Feed aggregator
Year-on-year bleaching threatens Great Barrier Reef's World Heritage status
The Great Barrier Reef has already been badly damaged by global warming during three extreme heatwaves, in 1998, 2002 and 2016. A new bleaching event is under way now.
As shown in a study published in Nature today, climate change is not some distant future threat. It has already degraded large tracts of the Great Barrier Reef over the past two decades.
The extreme marine heatwave in 2016 killed two-thirds of the corals along a 700km stretch of the northern Great Barrier Reef, from Port Douglas to Papua New Guinea. It was a game-changer for the reef and for how we manage it.
Our study shows that we cannot climate-proof coral reefs by improving water quality or reducing fishing pressure. Reefs in clear water were damaged as much as muddy ones, and the hot water didn’t stop at the boundaries of no-fishing zones. There is nowhere to hide from global warming. The process of replacement of dead corals in the northern third of the reef will take at least 10-15 years for the fastest-growing species.
The Great Barrier Reef is internationally recognised as a World Heritage Area. In 2015 UNESCO, the world body with oversight of World Heritage Areas, considered listing the reef as a site “in danger” in light of declines in its health.
Australia’s response falling shortIn response to concerns from UNESCO, Australia devised a plan, called the Reef 2050 Long-term Sustainability Plan. Its ultimate goal is to improve the “Outstanding Universal Value” of the reef: the attributes of the Great Barrier Reef that led to its inscription as a World Heritage Area in 1981.
We have written an independent analysis, delivered to UNESCO, which concludes that to date the implementation of the plan is far too slow and has not been adequately funded to prevent further degradation and loss of the reef’s values. A major shortcoming of the plan is that it virtually ignores the greatest current impact on the Great Barrier Reef: human-caused climate change.
The unprecedented loss of corals in 2016 has substantially diminished the condition of the World Heritage Area, reducing its biodiversity and aesthetic values. Key ecological processes are under threat, such as providing habitat, calcification (the formation of corals’ reef-building stony skeletons) and predation (creatures eating and being eaten by corals). Global warming means that Australia’s aim of ensuring the Great Barrier Reef’s values improve every decade between now and 2050 is no longer attainable for at least the next two decades.
What needs to changeOur report makes 27 recommendations for getting the Reef 2050 Plan back on track. The following are critical:
Address climate change and reduce emissions, both nationally and globally. The current lack of action on climate is a major policy failure for the Great Barrier Reef. Local action on water quality (the focus of the Reef 2050 Plan) does not prevent bleaching, or “buy time” for future action on emissions. Importantly, though, it does contribute to the recovery of coral reefs after major bleaching.
Reduce run-off of sediment, nutrients and pollutants from our towns and farms. To date the progress towards achieving the water quality targets and uptake of best management practice by farmers is very poor. Improving water quality can help recovery of corals, even if it doesn’t prevent mortality during extreme heatwaves.
Provide adequate funding for reaching net zero carbon emissions, for achieving the Reef 2050 Plan targets for improved water quality, and limiting other direct pressures on the reef.
At this stage, we do not recommend that the reef be listed as “in danger”. But if we see more die-backs of corals in the next few years, little if any action on emissions and inadequate progress on water quality, then an “in danger” listing in 2020, when UNESCO will reconsider the Great Barrier Reef’s status, seems inevitable.
This article was co-authored by Diane Tarte, co-director of Marine Ecosystem Policy Advisors Pty Ltd. She was a co-author of the independent report to UNESCO on the Great Barrier Reef.
![The Conversation](https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/74606/count.gif)
Terry Hughes receives competitive research funding from the Australian Research Council. He is the lead author on today’s Nature paper on recurrent coral bleaching, and a co-author on the independent report to UNESCO on the Reef 2050 Plan.
Barry Hart 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 his position as Emeritus Professor, Monash University .
Karen Hussey 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 her position as Professor and Deputy Director at the Global Change Institute, University of Queensland.
Stopping global warming is only way to save Great Barrier Reef, scientists warn
Improvements to water quality or fishing controls don’t prevent underwater heatwaves damaging coral, studies of mass bleaching events reveal
The survival of the Great Barrier Reef hinges on urgent moves to cut global warming because nothing else will protect coral from the coming cycle of mass bleaching events, new research has found.
