Feed aggregator

European commission launches world’s first system for classifying and banning endocrine disruptors against a barrage of criticism

The European commission has launched the world’s first system for classifying and banning endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), against a barrage of criticism from scientists, NGOs, industry and consumer groups.

Endocrines are hormone-altering chemicals common in everyday substances from paint to pesticides that have been linked to an array of illnesses including cancer, infertility, obesity, diabetes, birth defects and reproductive problems.

Continue reading...

Greenpeace analysis of satellite data reveals 3.5m hectares have burned this year, while government statistics claim only 669,000 hectares

Forest wildfires rampaging across Russia are being significantly under-reported by authorities, according to analysis of satellite data.

Climate change is making wildfires much more likely in Russia, but regional officials have been reluctant to report the true extent of the problem, and campaigners are warning that the harm to forests, property and human lives could rise.

Continue reading...

In April 2011, not long after Julia Gillard was returned to power in the 2010 federal election, I asked a representative sample of Australians about their attitudes to climate policy.

Climate was a water-cooler issue at the time. The carbon tax legislation had been introduced into Parliament in March, paving the way for a subsequent emissions trading scheme.

That scheme bit the dust in 2014 after becoming a hotly debated issue during the rancorous 2013 election campaign, but carbon policy has not had the same high profile during the current campaign. My colleagues and I decided to repeat our survey and see whether attitudes really have cooled on global warming.

Despite climate policy being something of a sleeper issue in this election, our results suggest that concern about the climate is more widespread now than it was five years ago.

We found that 75% of people surveyed believe it to be an important global issue, and 74% see climate as an important issue for Australia.

As to what we should do about it, we found that 57% of people want Australia to act on climate change irrespective of whether other countries do or not. This is significantly more than in 2011, when 50% of people were in this category.

A further 28% in our new survey think that action should be taken only if there were concerted international policy action, whereas just 15% would prefer that Australia take no action at all. When asked why they did not want to proceed, 34% of them stated that they only wanted to proceed if global action was taken.

These are fairly clear indicators that Australians are not complacent about the need for climate action.

What policies do voters want?

Both of the major political parties have committed to emissions targets: the Liberals have a target of a 26-28% reduction relative to 2005 levels by 2030, whereas Labor has pledged a 45% cut over the same time frame. Both are modest in comparison with the Climate Change Authority’s recommended cut of 40-60% by 2030 relative to 2000 levels.

As for the policies needed to meet these targets, Labor has proposed an emissions trading scheme, but some details are still vague. The Liberal Party is persisting with its Direct Action plan to “auction” emissions reduction projects to the cheapest corporate bidders.

Our survey, however, suggests that many voters' preferred policy is a mixture, potentially including a carbon tax, an emissions trading scheme and other direct action policies. Some 40% of respondents preferred this policy mix, up from 31% in 2011. Support for carbon taxation or emissions trading as standalone policies both fell relative to five years ago.

When divided according to voting intentions, all groups preferred a policy mix to any of the other choices. This preference was strongest for “unsure voters”, who made up nearly a quarter of our respondents. For Labor and Greens voters, the most favoured second-choice option was a carbon tax, while no single policy (not even Direct Action) came a close second among Liberal voters.

The numbers get even more intriguing when we split them by gender, age and income. We found that 82% of females see the issue of climate change as important at a global level, and the same proportion described it as important at a local level; this was 15 and 16 percentage points, respectively, greater than among their male counterparts. There was a similar 15-point gender difference in the desire to proceed on climate policy irrespective of global action.

This desire for climate policy irrespective of global action was the dominant view in every age group, although we found that it declined among older groups. The 55-59 age group was the weakest in its support for climate action and the most likely (at 36%) to select “no policy” as the desired climate response.

In our 2011 study, higher incomes were associated with less desire for climate policy. This was replicated in 2016, as can be seen in the graph below – note the significant increase in support for “no climate action” among those with salaries over A$110,000.

As these stats show, concern about climate change is relatively steady until we get to the highest income bracket, where it drops off significantly. There are several potential explanations, including the suggestion that those with higher incomes will be less adversely affected by climate change because they can afford to ameliorate its impacts.

But if there is a take-home message for politicians in these numbers, I would suggest it is this: even in those groups with the lowest levels of climate concern, a majority is still worried about the issue and wants to see action.

