Feed aggregator

At least 1,000 people were killed when Hurricane Matthew battered the Tiburon peninsula in Haiti last week, destroying houses and displacing tens of thousands.

A humanitarian crisis is now unfolding for the survivors, with the Pan American Health Organization warning of a likely cholera surge in the country due to severely damaged water supply and sanitation systems.

Several other Caribbean island states have been affected, including the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Barbados, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Cuba, as well as the United States.

In 2011, one of us (Jason) led a team to Haiti’s capital Port-au-Prince to contribute to the reconstruction effort after the devastating 2010 earthquake. The team worked particularly on the provision of housing.

In all interactions, the team encountered a local community that was honourable, industrious and kind. This perception is confirmed by those who have spent time on the ground after Hurricane Matthew.

But, as is common in the media and institutional narrative following disasters, prejudices and preconceptions abound. Following the earthquake, the Haitians were portrayed as weak, dependent, corrupt and lawless victims. The international community intervened, amid a global outpouring of grief, support and solidarity.

Five years later, destruction and suffering in Haiti is again making headlines. Why is history repeating itself?

Unnatural disasters

According to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, disaster risk is a function of hazard, exposure and vulnerability. It is normally expressed as the likelihood of deaths, injury or loss of infrastructure for a specific period of time. This suggests that disasters are the product of the human condition.

But other experts describe disasters as “manifestations of unresolved development problems”. Therefore, disasters are not a natural phenomenon. Humans play a central role. As a result, a natural hazard such as Hurricane Matthew impacts each country in its path differently.

Countries, regions, people groups and individuals are distinctly affected by hazards, mostly based on pre-existing vulnerability. While most scholars agree that there are particular vulnerabilities for specific hazards, some argue for “a generalised vulnerability that affects the poorest of the poor and most marginal in all parts of the world”.

In Haiti, many aspects of risk and vulnerability have very deep roots in colonial history. The structural injustice existing in society has been compounded by recent trends in international economics. These have worked to exacerbate widespread vulnerability and exposure.

The status quo has failed Haiti

The earthquake in 2010 resulted in 222,750 deaths, 300,000 injuries, 1.5 million displaced people, and more than 3 million affected in total. Most of the built environment in Port-au-Prince was destroyed, as well as its basic services and infrastructure.

In August 2010 the United Nations tacitly admitted blame for the cholera outbreak that occurred after the earthquake. However, it later invoked absolute immunity.

Cholera has claimed more than 9,000 lives and infected more than 720,000 people in Haiti since 2010. And the failure to contain and eradicate the disease has manifested into the current crisis, with a surge of infections in the areas hit hardest by Hurricane Matthew due to poor water and sanitation.

Little of the US$13.5 billion pledged by the international community after the earthquake ever made it to Haiti’s people or into its economy. Most of it (94%) went to private contractors, donor nations’ own civilian and military entities, international non-government organisations, and UN agencies.

Investigations have revealed that the actors of predatory capitalism rushed to secure quick and easy profits in the wake of calamity. This has helped to prevent any serious effort to address disaster risk by sidelining local stakeholders.

Under the guise of goodwill and solidarity, the United States has officially supported what journalist Antony Loewenstein calls “the latest incarnation of a tired model that failed to deliver long-lasting benefits to locals, but instead delivered cheap labour to multinationals”.

No argument for skills development and employment opportunities can really excuse abusive labour practices. In Haiti, these simply reinforced underlying vulnerability and made a mockery of the commitment to “build back better”. In reality, the United States’ interests have been protected and served in Haiti for a century.

Reducing disaster risk in an age of uncertainty

Put simply, we are creating new risk faster than we are dealing with the existing risk. James Lewis and Ilan Kelman warn that:

…without tackling all vulnerability drivers – that are the roots of [disaster risk creation] – the conditions of [disaster risk creation] will continue to prevail over attempts at [disaster risk reduction].

