia 2030 report, modelling various scenarios for Australia’s future. One scenario is called “weathering the storm”, in which geopolitical instability increases, driven by climate change and regional conflicts.

Faced with this situation, CSIRO suggests that “the energy market relies on tried and tested energy sources such as coal rather than further developing the potential of renewables”.

To suggest under future climate change we should continue to exploit fossil fuels is a remarkable statement from a national scientific body.

We may be half-way to the great leaps in knowledge Sagan prophetically described by 2030, but our understanding of the planet and how we mitigate and adapt to change has to be better co-ordinated as a community. We need to do a lot better.

Chris Turney receives funding from the Australian Research Council and undertakes research with colleagues in CSIRO. He is co-ordinator of the international Earth's Past Future Program (http://earthspastfuture.com/) and a director of CarbonScape (http://carbonscape.com/).

CSIRO has the know-how to develop commercial-scale green energy, with a clear plan and enough money. CSIRO, CC BY

On Friday, the Coalition made a low-key announcement of its new Low Emissions Technology Roadmap. To be developed by the CSIRO, it will aim to “highlight areas of growth in Australia’s clean technology sector”.

Unveiled jointly by the industry and science minister, Christopher Pyne, the environment minister, Greg Hunt, and the energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, the plan asks the CSIRO to identify the most promising ways to reduce emissions and to come up with plans to accelerate the development and commercialisation of Australian technologies such as solar panel components.

With the election campaign in full swing and announcements coming thick and fast, some will obviously get more airtime than others. Still, it was surprising to see this one quietly released on a Friday afternoon, given the seniority of the ministers involved, not to mention the importance of both renewable energy and greenhouse emission reductions as issues in this election.

It’s also not immediately clear what is actually involved in developing a “technology roadmap” like this. It might conceivably follow a model previously developed at the US Sandia National Laboratories, which identified three key elements:

• preliminary activity, which involves defining the project’s precise scope

• developing the roadmap, by deciding which technologies to include and defining specific targets for their development

• follow-up, by working out how the plan is actually going to be implemented.

The announcement in itself has kick-started the first of these three stages. CSIRO has been given the lead for the second element. But it is the third stage – the actual implementation – where roadmaps typically lose their way. Many governments have set roadmaps in the past, only for successive ones to choose different objectives and therefore move down a different path.

The key for any roadmap to deliver its intended outcome is the successful implementation of its proposals. The policy and, crucially, the funding committed to the project will determine whether the ultimate objectives are met.

Pay to play

In the announcement’s press release, Pyne said the roadmap would “achieve a large-scale technology transformation”. But looking at the steps above, this will require policy and investment in those technologies that are to drive the transformation process.

While this announcement supports previous policy pledges, notably the A$1 billion Clean Energy Innovation Fund uneviled two months ago, will this be enough to drive the crucial third stage of the roadmap: developing commercial-scale clean energy generation to the level required to make serious inroads into emissions reduction?

In the past Australia has tended to adopt the cheapest available energy technologies, particularly given that much of the electricity sector is moving from public to private-sector ownership.

Will this change now? Frydenberg’s statement that “the Coalition is committed to a technology-neutral approach to energy policy” would suggest that it may not.

With the minimal growth in electricity demand over recent years, new generation on a large scale will need to be more economical than existing assets, or else policy measures should be put in place to make the new technologies competitive.

Part of the Coalition’s plan, as also stated by Frydenberg, is to ”help identify opportunities for Australian businesses to be involved in the global energy supply chain, with the potential of creating new industries that create new jobs and growth in Australia”. History has shown that while Australia has been a very innovative nation, much of the technology developed here tends to move offshore.

Pyne added that “by 2018 Australian solar technology will be embedded in over 60% of the world’s [photovoltaic] panels”. But how much of this global supply chain has created jobs and growth in Australia?

Hunt also stated that the roadmap will help Australia meet its greenhouse emissions target, which calls for a 26-28% reduction on 2005 levels by 2030. But 2030 is not that far away, and the process of drawing up roadmaps, developing technologies and then commercially deploying them takes time. Support for existing mature technologies, such as solar and wind energy, must be continued in the meantime.

While existing agencies such as the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation support these technologies, ongoing funding is a constant subject of debate within the government. These bodies will jointly administer the new Clean Energy Innovation Fund, but if this new roadmap is to be a success, ARENA’s funding must continue beyond its currently planned expiry date of 2022, and the CEFC needs a longer business plan than the current one which runs to 2019.

In the meantime, it pays to think carefully about the initial phase for the roadmap: defining its precise scope. According to the announcement, the areas to be considered include “renewable energy, smart grids, carbon capture and storage, electric vehicles and energy efficiency” – all areas in which CSIRO has existing research programs. As such, it is well placed to understand the challenges, the investment needed, and realistic time frames for implementation. All of these need to be identified and quantified precisely, given that the plan only spans a few years.

Introducing innovative technology into an existing sector, which is already working, will always draw resistance, particularly from the operators (as well as equipment manufacturers, maintenance companies and fuel suppliers) of existing generation assets. But, of course, decisions about electricity generation have much wider effects than just the provision of energy.

The need to reduce emissions affects every aspect of how we will live our lives in the future. No major political party disputes the need to move from existing technology to a clean energy future. But policy, with sufficient financial backing, needs to be put in place now and supported by successive governments to have any chance of hitting the deadlines we face.

Craig Froome does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

The 2015-16 El Niño has likely reached its end. Tropical Pacific Ocean temperatures, trade winds, cloud and pressure patterns have all dropped back to near normal, although clearly the event’s impacts around the globe are still being felt.

Recent changes in Pacific Ocean temperatures have been comparable to the decline seen at the end of the 1998 El Niño, although temperatures remain warmer than at the end of the most recent El Niño in 2010. Models suggest that ocean cooling will continue, with little chance of a return to El Niño levels in the immediate future.

The 2015–16 El Niño will go down as one of the three strongest El Niño events since 1950. Every El Niño is different, but typically the stronger the event, the greater its global impact. The 2015–16 El Niño was no exception, with wide-ranging effects felt around the world.

El Niño also added to the globe’s warming trend, making 2015 the world’s hottest calendar year on record. Early indications are that 2016 could be hotter still.

So as El Niño fades, let’s take stock of its impacts worldwide.

Typical impacts of El Niño across the globe. Australian Bureau of Meteorology Australia

El Niño is often, but not always, associated with drought in Australia. But the drying influence of the 2015-16 El Niño was initially tempered somewhat by very warm temperatures in the Indian Ocean. From April to August, above-average rainfall fell over parts of inland Western Australia, New South Wales and eastern Victoria.