Perhaps, in the midst of the longest election campaign since the 1960s, it might be worth finding a bit more time to acknowledge that.

Deborah Cotton received funding from Macquarie University Higher Degree Research Fund for the survey in 2011 and The University of Technology Sydney Business School for the 2016 survey.

Wolsingham, Weardale Adult dung flies chew hoverflies like hotdogs, but many fall victim to an insect-eating fungus

Cattle had been sheltering in the lee of the hedge and had spattered the footpath with fresh cowpats. We had to be careful where we put our feet, but the male dung flies, Scathophaga stercoraria, sitting in the centre of these discs of ordure, had no such reservations; these were their courtship arenas. Each suitor, resplendent in golden hairs that glowed in the early morning sunlight, was waiting for the arrival of females – usually found to be in short supply.

Dung flies’ behaviour and their sex lives have intrigued evolutionary biologists. Males vary in size and females tend to choose the largest mates available on the cowpat, with multiple mating being the norm. It’s a situation where large males, which tend to be more fecund, should prosper.

Continue reading...

BehaviourWorks Australia has recently reviewed research and data from 47 examples of CDR schemes or trials around the world. 

Victoria has joined three other states and territories in setting a renewable energy target. Wind energy from www.shutterstock.com

The Victorian Labor government has announced an “ambitious and achievable” Victorian Renewable Energy Target (VRET). This target will commit the state to generating 25% of its electricity from renewable energy by 2020, and 40% by 2025.

While details of the VRET are yet to be fully fleshed out, it is set to be based on a similar mechanism to the scheme used in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), which has managed to sidestep the uncertainty that has plagued the renewables industry in recent years. The ACT deputy chief minister, Simon Corbell, called Victoria’s announcement on Wednesday “a game-changer”.

In fact a key motivation identified by the Victorian energy minister, Lily D'Ambrosio, was “restoring the confidence needed to invest”.

National tally

The federal Renewable Energy Target (RET) was reduced by 20% following the Warburton Review in 2014. Since then, state and territory governments have announced their own targets to support the industry.

Earlier this year, the ACT announced it would bring forward previous commitments. It is now aiming to meet 100% of its electricity needs by 2020.

In 2014, South Australia announced a 50% target by 2025. More recently, Queensland committed to generating 50% of its energy from renewable sources by 2030.

Based on forecasting by the Australian Electricity Market Operator, these commitments add up to a considerable expansion of renewable energy. In total, these commitments represent 56 terawatt hours (TWh) each year, above baseline generation. Baseline generation is renewable generation that existed before 1997, almost exclusively hydro power.

Comparison of national renewable energy target and state renewable energy targets Author

The remaining states already have renewable generation and these facilities presumably won’t be torn down. So even assuming that these states don’t build a single new project, in combination with the targets, Australia is headed towards a total of 61TWh above the baseline.

This compares to the current national target of 33TWh. If the states fulfil their commitments, they will deliver almost twice as much renewable generation as the national RET requires.

If we add baseline hydro back into the equation, total renewable energy generation in Australia is set to be at least 77TWh by 2030. Depending on how electricity demand changes, and how rooftop solar is included, Australia is on track to meet 30-35% of its power demand from renewables by 2030.

What does the target mean for coal?

Victoria has always been a major exporter of electricity in the National Electricity Market. In 2014-15, it generated more than 55TWh of electricity and exported over 8TWh. Generally, Victoria exports to South Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania (although Tasmania’s flows have been more interesting in recent times).

It is unlikely that Victoria will substantially increase exports. Indeed, it has limited ability to do so. The South Australian government recently announced funding for a study into new interconnection for South Australia to import power when required, and export more renewable energy to other markets.

Consequently, such a significant increase in renewable generation in Victoria – expected to be in the vicinity of 5,400 megawatts – will have dramatic implications for the state’s existing power stations.

An increase in market share of renewables, from roughly 14% today to 40% in 2025, will necessarily come at the expense of market share for existing power stations. And in Victoria that means brown coal, Australia’s most carbon-intensive power source.

The question now is can the brown coal generators collectively survive such a reduction in market share? And if they can’t, who drops out, and when? Or perhaps brown coal can be progressively phased out without too much pain.