The study of three mass bleaching events on Australian reefs in 1998, 2002 and 2016 found coral was damaged by underwater heatwaves regardless of any local improvements to water quality or fishing controls.
Continue reading...‘Airpocalypse’ smog events in China linked to melting ice cap, research reveals
Stagnant weather caused by fast-melting Arctic ice helped create conditions for China’s recent extreme air pollution events, scientists say
Climate change played a major role in the extreme air pollution events suffered recently by China and is likely to make such “airpocalypses” more common, new research has revealed.
The fast-melting ice in the Arctic and an increase in snowfalls in Siberia, both the result of global warming, are changing winter weather patterns over east China, scientists found. Periods of stagnant air are becoming more common, trapping pollution and leading to the build up of extreme levels of toxic air.
Continue reading...Fracking site approval by government based on legal errors, court hears
Residents opposed to the drilling sites in Lancashire say the communities secretary Sajid Javid’s decision was unlawful
The communities secretary, Sajid Javid, made significant legal errors when he overturned a council’s refusal to allow test drilling at a fracking site in Lancashire, a court has been told.
Residents opposed to the drilling sites near Blackpool told Manchester high court that Javid acted “in breach of the rules of natural justice” when he gave the green light to test fracking in October.
Continue reading...No cancer risk to using glyphosate weedkiller, says EU watchdog
Chemical used in the best-selling Roundup herbicide is cleared for public use following an EU licensing battle due to potential health risks
A controversial chemical used in Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller has been judged safe for public use by the European Chemical Agency (Echa).
Glyphosate has been the subject of a relicensing battle which split governments, regulators and scientists, with one arm of the World Health Organisation linking the substance to cancer, while another denied any risk.
Continue reading...Hundreds of beehive thefts blamed on rising honey price
Huge plastic waste footprint revealed
Burning wood for energy ignites fierce academic row
'Sea sparkle' plankton turns water blue off Tasmania – video report
Waters off the coast of Tasmania turned a shimmering blue this week, a phenomenon known as ‘noctiluca scintillans’, or sea sparkle. Despite people flocking to photograph the eerie scene, scientists have warned that it is, in fact, a worrying sign of climate change
Continue reading...Spiders top the global predator charts
Millions of single-use plastic soft drink bottles sold every year, report shows
A survey of five of the six biggest soft drinks firms found just 7% of throwaway plastic bottles are made from recycled materials
More than two million tonnes of throwaway plastic soft drinks bottles are sold each year, with only a small proportion made from recycled materials, research reveals.
A survey by Greenpeace found five of six global soft drinks firms sold single-use plastic bottles weighing more than two million tonnes – only 6.6% of which was recycled plastic.
Continue reading...The anatomy of an energy crisis - a pictorial guide, Part 3
In the third in my series on the crisis besetting the National Electricity Market (NEM) in eastern Australia ( see Part 1 & Part 2), I look at some evidence for how the market itself has played a role and specifically market power issues.
The recent troubles in our electricity market are well documented. As described in my earlier pieces in this series, two elements have focused the attention of our political masters and industry groups.
The first is the question of security, highlighted most dramatically by recent “black outs” in South Australia.
The second is the question of price, with both wholesale and contract market prices having risen dramatically across most regions in recent times but nowhere quite as dramatically as in Queensland (note that retail prices have also been rising as highlighted by the recent Grattan report).
While a tightening of the demand-supply balance in Queensland in response to an additional ~800 megawatt load from the massive CSG field developments and LNG export processing facilities partly explains the rise in wholesale or pool prices there, it is far from the full explanation.
Lurking in the details are issues to do with the very functioning of the market, and the exercise of market power by large generators who have, and continue to, exploit monopoly rents.
As described in the earlier posts, the NEM market is designed to signal changes in the balance of demand and supply via spot prices. But how much the spot prices respond is very dependant on the level of competition.
Recent experience of market participants flouting the spirit of the rules shines a light on competition issues and highlights a rather obvious, if somewhat trite, reality. That is, the benefits of competitive markets can only flow if markets are competitive.
The exercise of market power has been a perennial issue in the NEM. It is the role of the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) to set the rules that allow for safe operation of the electricity network, and efficient operation of the market. It is the job of the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) to do the enforcing, while AEMO operates the market.