We continue to demand conformity to orthodox ways of thinking about economics, development, governance and society that have locked us into destructive pathways. Disaster risk is socially-constructed and we must propose solutions that do not ignore root causes. This means providing empowerment and autonomy to communities which live in at-risk areas, including access to resources, education, livelihoods, and health.

Jocelyn McCalla, of the National Coalition for Haitian Rights, asserts that:

Hurricane Matthew has disrupted the expected course of events. We should not seek to put Haiti back on course. We need to change course altogether, use disruption to identify another course of action in consultation with Haitians.

We know that development, imposed by external forces that exploit the local labour force is not in the interest of the marginalised. A failure to respect human rights, local needs, the environment and human-environment relations simply creates disaster risk.

A shift towards truly transparent, democratic and participative practices is necessary. We must acknowledge the role of corporations, governments, NGOs and even United Nations agencies both in creating new risk and preventing the reduction of existing risk. Otherwise our well-meaning efforts to help Haiti now and in the future will leave us asking the same questions when disaster next strikes.

Jason von Meding receives funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Giuseppe Forino receives funding from University of Newcastle.

New technology is a significant step towards the creation of virtual power stations that would enable smarter electricity use by homes and businesses

Data has been transmitted across a national electricity grid for the first time, in what could be a significant step towards the creation of virtual power stations, where many thousands of homes and businesses combine to manage electricity use more smartly.

The new technology could lead to lower energy bills for consumers who allow small variations in the energy consumption of their appliances, such as water heaters or freezers.

Continue reading...

Waltham Brooks, West Sussex Around the pool’s edges, snipe drill into the mud as the sun sinks towards the horizon

The air is noticeably colder, and the blue sky above the Brooks seems empty. The swallows and martins that had been following the river Arun south to the sea, in an almost continuous stream for the past month, have gone. Only jackdaws and rooks fly over, croaking to each other, heading towards the woods and back to their evening roosts. The sinking sun casts a warm glow across the large pool, where recent arrivals – a flock of wigeon – are paddling, dipping into the muddy water to feed alongside the regular mallard and shoveller.

Around the pool’s edges, snipe bob their dark brown-striped heads up and down, drilling their long bills into the mud in hurried sewing-machine movements. More snipe sit by the reeds, preening or sleeping, their heads turned and their bills tucked into the feathers on their backs. I walk on through the wet grass, listening to the cries of the coot, water rail and ducks, and watch my footing.

Continue reading...

The developers of 12 big solar projects that won grants from ARENA pay their bonds on time, indicating all projects to go ahead as planned.

The transition to a low carbon economy is already happening, but is at risk when residents of Australia’s capital go to the polls in local elections

The transition to a low carbon economy is already happening … in the Australian Capital Territory, where the local Labor government has legislated for a 100% renewable energy target by the year 2020.

But this major achievement is at risk on Saturday when residents of Canberra go to the polls for territory elections.

Continue reading...

BHP Billiton says wind and solar are heralding the "dawn" of an energy revolution. But a dawn is all it can see, because it predicts fossil fuels will still account for 80% of energy needs by 2040. Surely it's time to get serious.

SA govt launches $10m autonomous vehicle grant scheme, calling for proposals to test and demonstrate driverless cars and supporting infrastructure.

The energy efficiency savings achieved globally last year were enough to power Japan, according to a new IEA report.

After a record year in 2015, BNEF says "worryingly low" clean energy investment in Q3 2016 somewhere between a 'flash crash' blip, and 'new normal'.

Australia's car industry got left behind on emissions standards. Exhaust image from www.shutterstock.com

Ford’s closure of its Geelong manufacturing plant on Friday is part of a broader story about Australia’s manufacturing sector. But one side of this story has so far been overlooked: the role of Australia’s lax attitude to vehicle emissions.

Globally, car manufacturers are taking climate action seriously by significantly improving fuel economy, in turn reducing a car’s CO₂ emissions.

Repeated policy failure and a marked reluctance by the Australian car industry to shift from manufacturing mostly high CO₂-emitting vehicles contributed to Ford ending operations. The Australian car industry ignored the elephant in the room.