This is, however, good news for Australia’s national climate change mitigation commitments. At average Victorian emissions intensity, by the time the 2025 Victorian target is fulfilled, the new renewable generation in Victoria would be avoiding the emission of some 18 million tonnes of CO₂ per year.

National policy implications

At the national level, several different policies and pathways have emerged through the election campaign. These includes a national 50% renewable energy target, an emissions trading scheme, a brown coal exit plan and potential modifications to the government’s cap on emissions (known as the safeguard mechanism).

Whatever emerges at the federal level, the Victorian scheme is well adapted to future changes to both the energy market and energy policy developments. Indeed, it is expressly designed to complement national schemes in the long term, and to provide certainty and confidence for investors in the short term.

In response to the VRET, the Business Council of Australia has called for climate policies that are “integrated with broader energy policy”. A decade of policy uncertainty and toxic political debate has thus far prevented this from occurring.

As the Grattan Institute reported earlier this year: “An economy-wide carbon price remains the ideal climate policy. But pragmatism and urgency demand a practical, next-best approach.”

Given the popular support for renewable energy, perhaps this policy is actually such a pragmatic approach.

Dylan McConnell received funding from the AEMC's consumer advocacy panel.

A female tortoise in southern India is given a new lease of life after losing both legs.

Member states of the European Space Agency have reaffirmed their commitment to launch a rover to Mars in 2020.

A year since the pope’s clarion call to climate action, Australia must declare a moratorium on new coal, oil and gas mines and end fossil fuel subsidies

• Divesting from fossil fuels: open letter from religious leaders in full

Few papal proclamations have reverberated more strongly throughout the world than Pope Francis’s encyclical on the environment, Laudato Si’. The anniversary of this clarion call to protect the environment comes as Australia’s election is in full swing and, in terms of its message, the contrast could not be greater.

Released exactly a year ago, the encyclical was part of a deluge of statements from the major faith traditions in the leadup to the Paris climate agreement.

Continue reading...

Exclusive: Four Australian Catholic orders are jointly and publicly divesting from coal, oil and gas: ‘We believe the Gospel asks no less of us’

• Divesting from fossil fuels: open letter from religious leaders in full

Four Australian Catholic organisations have announced they are completely divesting from coal, oil and gas in what they say is the first joint Catholic divestment anywhere in the world.

The move comes as prominent Jewish rabbis, Muslim clerics, Anglican bishops and other religious leaders call on the Australian government to protect the Great Barrier Reef, stop approving coalmines and remove subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, in an open letter published by the Guardian.

Continue reading...

Among the increasing sums of money being pledged to help save the Great Barrier Reef is a federal government pledge to spend A$40 million on improving water quality. The Queensland government has promised another A$33.5 million for the same purpose.

One of the biggest water-quality concerns is nitrogen runoff from fertiliser use. It is a concern all along the reef coast, and particularly in the sugar-cane regions of the Wet Tropics and the Burdekin. The government’s Reef 2050 Long Term Sustainability Plan calls for an 80% reduction in dissolved inorganic nitrogen flowing out onto the reef by 2025.

Our recent research suggests that “nitrogen trading” might be worth considering as a flexible economic mechanism to help farmers deliver these much-needed reductions in fertiliser use.

What is nitrogen trading?

You probably already know about carbon trading, which allows polluters to buy the right to emit greenhouse gases from those with spare carbon credits. Nitrogen trading would work in a similar way, but for fertiliser use.

A nitrogen market could offer a flexible way of encouraging farmers to use fertiliser more efficiently, as well as rewarding innovations in farming practice. It could be a useful addition to existing fertiliser-reduction schemes such as the industry-led Smart Cane Best Management Practice. These are making headway but evidently not enough.

A nitrogen market isn’t going to happen tomorrow, but it could be part of a future in which an annual limit (called a cap) is set on the total amount of nitrogen flowing out from river catchments to the reef.

One way to enforce this cap would be to set a limit on fertiliser applications per hectare. Cane farmers would have to manage the best they could with that fixed amount of nitrogen.

But nitrogen trading would offer more flexibility, while still staying under the same total nitrogen cap. Instead of a fixed limit, farmers would receive a certain number of “nitrogen permits” per hectare of cane. Then, if they wanted or needed to, they could buy or sell these permits through a centralised online “smart market”.