The AEMC periodically adjusts rules so as to minimise the impact of perceived or real anti-competitive behaviour. It did so most recently in December 2015 with the Bidding in Good Faith rule amendment because, to quote:
… The Commission considers that the current rules do not set adequate boundaries on the ability of some participants to influence price outcomes to the detriment of others. This is not reflective of an efficient market.
The statement “ability … to influence price outcomes” is key. It expresses AEMC’s concern that some participants have sufficient market power to extract so-called monopoly rents.
To understand why the particular rule amendment was introduced, we need to go back to the two important intervals on which the market operates, the dispatch interval and the trading interval.
The dispatch interval is where the physics of the power system meets the economics of the market.
The necessity to balance generation and demand in real time, requires a dispatch pool with an objective of serving the demand at minimum system-cost. Functionally, our energy market operates by pooling offers from generators and allocating dispatch for each five minute interval in order of increasing offer price.
A generator offer specifies the price at which a given quantity of electricity will be supplied into a given trading interval, if needed. The dispatch price is set by the last (highest-price) offer needed to meet the dispatch interval demand. All generation dispatched receives the same dispatch price, regardless of the offer price. Offers at prices above the dispatch price are not needed and so receive nought.
The theory is that, in a perfectly competitive energy-only market, generators will offer the majority of their capacity at their short run marginal cost, like that shown below for Victorian generators.
![](https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/160908/width754/image-20170315-5347-1jktfh8.png)
In practice, individual generators apportion their capacity into a range of different price bands. They are then allowed to rebid the capacity into different price bands at short notice as part of the mechanism for making rapid adjustments to unforeseen circumstances that periodically arise in the normal course of events. AEMC’s Bidding in Good Faith rule amendment requires a justification for any late rebidding within 15 minutes of the start of the relevant dispatch interval.
As a deregulated market, optimal bidding is insured primarily by the discipline of competitive forces. It goes without saying, that without adequate competition, there can be no such insurance.
The other key interval is the half-hour trading interval or settlement period, across which dispatch prices are averaged to obtain a settlement or spot price, so called because it is the period on which financial payments are settled.
Since demand normally varies only slightly across a given half hour trading interval there should be little difference in the dispatch prices across the six corresponding dispatch intervals and the settlement price, especially when averaged over many trading intervals. In an efficient market with generators offering the bulk of their capacity at near their short run cost, this trading interval averaging should not materially affect the financial outcomes of the market. A necessary, though not necessarily sufficient, signal of the efficient operation of our market will be independence of dispatch prices or revenues on dispatch interval.
As shown below, January 2016 provides an illustrative case. It shows the dispatch prices for each dispatch interval averaged across the month. The narrow range of variation across each of the four regional markets that define the mainland part of the NEM, meets the expectation of a well-behaved market.
![](https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/160676/width754/image-20170314-10741-1yrefd4.png)
There is no compelling theoretical or practical reason for the exercise of a half-hour trading interval, it being something of a historical artefact. However many of the operators of our large generators seem to love it (as witnessed by submissions to a proposed rule change that would dispense the trading interval).
Why so? The cynic would say because the current arrangements have afforded a convenient guise to engage in profiteering. For example, by rebidding capacity into higher price bands late in a trading interval, settlement prices can be raised, materially distorting the market because other participants do not have time enough to respond. While such a creative compliance would in theory only impact un-contracted customers trading directly on the wholesale market, any resulting price increase will eventually pass through to the contract markets thereby affecting all customers.
Does it happen? Well the AEMC certainly thought so, enough at least to amend the Bidding in Good Faith Rule in December 2015.
The AEMC was particularly concerned that such practices were impacting market outcomes in Queensland (QLD1). The smoking gun lies deeply buried in the detils of the offers and rebids. But the pointers are quite apparent, as shown in the figure below which covers the month of January in 2015, prior to the AEMC’s rule amendment. Rather than average price, it shows the wholesale revenue by the 5-minute dispatch interval (the two are strongly coupled and their graphs are identical twins). The striking feature is the asymmetry in QLD1 revenue distribution, increasing very substantially across the last two dispatch intervals, compared with the earlier intervals. A crude estimate of the excess revenue generated by the anomalous, or inefficient, market behaviour is given by the sum of the differences between the dispatch interval prices and the lowest average dispatch interval price for the period. As noted on the right, in QLD1 it amounted to some 30% of total market value, or ~ $200 million for the month.