This effectively contradicts former-Treasurer Joe Hockey’s assertion that climate change has no impediment on economic growth, as Australia gets left behind in a world embracing action on climate change.

Warning signs

In 2008, the international community launched the Global Fuel Economy Initiative (GFEI) to facilitate and promote large reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by establishing a global target to improve fuel efficiencies. The target included a 50% improvement in vehicle fuel economy in new light duty vehicles by 2030. The GFEI offered to assist successive Australian governments in the development of better fuel policy.

European car manufacturers made slow progress and continued manufacturing larger high-performance vehicles. But in 2009, the European Parliament introduced CO₂ emission standards of 130 grams of CO₂ per km by 2015 and long-term target of 95g CO₂ per km by 2021.

By 2013, 80% of global passenger vehicle sales were subject to CO₂ standards. Complementary economic measures were introduced to support the standards by influencing consumers into choosing low CO₂-emitting vehicles.

Australia left behind

In 2005, the Australian car industry adopted voluntary targets of 222g CO₂ per km by 2010. This wasn’t in line with international standards and masked the poor fuel efficiency of locally manufactured vehicles as shown in the chart below.

With voluntary standards, the local car industry was under no pressure from the government to improve its fleet’s fuel efficiency. The Australian car industry failed to meet the target. Average emissions from cars manufactured in Australia in 2010 were 247g per km – 11% higher than the voluntary target.

In April 2012, the Australian government mandated that 100% of all Commonwealth vehicles would be Australian made. This explicitly excluded acquiring vehicles on the grounds of “environmental considerations, such as fuel efficiency”.

In 2013, the government announced a Productivity Commission review of the industry that would examine international competitiveness, exports, trade barriers and long-term sustainability. At this point the local car industry announced its decision to abandon manufacturing in Australia. As a result, the commission didn’t examine the impact of climate policy measures on the local car industry, although it did suggest that environmental policies could serve as a barrier to international trade.

Industry actors also criticised other measures such as vehicle or excise taxes that it said would impede Australian exports.

For example, Ireland’s 36% vehicle tax on new light passenger vehicles with emission greater than 225g per km would apply to most Australian-made vehicles. Such measures support emission standards, and are imposed on all vehicles sold (whether imported or manufactured domestically) for the protection of the environment. They have been effective in shifting consumer demand to fuel-efficient vehicles.

Under the rules of the World Trade Organization national governments can ban imports that do not comply with product standards, if they do not constitute non-tariff barriers. To meet this exception, the policy must be measurable (such as an excise tax based on CO₂ emissions), apply to all goods sold (domestic and imports), and contribute to the fight against climate change.

The adoption of regulatory standards and supporting economic instruments, meant car manufacturers/importers will not be able to sell as many larger high CO₂-emitting vehicles. To sustain economic production runs, manufacturers will seek to sell these vehicles to countries with lenient or no standards, such as Australia, which then become “dumping grounds”.

Government and industry caught off guard

In 2014, the Abbott government supported the G20 Energy Efficiency Action Plan, which included “improving vehicle energy efficiency and emissions performance” by strengthening domestic standards in vehicle emissions and vehicle fuel efficiency. Despite the plan, there was no recommendation to introduce emissions standards in the government’s 2015 Energy White Paper.

Successive Australian governments, trade unions, and industry actors have all failed to appreciate the impact of climate action on the economic interest of the local car industry. The Australian government is now examining fuel efficiency standards and complementary measures, but will only report next year. It’s a little too late to save the industry.

Forcing the local car industry to meet similar standards would have been to its benefit and would have outweighed the costs of being shut out from the market. As more global car manufacturers began adopting emissions standards more pressure was placed on car manufacturers to remain competitive.

Car manufacturers were known to lobby their governments to adopt European emission standards to increase their competitiveness and restrict importation of high CO₂-emitting vehicles. The former Vice-Chairman on General Motors, Bob Lutz, said the fall of GM in the United States was largely a result of a terrible government policy on fuel economy, which gave its competitors, the Japanese automakers, a free pass.