How would it work?

Imagine you’re a farmer with a property that sits on good soil. The amount of fertiliser you can apply to your crop must match the number of nitrogen permits you hold. But you know that, on your good land, you would get more profits if you could apply more fertiliser.

To do this you would have to buy extra permits through the nitrogen market. These extra permits would be worth buying as long as they deliver more than enough extra profit to cover the cost.

The total number of permits is limited by the cap – so buyers can only buy extra permits if other farmers are selling them. So who’s selling?

Putting fertiliser onto a field with poor soil won’t increase your profits as much, because a lot of that fertiliser will just run off before the crop can use it. On a bad paddock, nitrogen permits aren’t worth much in terms of extra crop yield, so you might make more money by just selling them to other farmers with good paddocks. That is why trading happens.

The overall effect of this trading would be to switch a significant amount of nitrogen fertiliser away from less profitable, leaky soils, and onto more profitable, less leaky land. As a result, the total nitrogen cap would be distributed more efficiently across the farming landscape.

For individual farmers, the reward for low-nitrogen farming practice is the opportunity to sell unused permits at a profit. This incentive will help to drive ongoing improvement and innovation.

Our simulations suggest that overall sugar cane profits and production would be higher with trading than they would under a fixed per-hectare nitrogen limit – with the same overall cap on the amount of nitrogen hitting the Great Barrier Reef.

Opportunity for the future?

Will it just mean more expensive regulation, green tape and hassle for farmers? Farmers are already signing up to calculate and record actual fertiliser applications paddock by paddock under the Six Easy Steps nutrient management program.

If we’re in a future where the government is monitoring and managing a fixed nitrogen cap anyway, then not much extra work is needed to set up an online trading market.

So could nitrogen trading help the Great Barrier Reef? Maybe. There’s more thinking still to be done, but nitrogen trading schemes are already operating in New Zealand and the United States.

A firm overall limit on fertiliser use seems to be essential for the reef’s survival. The incentives provided by a nitrogen market could give Queensland’s farmers the flexibility they need to thrive in this nitrogen-constrained future.

Graeme Curwen and Michele Burford of the Australian Rivers Institute at Griffith University contributed to the research on which this article is based.

Jim Smart receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program - Tropical Water Quality Hub and Seqwater.

Adrian Volders receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program - Tropical Water Quality Hub.

Chris Fleming receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program - Tropical Water Quality Hub, the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, the Australian Government Department of the Environment and the Worldwide Wildlife Fund.

Syezlin Hasan receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program - Tropical Water Quality Hub.

Carbon capture and storage can clean up coal power. Coal image from www.shutterstock.com

As the world moves to combat climate change, it’s increasingly doubtful that coal will continue to be a viable energy source, because of its high greenhouse gas emissions. But coal played a vital role in the Industrial Revolution and continues to fuel some of the world’s largest economies. This series looks at coal’s past, present and uncertain future.

Coal is the greatest contributor to climate change of all our energy sources. This means that if the world acts to limit global warming to well below 2℃, coal will likely be constrained – unless its greenhouse gas emissions can be removed.

One of the great hopes of the industry is carbon capture and storage (CCS), a way to burn coal, remove the carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions and store it safely away from the atmosphere. While there have been several breakthroughs, the technology remains expensive.

Advances in energy technologies mean that adding CCS doesn’t just need to work; it needs to work at a lower cost than its growing legion of competitors. And while the alternatives are good news for avoiding dangerous climate change, it’s a substantial challenge for the coal industry.

Capturing carbon

The current range of CCS technologies can be grouped into “pre-combustion” and “post-combustion” methods.

Pre-combustion methods typically react the carbon in the fuel with high-pressure steam to make hydrogen CO₂. The CO₂ is then separated (captured) from the hydrogen before the hydrogen is burned in the power station to make energy, with the only emissions being water vapour.

Post-combustion technologies try to capture the carbon after it has been burned and becomes CO₂. If the fuel is burned in air, then the CO₂ needs to be separated from the exhaust gas stream which, like air, is mostly composed of nitrogen gas. This is usually done by passing the gas stream through a liquid that dissolves the CO₂ but not the nitrogen.