But by spring, the Indian Ocean was helping El Niño, resulting in Australia’s third-driest spring on record, limiting growth at the end of the cropping season. A record early heatwave in October further reduced crop production in the Murray–Darling Basin.

However, the lack of heavy rains in the north and west meant reduced downtime for mining.

The northern wet season produced a record-low three tropical cyclones in the Australian region. The previous record was five, which happened in 1987-88 and again in 2006-07 – both El Niño years.

Fewer clouds and less tropical rain contributed to the most severe coral bleaching event on record for the Great Barrier Reef.

The combination of heat and low rainfall brought a very early start to the fire season, with more than 70 fires burning in Victoria and around 55 fires in Tasmania during October. Dry conditions in Tasmania also resulted in hundreds of fires being started by dry lightning in mid-January 2016. The fires damaged large areas of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, including areas of rainforest and bogs, which may not have seen fire for centuries.

The Pacific region

In Papua New Guinea, drought and frost led to crop failures and food shortages. Staple sweet potato crops in the highlands were severely damaged by August frosts – the result of El Niño reducing night-time cloud cover – which also destroyed wild plants that are usually eaten as a backup source of food.

Vanuatu, Fiji, the Solomon Islands, Samoa and Tonga experienced worsening drought. Islands closer to the Equator such as Kiribati and Tuvalu had intense rain causing flooding, as well as higher sea levels due to warmer waters and weaker trade winds.

Asia

In the Philippines, drought was declared in 85% of provinces. Indonesia experienced its worst drought in 18 years. Forest fires caused poor air quality over vast neighbouring areas including Singapore, Malaysia, southern Thailand and the southern Philippines.

In the Mekong Basin, delayed monsoon rains reduced rice production, with significant reductions in Vietnam. In Thailand, severe water shortages led to water rationing and delayed rice planting. The Thai government lowered its forecast for rice exports by two million tonnes. This led to some African countries increasing their imports, fearing a price rise.

Palm oil prices rose as supplies became limited due to drought in Malaysia and Indonesia. In April 2016, a heatwave set national temperature records for Thailand, Laos and Cambodia.

Northern parts of China experienced drought in 2015. Heavy rainfall in southern China persisted through the second half of 2015, with flooding and landslides recorded along the Yangtze River Valley. China’s December-to-February rainfall was approximately 50% above normal. In May 2016, heavy rain caused flooding and landslides in China’s Guangdong province.

In India, below-average monsoon rains in June to September led to reduced rice, corn, cotton and sugar output in 2015. Below-average rainfall between October and December also affected India’s wheat harvest. Major water shortages emerged in some areas, including Mumbai – the result of two years of failed rains.

Indian Premier League cricket matches were relocated from Mumbai, Pune and Nagpur due to water restrictions. Record heat affected the north and west of the country in May, setting a new national record of 51℃ in Phalodi.

Conversely, some southern parts of India had exceptionally wet conditions, with record-breaking rains and widespread flooding in Chennai in November and December. The city received over 300mm of rainfall on December 1, 2015; the wettest day in more than a century.

South and Central America

Peru experienced widespread flooding and mudslides in early 2016, with heavy rain leaving more than 5,000 people homeless. In Ecuador, flooding and landslides damaged properties and affected shrimp production.

More than 150,000 people were evacuated from flooded areas in Paraguay, Uruguay, Brazil, and Argentina in December 2015. Some experts have linked El Niño flooding to outbreaks of mosquito-borne diseases such as Zika virus.

In January 2016, Argentina experienced its worst locust plague since 1954, following heavy rains and warm temperatures. Heavy rains returned to Argentina and Paraguay in April 2016, causing large agricultural losses.

In contrast, Colombia experienced drought and forest fires, which caused severe damage to crops and pushed up food prices, leading to malnutrition in some areas. In November 2015, the United Nations warned that 2.3 million people would need food aid in Central America.

The Caribbean also experienced drought; Cuba had its most severe dry season in 115 years; Barbados, Dominica, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Antigua, Barbuda and Saint Lucia experienced water shortages, with the latter declaring a national emergency. The Dominican Republic experienced serious agricultural losses.

Brazil had a particularly high number of forest fires during 2015, exacerbated by ongoing drought conditions in the Amazon region. Drought in Brazil and Colombia (and Indonesia) meant coffee prices soared as dry conditions affected all the major coffee-producing countries.

In contrast, excess rain in northeast Brazil flooded crops, leading to rises in the sugar price worldwide.

North America

In California, many hoped that El Niño would bring relief from five years of drought. But despite some regions getting heavy rain more typical of El Niño, leading to mudslides, El Niño failed to end the long-term dry.

In the southeast and south-central United States, rainfall was above normal. Major flooding occurred along the Mississippi River. Missouri received three times its normal rainfall during November and December 2015.

Warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures offshore meant warm water species such as sea snakes, red tuna crabs and hammerhead sharks were found on Californian beaches.

Africa

Drought meant that South African food production was around six million tonnes below normal levels — the lowest since 1995.

In Zimbabwe, Malawi and Mozambique, maize prices were at least 50% higher than usual, with drought unlikely to break until rains in summer 2016–17. In the driest areas of Zimbabwe, more than 75% of crops were lost. In May 2016, Zimbabwean national parks put wildlife up for sale in a bid to save animals from drought.

The cost of chocolate hit a four-year high as a result of drought and lost production in the world’s major cocoa producer, Ivory Coast.

Drought also affected Ethiopia, Somalia, Swaziland, Zambia and parts of Madagascar, with more than 10 million Ethiopians in need of food aid.

In December 2015, Rift Valley fever was reported in East Africa. The disease is associated with heavy rainfall providing a fertile breeding ground for the mosquitoes that carry the virus.

In Tanzania, heavy rain destroyed crops and food reserves, while in Kenya heavy rains aggravated cholera outbreaks. In May 2016, landslides in Rwanda cost many lives and heavy rains damaged infrastructure and hundreds of homes.

For information on the current and forecast state of ENSO, keep an eye on the Bureau’s ENSO Wrap-Up.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Fixing water pollution on the Great Barrier Reef will take a huge effort. Reef image from www.shutterstock.com

Current measures are not enough to protect the Great Barrier Reef, according to experts in a government report released today.

After a year of careful analysis, the Great Barrier Reef Water Science Taskforce has delivered its final report to the Queensland environment minister, Steven Miles. This is part of efforts to resource the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan, which was designed to meet the challenges facing the reef.

The report is part of the response to the United Nations' concerns that the reef is in danger of irreparable damage – with declining water quality from farming and land-use change being a major driver. The reef narrowly missed being listed as “in danger” in 2015.