The European Commission stated that if a car industry fails to embrace a shift towards more fuel-efficient vehicles, it will continue to be structurally unprepared for the future.

To compete globally, the Australian car industry had to decide whether to embrace cleaner technology to meet the standards of its importers, or abandon the export market. Unfortunately for the workers, Ford chose to close its operations on October 7, and GM Holden and Toyota will close by the end of 2017.

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

For the first time, researchers from the Queensland University of Technology studying bleaching have captured footage of coral from the Great Barrier Reef spewing out the algae that lives within it in response to heat stress. Using a microscope and digital camera to record time-lapse videos, the researchers demonstrate precisely how coral reacts to rising water temperatures

Continue reading...

Another setback for the “nuclear renaissance”: Switzerland voted on Friday to focus on renewables and efficiency, and to ban new nuclear plants.

Trudeau has decided to leave climate policy to the provinces, while forcing them to act. Is this state-based approach a model for Australia?

Hundreds of thousands of householders in flood risk areas have failed to install basic protection against rising waters, insurers say.

Caroline Lucas and dozens of campaigners and scientists call on museum to drop Statoil backing of children’s gallery

More than 50 prominent scientists, campaigners and politicians have signed a letter calling on the Science Museum to drop its oil sponsorship.

Despite choosing not to renew its previous sponsorship deal with Shell following criticism and campaigning, the Science Museum decided to accept sponsorship from Statoil, a Norwegian multinational oil and gas company, for its revamped children’s gallery, which the letter’s signatories describe as an “unconscionable” decision.

Continue reading...

On Tuesday, the Science Museum will launch its new interactive gallery for children – Wonderlab: The Statoil Gallery. Despite securing sponsorship from an oil and gas company that is recklessly planning to drill seven new wells in the fragile Arctic, the London museum has also introduced an entry charge, restricting access to those visitors able to pay.

It is unconscionable that in 2016 a museum of science is handing a fossil fuel company legitimacy by allowing it to sponsor a gallery designed to inspire the next generation. Statoil is pursuing new sources of oil that must stay in the ground if there is to be any hope of leaving a safe climate for the children that are to visit this gallery. And from the Norwegian Arctic to the Great Australian Bight, Statoil’s plans are opposed by local communities and indigenous peoples who want the company off their lands and out of their waters.

Continue reading...

Windsor and Maidenhead council looks to increase budget for fighting expected government go-ahead for third runway

Theresa May’s local authority is prepared to spend £50,000 on a judicial review if her government approves the expansion of Heathrow next week, documents released on Monday reveal.

The papers underline the scale of resistance that the prime minister will face from residents in her Maidenhead constituency, which she has represented since 1997, if she agrees to allow the third runway to go ahead.

Continue reading...

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau showed Australia a thing or two when he announced a new climate change plan last week – and not just because it was delivered impeccably in two languages. Trudeau has decided to leave climate policy to the provinces, while forcing them to act.

Is this state-based approach a model for Australia?

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull doesn’t seem keen. He recently blasted state-based renewable energy schemes, linking them to South Australia’s power outage and saying national approaches were best.

But here’s the thing: if Turnbull doesn’t boost his climate policies soon, a state-based system of climate policies is exactly what Australia will have. And unlike Canada, no one will be in charge of it.

What is Canada doing?

Australia and Canada make for a neat comparison – they have similar Westminster political systems, plenty of fossil fuels, and a messy history on climate policy.

In Canada a lack of federal action under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government prompted some states to go it alone. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec have carbon prices in place or coming. These are mostly not compatible. Some are carbon taxes, some are Emissions Trading Schemes (ETS). They have different prices rising at different rates, they cover different things. Plus there’s a range of state schemes on renewables and low-emission cars.

Enter the moderate Trudeau who took office last year. He’d talked the talk on climate change but faced with some states out in front and some recalcitrants, not to mention his own party’s disastrous 2008 push to bring in a national carbon tax, Trudeau trod carefully. He has decided not to bring in a national carbon price.