Another technique, called “oxyfuelling”, separates oxygen out of the air and then uses it to burn the fuel in an atmosphere of oxygen and recycled CO₂. The exhaust gas stream from this process is close enough to pure CO₂ that it can be sent directly to the storage process.

Several options have been explored for storing the carbon. These include the deep ocean, depleted oil and gas wells, deep saline aquifers, as manufactured mineralised carbonate rock, or as naturally mineralised carbonate by injection into basalt reservoirs.

Regardless of the technique, the outcomes for coal combustion are similar. The amount of emissions is reduced by 80-100%, while the cost of coal-fired electricity generation increases by at least the same amount.

These costs come from building the capture plant, CO₂ transport pipelines and the sequestration plant. More than double the amount of coal must be burned to make up for the energy cost of the CCS process itself.

When CCS was first considered as an emissions solution, competition from renewables, such as solar and wind, was weak. Costs were high and production volumes were negligible.

How cheap?

In the 1990s, many believed that renewables (other than existing hydro, geothermal and biomass for heating) might never be able to replace coal cheaply. The future of energy was going to be a centralised grid, rather than the distributed power models being discussed today, and there were only two widely backed horses in the technology race: CCS and nuclear.

But the early part of this century has seen an energy revolution in both renewables and fossil fuels. Among renewables, solar and wind have both taken enormous strides in reducing production costs and building manufacturing scale.

For fossil fuels, the expansion in gas pipeline infrastructure, the development of liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipping and the growth of both conventional and unconventional gas production have encouraged fuel switching from coal in European and US markets in particular.

Trying to compare the costs of different types of electricity can be tricky. Power stations require capital to build and have heavy financing, operational and decommissioning costs. Nuclear and fossil fuel power stations also have to buy fuel.

Analysts use the term “levelised cost of electricity (LCOE)” to aggregate and describe this combination of factors for different methods of electricity generation.

A significant challenge for coal and CCS is that the LCOE for wind and solar at a comparable scale is already competitive with coal generation in many places. This is because the cost of manufacturing has fallen as production has increased.

While this seems not to bode well for coal and CCS, there’s a caveat: a coal with CCS power station makes power when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.

It’s easier for wind and solar to compete when traditional fossil fuel power stations are there to back them up, but not so easy when renewables become dominant generators and the cost of storage needs to be taken into account to ensure a consistent supply.

A game changer?

That was until batteries came along and offered the ability to store renewable energy for when the sun doesn’t shine. There is considerable hype around the entry of the Tesla Powerwall into the home electricity market.

But that is only one of numerous home battery solutions from the likes of Samsung, LG, Bosch, Panasonic, Enphase and others. All are designed to store excess solar power for use at night.

The emerging breakthrough of these products is the price, which is bringing batteries into the realm of competition with centralised electricity generation.

While a battery won’t take your family entirely off-grid at first, such batteries mean most suburban households can become largely energy-independent. They need only top up from the grid now and then when a run of cloudy days comes along during the shorter days of winter.

In the longer term, there’s a clear pathway for most homes to disconnect completely from the grid, should battery prices continue to fall.

Why are batteries a threat?

The reason that batteries can compete with centralised generation is because the cost of transmission and distribution from a coal-fired power station to your home is considerable.

These costs are not normally considered in the LCOE calculations, because it is assumed that all power generators have access to the same, centralised electricity grid.

But a battery in your home means that these costs are largely avoided. That makes home energy generation and storage much more competitive with traditional power generation in the longer term.

For developing nations without a strong centralised grid it also means that energy systems can be built incrementally, without large investments in infrastructure.

This is an ill wind for the competitive future of CCS, which depends on the centralised generation model and a lack of low-cost competitors to stay viable.

That doesn’t mean the coal industry should give up on CCS. Having a range of options for a low-emission future is a good thing. Affordable energy is at the heart of our modern civilisation and standards of living.

CCS may also lay the foundations for Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), one of the few (albeit expensive) technologies with the potential to recoup significant amounts of CO₂ from the atmosphere. But this points to a renewable biomass future, not a coal future.

The odds that CCS will keep coal alive as an industry into the future are getting longer each year.