The Queensland government has committed A$90 million over the next four years specifically for water quality. The federal government has also committed funding, but it remains to be seen how much will be directed specifically to water quality concerns.

The report recommends the money should be directed at understanding and beginning to reverse the impact of sediment and nutrient from rivers flowing into the Great Barrier Reef.

By any degree, the taskforce has done well in terms of bringing together a wide range of opinions and perspectives on a potentially contentious issue — views that are unified around the report’s conclusions.

While the report is not about climate change, climate change is critically important to whether the plan will ultimately succeed or fail. Stronger storms, floods, droughts and underwater heatwaves will all make the task of solving the water quality issue even harder.

So there is an assumption that we will beat the climate change challenge through mechanisms such as the international commitments that Australia agreed to under the Paris Agreement in December 2015.

Starting to reverse the damage

The Great Barrier Reef and its river catchment are bigger than Italy. With problems going back over 100 years, A$90 million is not going to fix all of the problems, but it can start to significantly reverse the damage.

The Queensland government has committed to ambitious water quality targets adopted in the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan — for instance, reducing nitrogen runoff by 80% and sediment by 50% across the key catchments of the Wet Tropics and the Burdekin by 2025. As many have noted, these targets will not be achieved under current practice — even if farmers fully adopt best management practices — and the taskforce report agrees.

Angry voices on soapboxes won’t solve this monumental challenge. That will only come about through inclusive and considered processes — it needs a long-term, sustained and coordinated reef-wide strategy.

We must redefine how we manage — and therefore resource — the Great Barrier Reef system, from the ecosystems that thrive in it to the industries and communities that depend on it for the long term. That strategy should coordinate all existing but separate approaches.

We’ve been here before

Fortunately — or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it — Australia has been here before with a complex environmental problem that crosses multiple borders. Particularly in the past 15 years, state and federal governments have attempted to undo a century of mismanagement in the Murray-Darling Basin.

Although water quantity is the issue in the basin, as opposed to water quality in the Great Barrier Reef, there are similarities.

The two systems are a similar size — the Murray-Darling Basin covers a million square kilometres, and the Great Barrier Reef half-a-million sq km. In both cases, productive industries such as farming cotton or cane closely interact with valuable ecological systems. Overall, they produce billions of dollars of annual revenue from food production, tourism and other industries.

In each case, international pressure (the RAMSAR convention on wetlands in the Murray-Darling, UNESCO for the reef) have played very significant roles in encouraging responsible actions from Australia.

Billions of dollars have been spent on the Murray-Darling — and similar investment is probably required for the Great Barrier Reef catchments. While action within the Murray-Darling system hasn’t been (and still isn’t) perfect, we can learn much from the experience.

Where to from here?

In our opinion, and drawing on the experiences in the Murray-Darling, the following principles should be core to any strategy for the reef.

First, recognise that a significant shift is required in how we manage and develop land next to the Great Barrier Reef. While this is politically, economically and socially difficult, the fallout will be greater if we don’t get this right.

Farmers must be enabled and supported to care for the land to deliver both economic outcomes and ecosystem services. They are the stewards of our natural capital as well as key contributors to our economy.

We’ll also need to take a small proportion of land out of production to form riparian strips, and incentives will need to be established to ensure the careful use of fertiliser, better use of cover crops, and the like. Again, these initiatives are occurring now, but we need to adopt a whole-of-system approach that corrals these actions into a coherent strategy.

The efficiencies introduced through the National Water Initiative and later the Murray-Darling Basin Plan did achieve such a shift there.

Second, acknowledge that nothing we do to address water quality issues makes sense if we don’t also address climate change as a major source of the problem. Any strategy to protect the reef has to include meaningful action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and vice versa. Solving the climate issue only to let the reef down on the water quality issue doesn’t make any sense either.

Third, full and enduring cooperation and coordination between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments are essential. Anything else risks duplication, redundancy, confusion and, more than likely, a monumental waste of money.

The political heat in the lead-up to the National Water Initiative, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the 2007 Water Act served only to diminish the opportunities for a lasting and meaningful solution to excessive water allocation in the basin.

Fourth, in support of the cooperative federalist approach, a statutory authority that oversees the implementation of the strategy — with appropriate financial incentives and regulatory powers — will be necessary. This authority would operate across Queensland river catchment and estuarine regions. We would argue that this should be a separate entity to GBRMPA, which already has its hands full managing the reef.

One of the successes from efforts in water reform was the National Water Commission, which played a crucial role in the implementation of the National Water Initiative. Its subsequent demise was regrettable.

Fifth, well-designed, market-based mechanisms work. Just as some efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are cheaper than others, we need to know which measures that reduce water quality are most cost-effective. If designed correctly, these mechanisms have the potential to drive innovation and game-changing ideas.

A water quality “trading scheme” should be explored. If done properly, such a market could prove to be enormously beneficial to farmers as well as the reef.

Finally, make sure the strategy has the resources to get the job done. While throwing money at the problem won’t solve it on its own (the billions spent in the Murray-Darling Basin proved that), the challenge will demand significant resources over the coming decade.

Such finance need not come from governments alone. If the principles above are implemented in a way that provides transparency and certainty to the market, then the private sector may be able to contribute.

These are the first steps of a journey that is critical for the long-term survival of the Great Barrier Reef. As the taskforce stresses, this is a journey that will require clever policy that adapts to a dynamic world.

The reforms to address the problems of the Murray-Darling Basin were triggered by the Millennium Drought. The recent coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef should inspire the same urgency.

And, if so, let’s hope that we are now truly on a pathway to a future for the Great Barrier Reef where its people, industries and ecosystems thrive into the future.

This article was co-authored by Robin Smale, director of Vivid Economics.

Karen Hussey receives funding from the Commonwealth Government and the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with WWF Australia and the TJ Ryan Foundation.

Professor Hoegh-Guldberg undertakes research on coral reef ecosystems and their response to rapid environmental change, which is supported primarily by the Australian Research Council (Canberra), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Washington, D.C.), Catlin Group (London), and Great Barrier Reef Foundation (Brisbane). He is a member of the Great Barrier Reef Water Science Taskforce. He did not receive salary for writing this article.

Robin Smale is director of Vivid Economics. Vivid Economics is contracted to the Commonwealth Department of the Environment examining financing of conservation projects on the Great Barrier Reef, and has had previous contracts with Commonwealth Government and Government of New South Wales.

Australia is now pretty much the only major advanced economy where pollution levels are going up, not coming down. – Labor shadow minister for the environment, climate change and water, Mark Butler, speech to the National Press Club, May 18, 2016.