Rather, in a speech to Parliament last Monday which took many by surprise – and was delivered in both French and English, which is what Trudeau does – he announced every state must bring in its own carbon price by 2018.

Key points:

• The price should be at least C$10 (A$10) per tonne of emissions in 2018 – that’s the “floor price” – and rise to at least C$50 (A$50) by 2022

• States can choose a carbon tax or an ETS; the latter “will need to decrease emissions in line to Canada’s [emissions] target”

• If any state does not implement a carbon price by 2018, the federal government will implement a scheme for them

• The states keep any revenue.

This approach is not one recommended in Economics 101. It’s messy and complex. It won’t be easy comparing different schemes to see if they meet the floor price.

Trudeau has landed in a fight with some states, which could end up in the courts – the case of the PM vs Saskatchewan has already provided high theatre. (Crucially, it happens to be the smaller states which are most outraged, so that’s not necessarily fatal).

Environmentalists are complaining Trudeau didn’t boost Canada’s emissions target under the Paris climate deal, which enters into force next month. Behind the scenes business does not like this approach. They prefer national consistency.

But given where Canada’s at, Trudeau’s approach is seen as pragmatic and stronger than some had expected. A C$50 per tonne carbon price is substantial.

This a signalling exercise; Canada is serious about climate change, and carbon pricing is coming. Trudeau is letting some states take the lead – in Canada’s case it’s those who rely less on fossil fuels and have more progressive governments – while forcing laggard states to tag along.

And both the US and China are, to some degree, relying on provinces and cities to implement climate policies. Are all those countries wrong?

As an aside, Trudeau may be lifting the ambition on carbon pricing in exchange for authorising new fossil fuel infrastructure (pipelines, LNG plants), a cunning plan which could leave everyone unhappy.

So should Australia follow Canada’s lead?

We already are.

Critics accuse the Turnbull government of having no credible path to meet Australia’s Paris pledge to reduce emissions by 26-28% by 2030. Some states – particularly South Australia, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory – have gone it alone with state-based emissions targets and renewable energy schemes (hence the furore over the SA blackout). No state currently has a carbon price. It’s possible this will change. It’s been done before – New South Wales used to have the well-regarded Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme.

In general this state-based trend will become more pronounced, especially if the Turnbull government does not boost its climate policies. A review is due next year and that’s Turnbull’s chance to, for example, ramp up the existing Direct Action scheme into a more effective baseline-and-credit emissions trading scheme. But the biggest hurdle to doing more is Turnbull’s own backbench.

And the biggest potential catalyst for more action is business. More and more senior business figures seriously want – as in, not just some nice words in the annual report – bipartisan, national climate change policy. Business does not want to comply with a messy patchwork of state climate programs.

And with the Paris deal coming into force, countries such as Australia have to have a credible plan to meet their emissions targets. That’s why Trudeau stood up in Parliament and ordered the provinces to bring in carbon pricing.

There’s little chance of an Australian government going the “full Trudeau” and mandating a carbon price floor for the states in the near future. But we may be shambling towards a similar outcome.

Australia’s states have their own health systems, their own education systems, their own road rules. Perhaps they should have their own climate change policies as well.

Cathy Alexander recently returned from four months researching climate change policies in Canada, on an Endeavour Fellowship.

Cathy Alexander received funding in the form of an Endeavour Research Fellowship from the federal Department of Education and Training.

It's not quite time for international airlines to fly off into the sunset Aviation image www.shutterstock.com

Emissions fron international flights - a bugbear of efforts to combat climate change - will finally be regulated under a scheme agreed by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) on Thursday last week.

It’s a problem that had remained largely unaddressed by states – and airlines – since 1997, the year when essentially all nations, through the Kyoto Protocol, determined that ICAO – a United Nations agency – should deal with it.

Governments all took the view that, given jurisdictional and aircraft ownership and control issues, and the nature of the problem, ICAO was the appropriate forum to address the emissions problem. It was also a reflection of how difficult the problem was – and still is – to solve.