What we are seeing is the start of the great transition from fossil fuel mining to manufacturing as the basis for our energy systems. It’s not dominant yet, but you would be starting to get very nervous if you were betting against it.

Gary Ellem has received funding in the past from state and federal governments for research into renewable energy technologies, cleantech industry development and social licence in the Australian unconventional gas sector. He has previously consulted to the solar, bioenergy and mining sectors.

Certainly larger and more frequent storms are one of the consequences that the climate models and climate scientists predict from global warming. But you cannot attribute any particular storm to global warming, so let’s be quite clear about that. – Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, speaking to reporters in Tasmania on June 9, 2016.

In the aftermath of the deadly East Coast Low that swamped eastern Australia, dumping massive amounts of rain in early June, the prime minister toured flood-affected Launceston and announced emergency relief funding.

Turnbull told reporters that larger and more frequent storms were forecast by climate scientists but cautioned that no individual storm could be attributed to global warming.

Is he right?

Checking the source

The Conversation asked the prime minister’s office for sources to support his statement but did not hear back before publication deadline. Nevertheless, we can test his statement against recent published and peer-reviewed research on this question.

The science shows that, just like real estate, climate change is all about location. Different parts of Australia will be affected in different ways by climate change.

And global warming will have different effects on different types of weather systems.

Let’s break Turnbull’s statement into two parts: is it true that we can expect larger and more frequent storms as a consequence of global warming? And is it possible to attribute a specific storm to global warming?

Can we expect larger and more frequent storms as a result of global warming?

Yes – but not for all regions or types of storms.

There are many types of storms that affect different parts of Australia, among them East Coast Lows, mid-latitude cyclones (a category that includes cyclones that happen in the latitudes between Australia and Antarctica), tropical cyclones, and associated extreme rainfall events. Each will be affected in a different way by climate change, and the effect will vary by region and by season.

On East Coast Lows: Acacia Pepler, who is studying extreme rainfall and East Coast Lows in relation to climate change, recently wrote in The Conversation that her research showed that:

… East Coast Lows are expected to become less frequent during the cool months May-October, which is when they currently happen most often. But there is no clear picture of what will happen during the warm season. Some models even suggest East Coast Lows may become more frequent in the warmer months. And increases are most likely for lows right next to the east coast – just the ones that have the biggest impacts where people live.

For all low-pressure systems near the coast, “most of the models we looked at had no significant change projected in the intensity of the most severe East Coast Low each year,” Pepler wrote.

On mid-latitude cyclones: Another study predicted that the overall wind hazard from mid-latitude cyclones in Australia will decrease – except in winter over Tasmania.

On tropical cyclones: Northern Australia is expected to get fewer cyclones in future – but their maximum wind speeds are expected to become stronger.

On rainfall: Scientists tend to be quite confident that climate change will be accompanied by an increase in extreme rainfall for most storms in future. One of the main reasons for this is that increased temperatures will cause increased evaporation. While the total amount of water held in the atmosphere will also increase slightly in future, the total amount of rain has to go up too.

Is it true you can’t attribute any particular storm to global warming?

Turnbull is correct. We cannot say for sure that a particular flooding rainfall event was solely “caused” by climate change, any more than we can say for certain that a particular car accident was solely caused by speeding (even if excessive speed was a likely or even major contributing factor).

Evidence for the effects of global warming on extreme rainfall events that have already occurred is currently equivocal for most regions.

According to a collection of studies published in 2015:

A number of this year’s studies indicate that human-caused climate change greatly increased the likelihood and intensity for extreme heat waves in 2014 over various regions. For other types of extreme events, such as droughts, heavy rains, and winter storms, a climate change influence was found in some instances and not in others.

One recent study in that report found:

evidence for a human-induced increase in extreme winter rainfall in the United Kingdom.

Verdict

Malcolm Turnbull was essentially correct on both points.

It’s true that scientists predict more frequent and intense storms for some parts of Australia as the climate changes. The evidence appears to be strong that extreme rainfall will increase. Some increases in extreme wind speeds are possible – but not in all regions or all seasons.

Turnbull was right to say you cannot attribute any particular storm to global warming. –Kevin Walsh

Review

This is a good FactCheck that summarises the broad conclusions from a range of studies examining the nature of current and likely future storms across Australia.