During a debate with environment minister Greg Hunt, Labor’s shadow environment minister Mark Butler said that Australia is “pretty much” the only major advanced economy where pollution levels are rising.

Is he right?

Checking the sources

When asked for data to support his assertion, a spokesperson for Butler referred The Conversation to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the UN agency that oversees international climate negotiations. The spokesperson also referred us to the website of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which suggests that by pollution he meant “greenhouse gas emissions”. However, the spokesperson did not specify what data set the statement was based upon, nor what Butler defined as a “major advanced economy”.

The IMF defines a “major advanced economy” as the G7 nations (and Australia is not among its members). In this FactCheck, we aim to compare Australia’s emissions with a range of advanced economies including the G7 member countries, the EU bloc and a selection of others such as Iceland, Korea and New Zealand.

The Conversation also asked over what time period pollution levels were “going up” according to Butler, but didn’t hear back before deadline.

Nevertheless, there are some obvious data sets against which Butler’s statement can be tested.

How are Australia’s emissions trending?

Greenhouse gas emissions inventory data released in May by the Department of Environment show that Australia’s emissions (excluding land use, land use change and forestry or LULUCF) rose by 0.4% between December 2014 and December 2015. Emissions rose 1.1% if land-use and forestry emissions are included.

The report included the following graph:

National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (excluding Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry), annual, ‘unadjusted’ emissions, 2005 to 2015. Department of Environment

The graph shows that Australian emissions have essentially stagnated over the past decade. The data shows a slight decrease from 2012 to 2014 and then an increase from 2014 to 2015.

So Butler was right to suggest that Australia’s emissions are on the rise, based on the latest 12-month snapshot. But is Australia the only advanced economy where that’s happening?

How are other countries' emissions trending?

It turns out it’s not so easy to see if other advanced economies had an emissions rise between 2014 and 2015. There simply isn’t enough accurate global data available to do that comparison for such a recent and short time period.

To compare the most recent greenhouse gas emissions data (excluding land-use and forestry for which accounting rules vary) between countries, we used the PRIMAPHIST data set produced by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

This composite data set uses widely recognised data sources, including data from the UNFCCC and other UN agencies. It contains greenhouse gas data (aggregated in a standardised way) for all countries.

For developed countries, the data is extracted from national reports to the United Nations. For other countries, sources of data vary and more details are available here.

As we said, there’s not enough recent data available to see if Australia is the only country where emissions rose between 2014 and 2015. However, we can compare Australia’s emissions trends with other countries' emissions trends over a longer time interval – between 2000 and 2014 (the latest credible data available).

When we check what the PRIMAPHIST data shows about how Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions compare over that time frame with some of the other advanced economies (with the 28 European Union member states included as a bloc), here’s how it looks:

Don’t be deceived by what may appear to be a low level of Australian emissions (the blue line). It’s an illusion. In fact, Australia is among highest per capita emitters.

A more telling way to determine how greenhouse gas trends have changed over time is to look at emissions as a percentage of 2000 levels. Crunched this way, here’s how Australian emissions between 2000 and 2014 look when compared with a selection of advanced economies.

Australian emissions in 2014 were at 110.1% of the level they were in 2000. EU emissions in 2014 were at 82.43% of the level they were at in 2000. Calculations exclude emissions resulting from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) because there is no sufficiently reliable standardised accounting of LULUCF.

Our analysis of the PRIMAPHIST data shows that:

• Australia’s emissions rose fairly steadily until 2008 and have more or less stagnated since then.
• Overall emissions for the G7 economies (with the EU member states grouped together) have been decreasing, mostly since 2007, and in 2014 were 8.9% below 2000 levels.
• EU emissions show a strong decreasing trend.
• Emissions from Canada, Japan and the United States show large fluctuations since 2008.
• Australia’s emissions in 2014 were above those in 2000 – and this is unusual among advanced economies, but not unique.
• Emissions from Korea, Iceland and New Zealand were also higher in 2014 than they were in 2000.

What is most relevant, however, is what Australia’s emissions will do between now and 2030 and whether each nation is doing its fair share to limit global warming.

Verdict

Whether or not Butler was right really depends on what time frame you’re looking at.

Government data shows that from 2014 to 2015, Australia’s emissions increased but we can’t say for sure if Australia was “pretty much” the only major advanced economy that experienced a rise that year. There’s not sufficient reliable comparative data available for that year.

Zooming out to check longer-term trends, we know that Australia’s emissions in 2014 were above those in 2000. This is unusual among advanced economies – but Australia was not alone in this regard.

Comparing Australia’s emissions trend with the major advanced economies (the G7 countries with the EU bloc) between 2000 and 2014, Australia is the only one that had growing emissions over that time period. – Yann Robiou du Pont and Anita Talberg.

Review

The authors of this FactCheck are correct. Mark Butler’s statement is suitably vague, such that depending on the definition of “major economy” and the time frame that is examined, the claim is probably true. Plus, the caveat of “pretty much” gives the statement a bit of leeway. The lack of solid, comparable data from all developed countries as well as major developing countries for the most recent time period also makes the claim difficult to confirm with absolute certainty.

The fact that Australia’s emissions are increasing is worthy of mention in itself, especially in the light of the pledges made at the Paris CoP21 meeting. – Roger Dargaville

Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.

Yann Robiou du Pont receives funding from the Melbourne International Engagement Award (MIEA) scholarship.

Anita Talberg receives an Australian Postgraduate Award PhD scholarship.

Roger Dargaville receives funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA)

Airlines have saved energy by changing flight routes and modifying wings for better fuel use. Plane image from www.shutterstock.com

Companies could improve their profits by 2-10% each year by saving energy. That’s just one of the findings of ClimateWorks Australia’s Energy Productivity Index, a world-first attempt to assess companies' energy performance and help investors make better decisions.

Investors are increasingly engaging with companies to address the risks associated with climate change. Extreme weather events, carbon-intensive assets and greenhouse gas emissions are becoming part of a routine risk assessment on the impact of a company’s profitability.

While a company’s energy use can have a significant impact on its bottom line and environmental credentials, energy productivity and efficiency have traditionally been difficult for investors to assess. This is mainly due to a lack of tools to measure and assess energy use and poor levels of disclosure by companies.

My colleagues and I have developed a guide to help investors figure out how potential investments are performing. We assessed 70 companies across six industrial sectors: airlines, automobiles, paper, steel, chemicals and construction.

Saving energy …

Many industrial companies spend a huge part of their operating expenditure on energy – typically more than 15%.

Energy productivity generally refers to the amount of revenue per unit of energy, so improving energy productivity can greatly improve a business’s investment value.