At the last ICAO Assembly, in 2013, states agreed that a market mechanism for international aviation was best, and that its form would be approved by the assembly this year. This 2013 agreement came just shy of 20 years since ICAO was tasked with addressing the problem. The 2016 meeting was the organisation’s 38th.

What did the assembly agree?

ICAO member states chose a global carbon offset scheme before the start of the assembly to deal with international aviation emissions. The scheme is called the CORSIA , or the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation. 

Other market-based options (more effective ones, according to general consensus) include an emissions trading scheme (ETS) – either a cap-and-trade or a baseline-and-credit scheme – or a carbon tax.

For some time it has been clear that offsetting was ICAO’s preferred mechanism. In part, it was chosen because it is less transparent and less onerous than either a carbon tax or an ETS. A tax would have been more straightforward and easier to implement.

An ETS would have made sense given that the European Union already has one in place for EU carriers. Moreover, an attempt to include non-EU carriers in the EU ETS failed a few years ago. ICAO could have used blueprints for the attempt in the lead-up to the 2016 assembly and, arguably, a better, more effective result might have ensued.

Relatively few changes were made between the final draft text and the final version that resulted from the assembly’s deliberations and private discussions between the parties.

As a result, an ICAO press conference to announce the details – unusually for such conferences, held the day before the assembly concluded – was attended by fewer than 15 journalists, and questions lasted less than 15 minutes.

How does the scheme work?

As outlined in our previous Conversation article, there are three phases to the offset scheme: a pilot phase would operate from 2021 to 2023 for states that volunteer to participate in the scheme. Much about this phase remains unclear.

An initial phase from 2024 to 2026 would then operate for states that (as with the pilot phase) voluntarily participate, and would offset using options in the assembly resolution text.

Finally, a subsequent mandatory phase would operate from 2027 – fully a decade away to 2035 – and would exempt a fair number of states on various bases. And there are further exemptions.

None of this was changed in the final resolution text.

Many weaknesses

While an advanced previous draft of the resolution asked the aviation sector to assess its share of the global carbon budget for holding warming to 1.5-2℃, such assessment was deleted from the final draft.

Now the text simply requests that ICAO:

…continue to explore the feasibility of a long term global aspirational goal for international aviation, through conducting detailed studies.

What’s more, the CORSIA only applies to international flights, which make up about 60% of aviation emissions.

Participation is also an issue. At this stage, for the first, voluntary period of the agreement, just 65 states will join. It appears that Russia and India, two of the world’s largest emitters, will not participate. Brazil’s participation is unclear.

The director general of IATA, the organisation of the world’s airlines, said:

This agreement ensures that the aviation industry’s economic and social contributions are matched with cutting-edge efforts on sustainability.

We’re not sure this is the case. Perhaps more correct is a statement from Bill Hemmings, a director at campaign group Transport & Environment:

Airline claims that flying will now be green are a myth … This deal won’t reduce demand for jet fuel one drop. Instead offsetting aims to cut emissions in other industries… Today is not mission accomplished for ICAO, Europe or industry. The world needs more than voluntary agreements.

The world also needs more than carbon offsets to address the aviation emissions problem both domestically and internationally.

The authors attended the 39th ICAO Assembly held in Montreal from 27 September to 7 October. Read their previous article here.

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

Ecologist and one of the co-creators of permaculture

Bill Mollison, who has died aged 88, was one of the co-creators of permaculture, an agricultural system that works with, rather than against, nature, on the basis that the natural world holds the key to stable and productive systems. Having developed the concept, he then travelled from his native Tasmania for 30 years to embed his approach worldwide. His ideas have spread widely – permaculture is practised in more than 140 countries and by more than 3 million people – even though in the 1970s the idea was considered, in Mollison’s words, “the highest form of sedition”.

Much of what he espoused was based on his great respect for the wisdom of subsistence farmers around the world, who have long used sustainable methods to grow their crops. In agricultural terms, this means planting diverse sets of crops, using perennial species to form productive stable systems, and ensuring the conditions for soils to be regenerated.

Continue reading...