As the author points out, Australian storms range from tropical cyclones in the northern tropical regions to temperate east coast lows and mid-latitude cyclones.

The consensus regarding tropical cyclones is that they will generally decrease in frequency in the Australian region. In northeast Australia, they are forecast to experience the most dramatic decrease in frequency of any ocean basin globally. Some northern hemisphere ocean basins will see an increase in their frequency.

The intensity of these types of storms is expected to increase. This will not only involve higher wind speeds but also higher storm surges and floods. That will mean greater coastal impacts and damage to coastal developments and infrastructure.

So the prime minister’s statement about more frequent storms resulting from climate change does not apply to tropical cyclones – however, he was right to say that larger and more frequent storms are one of the predicted consequences of climate change. This consequence is predicted to apply to other storm categories, but not tropical cyclones.

And yes, climate scientists are hesitant to attribute the occurrence of any single storm to global warming. – Jonathan Nott

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.

Kevin Walsh receives funding from the ARC, Australian government grants and various overseas organisations.

Jonathan Nott receives funding from the ARC.

I, too, used to walk up Piggies Lonnen (Letters, 13 June) with my sisters on our way from Lemington to Walbottle, to see my Grandpa, Johnny McSwine. We were allowed to help feed his pigs and clean out their pigsties. Though the lonnen was near the “piggery”, it had nothing to do with Grandpa’s pigs, who never left their sties. On a memorable visit he took us to see the sow and her piglets cosseted under a heat lamp in the biggest of the three sties. The pigs were fed on scraps and meal which was weighed out in the “flower house”, – so called because that was where mounds of freshly cut blue scabious would be bunched and boxed ready for market. Around the tea table at his house, I would hear about the Bull family who lived in the village, but I don’t think had bulls. My grandfather died in 1963 but his name, or his father’s, lives on – “Johnny’s Bank” is the road that ran past the market garden up to Walbottle Stores. The market garden continued until my Uncle Fred retired.
Judith McSwaine
Newcastle upon Tyne

• The street names of south-west Scotland are evidence of a culture shared with north-east England, at least in their alleyways. For example, Jenny’s Loaning in Castle Douglas clearly matches the lonnens of Northumberland, while Friars Vennel in Dumfries would fit in well in Durham.
Steven Edgar
Bristol

Continue reading...

Scientists announce the detection at Earth of another burst of gravitational waves coming from a black hole merger.

Experts identify areas where coral reefs are flourishing against the odds despite overfishing and environmental pressure

Surprising “bright spots” where coral reefs are flourishing against the odds despite overfishing and environmental pressure have given new hope to conservationists.

Experts believe they could shine a light on better ways to protect embattled coral reefs affected by climate change, overfishing and pollution.

Continue reading...

Jack Conway was working in a bog cutting turf when he came across a massive chunk of butter.

Millions of diamondback moths have migrated from their eastern European breeding grounds to descend on English crops. But are they really a ‘biblical plague’?

As if Brexit and football violence weren’t enough to make us miserable about Europe, it seems that the UK is now experiencing an invasion of “Euro-moths”. Tens of millions of small but potentially lethal diamondback moths are crossing the North Sea, come to devastate our cabbages and cauliflowers.

The first signs of the invasion came last Saturday night, when observers reported a two-mile long cloud of moths near the Herefordshire market town of Leominster. As one witness reported: “It was like driving through rain.”

Continue reading...

Figures show the numbers of licenced diesels rose by 29% from 2012-15, despite warnings over their contribution to illegal levels of air pollution

Diesel vehicles have taken a record share of the market on London roads in recent years, despite warnings blaming them for contributing to the capital’s illegal levels of air pollution.

Sadiq Khan, the new mayor of London, has been lobbying for a diesel scrappage scheme, a policy that was backed by his predecessor, Boris Johnson, as a way of tackling the illegal high nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels caused by diesels.

Continue reading...

President François Hollande calls on other European countries to follow France’s lead by the end of the year

President François Hollande on Wednesday finalised ratification of the Paris climate accord reached in December 2015, making France the first industrialised country to do so.

“Signing is good, ratifying is better,” Hollande quipped at the Élysée Palace ceremony, flanked by environment minister Ségolène Royal, foreign minister Jean-Marc Ayrault and other top officials.

Continue reading...