We found that more than 70% of the companies analysed have significant room for improvement in their energy use. Even more startling is the wide variation between companies in the same sector.

In some sectors, the leaders are achieving energy productivity levels up to five times the levels of poorer performers.

For example, in the automobile sector, Toyota produces eight times more vehicles per gigajoule of energy used than the least productive company, Daimler.

… making money

We also found that improving energy efficiency (by using less energy) could significantly boost a company’s profit. Of all the sectors analysed, airline companies reported the largest savings.

United Continental reported annual savings of US$343 million in 2014. This was achieved through initiatives that reduce fuel use, such as improved flight planning, replacing old planes, washing engines and installing winglets.

And despite operating in an energy-intensive sector, steel company Arcelor Mittal achieved almost US$200 million in energy savings in 2014.

The analysis also shows that one-third of the companies analysed could boost their profit margins by more than 5% a year if they matched the performance of leaders in their sector.

Even accounting for upfront capital costs needed to achieve best practice, energy efficiency can still increase profits by 2-10% each year. Most energy initiatives could be paid off in less than three years.

Even a 2% improvement in profits for companies in the automobile sector would be equal to about US$100 million. To achieve an equivalent increase in profits from revenue growth, a company would need to sell an extra 90,000 cars each year.

Ranking companies

Several factors affect a company’s energy performance. We looked at three:

• Resilience to energy costs measured through how much a company spends on energy and its profitability. A company that spends less on energy and has greater profitability is more resilient to changes in energy prices.

• Energy productivity measured by a company’s current ability to generate revenue or increase its production per unit of energy used.

• Energy efficiency measured by a company’s efforts in identifying and implementing energy savings. We included the extra financial gain of a company matching the energy efficiency of leading performers.

While we were able to rank many companies, we found that many others are not disclosing sufficient data on energy use to be assessed. Of 181 companies that reported in the six sectors analysed, 73 had incomplete or insufficient data for benchmarking. Much improvement is needed on data availability and data quality.

The global goal

While improving energy performance may be great for the bottom line, there’s another big reason energy use is so important. According to the International Energy Agency, energy-efficiency gains could achieve about 40% of the emissions reductions required by 2050 to limit global warming to less than 2℃.

Engaging with companies in their portfolios to improve their energy productivity is a measurable and profitable way to reduce emissions and avoid dangerous climate change.

Improving energy productivity has benefits not just for those investors and companies directly involved, but for all of us.

Wei Sue does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

The dairy industry faces a number of welfare and environmental issues. Cow image from www.shutterstock.com

The Australian dairy farming industry is in a state of crisis. Cheap dairy products and fluctuations in both the domestic and global markets have taken a financial toll on farmers. Consumers have rallied to help struggling dairy producers.

But this is only half the problem. The true cost of dairy is also paid by dairy cows and the environment.

Welfare problems

Despite the idyllic image of outdoor farming, several industry practices negatively affect dairy cows. To meet production demands, dairy cows are subject to a continuous cycle of impregnation, induced calving and milking.

Tail-docking and horn removal are routinely performed without pain relief. Lameness is another major animal welfare problem, often the result of environmental pressures, such as tracks, herd size and handling. The average lifespan of a dairy cow is six to seven years, whereas generally cows can live for 20 to 25 years.

One of the most controversial issues is young “bobby” calves. A bobby calf is a newborn calf, less than 30 days old, who has been purposely separated from their mother. Immediately after separation, cow and calf call out and search for each other.

Most bobby calves are slaughtered within the first week of their life. Handling and transport pose added problems for young calves who have not developed herding behaviours, are vulnerable to stress, and are forced to go without their mother’s milk. Each year, 450,000 bobby calves are slaughtered.

Advocacy groups frequently uncover the routine abuse of bobby calves in Australian abattoirs and challenge the dairy industry to do something about it.

Yet aside from the wider ethical questions over the use and exploitation of animals, farmers are not legally doing anything wrong. This is because the treatment of animals operates in a legal context where animals are considered absolute property.

What’s more, farm animals are exempt from the provisions of anti-cruelty legislation. Codes of practice are practically useless, because they promote low welfare standards and are unenforceable.

The environmental impact

As well as systematic welfare problems, livestock farming is, both directly and indirectly, one of the most ecologically harmful human activities. The Australian livestock sector is worth A$17 billion and dairy cattle farming is a A$4.2 billion industry.

In Australia, livestock farming accounts for 10% to 16% of greenhouse gas emissions, with dairy farms contributing 19% of this, or 3% of total emissions. Methane emissions, from digestion and manure, and nitrous oxide from livestock are significant contributors. Globally, the livestock sector is responsible for more greenhouse gases than the world’s transport.

Livestock production accounts for 70% of all agricultural land, including the land used to grow crops to feed these animals. Animal agriculture is a key factor in land degradation, deforestation, water stress, pollution, and loss of biodiversity.

Livestock farming will also be affected by climate change, particularly changes in temperature and water. The quantity and quality of pasture and forage crops will also be affected. Diseases may increase due to fluctuating weather and climate.

Emissions can be reduced

Just as the energy sector is attempting to transition to low-carbon energy sources to tackle climate change, the agricultural sector needs to transition to an ethical and sustainable alternative.

From the current crisis, there are several opportunities for farmers to seize. Large transitions are possible in land use, production, output and profitability.

Places such as Gippsland in Victoria, which currently produces 19% of Australia’s dairy, have the opportunity for agricultural development based on apples and brassicas, such as broccoli, kale, cauliflower, cabbage, turnip and mustard. Some of these crops are already popular in the region. As a result of climate change and increasing temperatures, some areas will be more suitable than others.

While still in the stages of research, perennial grain crops – which store more carbon, maintain better soil and water quality, and manage nutrients better than annuals – have the potential to contribute to sustainable agriculture. New land uses could also include carbon plantings, biofuels and bioenergy crops. Investing into further research for alternatives to livestock farming is needed.

Some have argued that livestock emissions can be technically mitigated by modifying animal feed, better managing pastures, carbon sequestration and manure storage.

Welfare issues remain

But technical mitigation does not address the endemic animal welfare problems in the livestock industry.

Consumer demand is one of the most powerful strategies to combat animal welfare and environmental problems. Research shows that we must reduce food waste and losses in the supply chain and change our diets toward less resource-intensive diets, such as a plant-based diets. Doing so would cut emissions by two-thirds and save lives. It’s possible to eliminate animal suffering and reduce carbon emissions by reducing and replacing livestock production and consumption.

Alternatives to dairy milk include soy and almond milk. Soy milk is nutritionally comparable to dairy milk and has a significantly smaller environmental footprint.

Policy initiatives also need to address these issues. The Food and Agriculture Organization’s Livestock’s Long Shadow report recommends a policy approach that correctly prices natural resources to reflect the full environmental costs and to end damaging subsidies. In the interim, higher taxes on meat and other livestock products will be necessary to improve public health and combat climate change.

Denmark, for instance, is considering proposals raise the tax on meat, after its ethics council concluded that “climate change is an ethical problem”.

Governments everywhere need to have a transitional plan for livestock producers and workers – one that helps to cultivate the ethical and sustainable agricultural endeavours of the future.

Gonzalo N Villanueva does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Technological advances have provided many benefits for environmental research. Sensors on southern elephant seals have been used to map the Southern Ocean, while tracking devices have given us a new view of mass animal migrations, from birds to zebras.

Miniaturisation of electronics and improvements in reliability and affordability mean that consumer drones (also known as unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs) are now improving scientific research in a host of areas. And they are growing more popular for wildlife management, as well as research.

Wildlife drones can be used in many different ways, from small multi-rotor units that can scare invasive birds away from crops, to fixed-wing aircraft that fly above rainforests to spot orangutan nests. UAVs have also been shown to provide more precise data than traditional ground-based techniques when it comes to monitoring seabird colonies.

Other industries, from mining to window-cleaning, are looking at using drone technology. Some forecasts predict that the global market for commercial applications of UAVs will be valued at more than US$127 billion. Given their usefulness in the biologist’s toolkit, the uptake of UAVs for environmental monitoring is likely to continue.

But this proliferation of drones raises questions about how best to regulate the use of these aircraft, and how to ensure that wildlife do not come to harm.

A UAV-mounted camera provides an aerial view of a Sumatran elephant (Elephas maximus sumatranus) in North Sumatra. L. P. Koh Wildlife disturbance

Biologists carrying out field studies are typically interested in animals' natural state, or how their behaviour changes when conditions are altered. So it is important to know whether the UAVs disturb the animals and, if so, exactly how.

Of course, different species in different environments are likely to have very different responses to the presence of a UAV. This will also depend on the type of UAV and how it is used. Our current understanding of wildlife responses is limited.

A team of French and South African biologists observed the reaction of semi-captive and wild birds to UAVs. They found that the approach angle had a significant impact on the birds' reaction, but approach speed, UAV colour and flight repetition did not.

In polar regions, where UAVs may be particularly useful for sampling inaccessible areas, researchers found that Adélie penguins were more alert when a UAV was in range, particularly at low altitudes.

These studies, and similar observational studies on other animals besides birds, provide an initial understanding of wildlife behaviour. But the animals' behaviour is only one aspect of their response – we still need to know what happens to their physiology.

Cardiac bio-loggers fitted to a small number of free-roaming American black bears in northwestern Minnesota have shown that UAV flights increased the bears' heart rates by as much as 123 beats per minute. Even an individual in its winter hibernation den showed stress responses to a UAV flying above.

Interestingly, the bears rarely showed any behavioural response to the drones. This shows that just because animals do not appear visually disturbed, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re not stressed.

A code of practice

We have developed a code of best practice, published today in the journal Current Biology, which seeks to mitigate or alleviate potential UAV disturbance to wildlife. It advocates the precautionary principle in lieu of sufficient evidence, encouraging researchers to recognise that wildlife responses are varied, can be hard to detect, and could have severe consequences.

Jarrod Hodgson launches a fixed-wing UAV on Macquarie Island. J. Hodgson

It also provides practical recommendations. The code encourages the use of equipment that minimises the stimulus to wildlife. Using minimum-disturbance flight practices (such as avoiding threatening approach trajectories or sporadic flight movements) is advised. The code also recognises the importance of following civil aviation rules and effective maintenance and training schedules, and using animal ethics processes to provide oversight to UAV experiments.

The code isn’t just food for thought for biologists. It is relevant to all UAV users and regulators, from commercial aerial videographers to hobbyists. Unintentionally or otherwise, such users may find themselves piloting drones close to wildlife.

Our code urges the UAV community to be responsible operators. It encourages awareness of the results of flying in different environments and the use of flight practices that result in minimum wildlife disturbance.

Low-impact conservation

As researchers continue to develop and refine UAV wildlife monitoring techniques, research that quantifies disturbance should be prioritised. This research will need to be multi-faceted, because responses could vary between species or individuals, as well as over time and in different environments. Greater knowledge could help us to draw up species-specific guidelines for drone use, to minimise disturbance on a case-by-case basis.

UAVs are a useful wildlife monitoring tool. We need to proactively develop and implement low-impact monitoring techniques. Doing so will expand our technological arsenal in the battle to manage Earth’s precious and increasingly threatened wildlife.

Lian Pin Koh receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Jarrod Hodgson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

With a federal election looming, Australia’s top mandarins will once again be turning their minds to the incoming government briefs, the so-called blue book if the Coalition is returned and the red book if Labor is elected.

High on the agenda will be the organisation of the bureaucracy and it won’t get any trickier than climate change.

A question for an incoming government will be whether to re-establish a Department of Climate Change?

And if not, what should be done?

Pass the parcel

To state the obvious, the past decade of Australian climate politics has been anything but stable. Climate agencies have been established, abolished and merged at a rate reflecting the volatility of policy settings.

As prime minister, John Howard established Australia’s first standalone climate agency in 1998, the Australian Greenhouse Office. Six years later, it had been merged into the then Department of the Environment and Heritage.

As a statutory agency it was the first in the world dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it didn’t have a secretary to represent it at the highest levels of government.

This changed in 2007 with the election of the Labor government, which had campaigned on climate change. The new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, created the Department of Climate Change.

This was the first time that climate change was given its own secretary and its own minister in cabinet. Both were within the prime minister’s portfolio to underline the importance of climate change to the government.

Martin Parkinson, now the secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, had the task of establishing the new department as its first secretary. It was to have a broad scope, with a remit not just for domestic climate policy, but also responsibility for international climate change negotiations. This had until that point resided in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). It was to be responsible for policy but not implementation.

The new department lasted only six years. In 2013, it was merged into the Department of Industry under then prime minister Julia Gillard, perhaps in the hope that it would be saved from the wrath of the Liberal opposition leader, Tony Abbott, whose likely victory had been based on abolishing Labor’s climate policies.

Abbott’s ascension to the prime minister’s office later that year coincided with another shift. History was repeated as climate change was sent to the Department of Environment, with the international negotiations returning to DFAT.

Do we need a climate department?

Little has changed since under Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership and, with this history, only a fool would predict what’s next. But with an election in the offing, there is every reason to believe more change is on its way.

There are three things to consider.

First, representation. Climate change is arguably the greatest economic and security threat that Australia faces. As a result, it demands proper representation within government.

That means that climate change needs to be represented by its own departmental secretary in the bureaucracy and its own minister in the cabinet. In practice this could mean either a separate department, or the explicit inclusion of climate change in the title of a department with additional responsibilities.

Second is the scope of the portfolio. At the domestic level, the causes of climate change – fuel combustion for energy, and land-use change – are associated with almost every domestic economic activity. This means that the climate portfolio must have a wide remit.

But a climate change department cannot be a department of everything. Where to draw the line?

Other countries (such as Denmark and the United Kingdom) have combined climate change and energy, but that implies that the land sector is of secondary importance. In Australia that would be a mistake because agriculture, for example, produces roughly 13% of our emissions and land use is hugely important in adapting to the changing climate.

At the international level, the fact that climate change is a global problem means there will always be a diplomatic dimension to the portfolio. DFAT’s prioritising of fossil fuel trade lost it the leadership of international climate change processes under Labor, but under Foreign Minister Julie Bishop DFAT has been more strategic.

The Paris climate summit last December represented a major shift towards integrating climate and development policies. Aid policies will play a critical role, so the case for continued DFAT leadership internationally is strong.

The third thing to consider is transparency. If Australia is to meet its emissions targets, which are likely to become more stringent over time, business is going to have to shoulder the burden of change. To be sure, an emissions trading scheme, or something like it such as a baseline and credit scheme, will require fundamental changes to the Australian economy.

Any climate change agency will need to be open and transparent in the way it consults and manages not only environment groups but business too. These will have to be brought on board if change is to proceed smoothly.

Doing what’s possible

On this basis, there are good reasons for the incoming government briefs to recommend the re-establishment of a department of climate change. This would satisfy the question of representation, especially if a well-respected senior public servant were appointed to the helm.

If it develops a transparent culture that is open to all stakeholders, Australia might just be able to establish a climate department for the long term.

What recommendations end up in the red or blue book we may never know. The choices of a new government may express simple political preference. Labor may be more inclined to bring climate change policy under one bureaucratic roof and the Coalition to maintain the status quo.

Regardless, history suggests we need top-down co-ordination to build coherent policy. If a department of climate change is too difficult, a standing committee of cabinet will be essential to avoid reliving past failures.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

AAP/Lukas Coch

Two weeks into a protracted election campaign, it is looking ever-more likely that climate change is to be placed way down the order of business – at least for the major parties.

The contest over climate change that characterised the previous three elections seems to have disappeared off the political radar despite the issue being more urgent than ever. Since the Paris climate summit, global average temperatures continue to break month-on-month records.

Just a few weeks after the summit, the North Pole was briefly not even able to reach freezing point – in the middle of winter. And just this month, Cape Grim surpassed a 400 ppm baseline minimum.

Then there is the truly frightening climate spiral developed by Ed Hawkins from the University of Reading. It shows what an El Niño amplified global temperature has climbed to. The spiral assumes a tight-knit but ever-expanding ball until April 2015, when the spiral line starts to separate dramatically from the ball. This year it careers dangerously close to the 1.5℃ threshold.

Climate spiral. Ed Hawkins The diminishing political and media spiral on climate

While global temperatures may be spiralling out of control, the opposite appears to be happening with the climate issue attention cycle in Australia.

Apparently, climate is less important than jobs and growth – or, in Labor’s case, health and schools.

A big part of this change in political climates is undoubtedly the Paris summit itself. The political triumphalism of the summit belies the scientific pessimism of so many climate scientists and activists.

Kevin Anderson from Manchester University’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research even declared the summit to be “worse that Copenhagen”, in that it is based on out-of-date science, does not include aviation and shipping, and includes negative emissions in its scenarios for achieving abatement.

On the other hand, after the collapse of talks at Copenhagen, some activists see no choice but to climb aboard with the Paris agreement, insofar as it at least signifies a mainstream seachange in action – even if the actual measures are inadequate. The INDCs that came out of the conference still put the world on a path to 3.5℃.

Yet so many politicians from around the globe have sought to convince their constituents that the climate problem is all but solved. The Coalition is banking on such a sell to the Australian electorate as it gambles with a climate attention minimisation strategy. Much of this sell has been left to the “best minister in the world” Greg Hunt, both before and after the Paris summit.

Hunt has already claimed success on meeting the 2020 target, and with strategies to meet the 2030 target.

Little of the Government’s progress in meeting the 2020 target is due to reducing emissions. Rather it has been the reduction in land-clearing, consumer-driven domestic solar, and the decline in manufacturing that have been decisive in meeting the 2020 targets.

The Guardian’s Lenore Taylor has pointed out that while the Coalition is bringing back the “carbon tax” scare campaign of 2013, its own scheme would have to draw on the “safeguard mechanism” component of Direct Action – which is itself a disguised ETS – to have any chance of meeting the targets.

Short of leaning on this mechanism, the only other option the Coalition has is to increase the taxpayer-funded emissions reduction fund to a level that would make a mockery of any claims to budget responsibility.

Add to this the fact that recent academic research on Direct Action has reaffirmed its status as a form of corporate welfare that is allocated to projects that would have happened anyway. And all this is in an Australia that has increased its already high emissions 3% since 2000.

Shifting voter attitudes on climate

But have Hunt’s strategies worked on the Australian electorate? Not according to a recent ReachTEL poll of 2,400 respondents on May 9, which revealed that 56% believed the government needed to do more to tackle global warming.

64% said they would be more likely to vote for a party that has a plan to source 100% of Australia’s electricity from renewable sources like wind, solar and hydro in the next 20 years.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull seems to have switched off his personal barometer on climate as an issue that is too politically fraught. In 2010, he said:

We know that the consequences of unchecked global warming would be catastrophic … We as a human species have a deep and abiding obligation to this planet and to the generations that will come after us.

But since then, Turnbull appears to have sacrificed his convictions to the climate-illiterate backbench of his party.

Labor has not done much better. While it has more ambitious 2030 abatement targets than the Coalition, it has been particularly silent in reminding voters of its climate policy alternative.

Labor and the Greens

Both major parties have opted to entrench their duopoly by not going after big targets on any of the issues that are usually recycled at election time.

Instead, much airtime has been spent in the opening weeks of the campaign attacking the Greens. Liberal ministers take every opportunity to pillory any alliance between the Greens and Labor. Last week, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann told Fairfax Media:

We see them very much on a unity ticket. In our judgement, Labor and the Greens are now on an anti-business, anti-jobs, and anti-growth unity ticket.

In the same week, Turnbull labelled Labor’s proposal to double the intake of refugees as a “gesture to the Greens” on the back of Immigration Minister Peter Dutton’s attack on the Greens’ asylum-seeker policy.

But, curiously, Labor and the Greens are at war themselves, or at least they are desperately giving the appearance they are. According to Michael Cooney from the Labor thinktank the Chifley Research Centre and Ben Oquist from the Australia Institute, Labor and the Greens have attacked each other because nearly every inner-city seat the Greens have a chance of winning for the first time are Labor-held.

The Greens are also distancing themselves from Labor because they want to capture the anti-politics vote. This is best achieved by showing yourself to be radically different from the major parties.

Labor, on the other hand, is almost forced into attacking the Greens because of the long-run stigma that News Corp papers have attached to any such alliance. During the first days of the election campaign, the Daily Telegraph and The Australian were jumping in with stories that no major party would ever form government with the Greens.

In contrast to the 2013 election campaign, the Tele even had a pro-Labor story “Save Our Albo" over the Greens’ challenge to Anthony Albanese’s inner-city seat of Grayndler.

But nothing much has changed. Back in the 2010 federal election, the The Australian declared the pride with which it had smashed any alliance between the Greens and Labor, and that the Greens:

… should be destroyed at the ballot box.

In October the same year Rupert Murdoch referred to the “bloody Greens” as a party that would ruin Australia’s economic prosperity.

What is clear to the Coalition, Murdoch, and big business in Australia is that Labor and the Greens must be permanently isolated from each other in a sustained ideological crusade. Failing to achieve this would spell nothing short of game over for the Coalition.

The entire crusade, which is based on castigating the Greens as a loony left party that would bring down the Labor Party, requires so much journalistic theatre, compared to what could more easily be done with the Liberal-National Party marriage of convenience. One is a party of agrarian socialists, and the other a party serving mining capital and finance capital. But News Corp has been particularly disciplined at ignoring any of the tensions that these parties have had over the years.

Were Labor to form an alliance with the Greens it could take great leadership on climate. But there are a great many forces arraigned against them achieving a left-progressive coalition.

Whether the Labor Party has the courage to come out and challenge the Coalition to a contest over climate remains to be seen.

The Greens, for their part, are making many more inroads into this election than the last. They certainly have the strongest climate policy, with a renewable energy target of 90% by 2030. The ReachTEL poll referred to earlier shows the Greens have four times the primary vote than the National Party.

The Greens know that for under 30 voters they are already matching the primary vote of the major parties, and that a core platform of strong action against global warming is a big part of this support. Whether the major parties can ignore this support that springs from climate will be one of the biggest gambles of this election.

Coastal management in Australia is subject to competing interests and challenges. These range from land use and strategic planning issues to ecosystems preservation. Local councils are at the coalface as both key decision-makers and the first point of contact for communities.

Exacerbating these day-to-day challenges for councils are risks to property. A quantitative assessment undertaken by the then-Department of Climate Change in 2009 identified impacts of sea-level rise as a serious threat to property.

In New South Wales, under scenarios of a 1.1-metre sea-level rise, risks of damage or inundation to residential housing alone affected tens of thousands of properties, potentially costing millions of dollars. The NSW 2009 sea-level rise policy (now repealed) saw coastal councils considering this future risk when developing coastal zone management plans.

These metrics, while important, say little of the wide-ranging benefits of a freely accessible coast. Going to the beach is a fundamental part of Australian identity; it’s a “special place” for Australians.

Local councils are most exposed to the issues and challenges of a changing coastline in which there are many interests. Councils are often the first decision-makers for local development, asset management and land-use and strategic planning. Increased coastal erosion, storm events, more frequent and severe flooding impacts and higher tides can and will make these regular functions of councils more complicated.

In this context, the tabling of the NSW Coastal Management Bill on May 3 marks the formalisation of Stage 2 of the most significant law reform to coastal management since the 1970s. The NSW state government says that, by better integrating coastal management with land-use planning, the legislation offers:

… a modern, coherent coastal management framework that is responsive to current needs and future challenges.

Property rights hold sway

Despite a prominent focus on property values when it comes to coastal management issues, including climate adaptation, evidence is emerging that residents are attached to their property for more than financial reasons.

Private property interests often take priority as councils attempt to balance competing interests. An example of this is ongoing litigation over a sandbag wall on Belongil Beach in Byron Bay.

With coastal defences failing, some councils are moving to policies of ‘planned retreat’. Wikimedia Commons/Paul Sequeira, US EPA

After a series of severe coastal storms in the 1970s, Byron Shire Council adopted a policy of “planned retreat”. The location of this small northern NSW community on the most easterly point of Australia means it is already exposed to coastal hazards. These will become more frequent and more severe under future climate scenarios.

The planned retreat policy set requirements for the future relocation of private property. Local property owners, particularly those with beachfront property, have vehemently opposed the use of the policy to prevent coastal property protection.

In May 2009, a particularly severe coastal storm caused significant damage to private residential property and the beach. Beachfront property owners (the Vaughans) sought to reinstate council-approved sandbag protection works on their property. This sandbag wall had collapsed during the storm.

The Vaughans sued the council and the council sued the Vaughans. This particular matter settled in February 2010 and the failed sandbag wall has been reinstated.

More recently, council plans to install a permanent rock wall at the same location ran into fierce opposition from the community, for whom the public amenity of the beach is critical, and legal challenges.

This example highlights some critical aspects of coastal management:

• private property rights are deeply entrenched in Australian culture and legal systems

• climate adaptation is easier when it comes to future development

• recourse to litigation in protecting your property is much easier if you can afford it.

Climate adaptation planning, including planned retreat, can be more easily implemented for future development. There are excellent examples of local government in NSW providing landowners with a range of development options.

NSW reforms weigh future risks

Much of the coast of Australia, however, is already developed. The residential development includes affordable housing options. To balance competing interests along the coast, all members of coastal communities must be considered.

To this end, the NSW bill, if passed, would lead to a new Coastal Management Act, a new Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy and a coastal management manual. Together these advance a more forward-thinking coastal management response. This has a central focus on ecologically sustainable development that can better balance both the management of coastal hazards and the integrity of the coast.

Local councils will be responsible for implementing these new legal requirements. Under Part 3 of the Coastal Management Bill, councils will be required to monitor coastal hazards and to give effect to coastal management plans. It would appear this includes future sea-level rise.

As has been advocated in numerous policy reports, the councils can’t do this alone. They need assistance from the federal government as well as the state.

Tayanah O'Donnell undertakes research with the University of Canberra funded by the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility and the ACT Government. She also the principal of PlaceAdapt Consulting.