![](https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/160687/width754/image-20170314-10741-4n5rn3.png)
Given the magnitude of the anomaly the AEMC’s interest in a rule change is hardly surprising. To quote from their rule determination:
… the price volatility that arises from deliberately late rebidding … [is] … estimated to have added around eight dollars per megawatt hour to the price of caps in Queensland in the final quarter of 2014, and around seven dollars per megawatt hour in the first quarter of 2015. Across the market, this represents additional expenditure of approximately $170 million.
The AEMC noted also that
… While it is not guaranteed that the changes to the rules will put an immediate stop to the conduct of concern, they are a proportionate response to the issue, and ought to make it easier for the AER compared to the current arrangements to take enforcement action in respect of deliberately late rebidding. At the same time, they should not prevent rebidding in legitimate pursuit of commercial interests.
Did it do so? The AEMC and AER may well have been well pleased to see the initial response to its new rule determination in data such as for January 2016 shown above. However I suspect they will be concerned by the figure below, for January 2017. Essentially it is the mirror image of the January 2015 scenario, seemingly implying QLD1 generators are now initially bidding in capacity into elevated price bands in the early dispatch intervals. Conceivably, they may be rebidd capacity down to more normal values later in the trading interval, though that is moot since whatever the strategy it is achieving an identical outcome to 2015. Even if entirely within the rules, it would seem not in the spirit. The substantive result would appear to be situation normal in Queensland, with a $225 million monopoly rent extraction at the expense of electricity customers for this past January accompanying unprecedented spot price rises.
![](https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/160675/width754/image-20170314-10741-84p9my.png)
There is such a lot to be said about this, and hopefully it will be. It is but one, easily illustrated example of the exercise of market power. There are others, as for example described in the notes below. From the perspective of this discussion it is illustrative of significant deficiencies in the current operation of the NEM. Those deficiencies are exacerbating our current energy crisis. A concentration of market power is adding materially to costs especially, but not only, in Queensland.
It is worth noting that the half-hour settlement period is currently under review by AEMC and will likely be scrapped against the wishes of most established operators, or so it would seem judging from their submissions to the review. (As Dylan McConnell has shown, the current rules also seriously disadvantage the economics of a number of emerging technologies such as battery storage, hindering innovation that would serve much needed competitive discipline into the market.)
Whatever is decided by AEMC, the underlying issue of market power cannot be addressed by tinkering with the rules. And it is only getting worse as old power stations such as Northern in South Australia and Hazelwood in Victoria are closed. In the wake of such closures lies an even more concentrated market. For example, following closure of Northern, AGL’s proportion of registered capacity in South Australia increased 4% points, from 35% to 39%, improving its relative market power by more than 10%.
![](https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/160907/width754/image-20170315-5354-1du399.png)
With AGL in a position of great market power following the closure of Northern, it played its hand ruthlessly across July 2016, during the first of the South Australian energy crises as summarised here and described in more detail here (see Note [1]). With the closure of Hazelwood in a few weeks, AGL will again be the beneficiary of increased market share in Victoria, to a similar margin as it was in South Australia. That will increase the likelihood of AGL being a necessary or pivotal supplier in future high demand events in Victoria. How AGL responds will be a key to how steeply prices rise in Victoria and neighbouring states.
Like with any industry, our electricity generators have shown adeptness at exploiting the opportunities availed by the market rules. In so doing they have contributed to the price outcomes that are helping provoke our current energy crisis. One could only wish they turned such “innovation” to helping drive our energy system to a place we need it to be, that is secure, affordable and with much, much lower emissions. To be so guided, our market rules will have to be radically reshaped to be more aligned to the national interest, explicitly including all three elements of our energy trilemma, and ensuring adequate levels of competition allow the benefits of the deregulated market flow to all participants.
Sadly, as our energy crisis has unfolded, partly in response to the need to address its emissions intensity, emissions have begun to rise again. Just by how much we do not know, as I will discuss in the next piece in this series.
Notes
[1] In our analysis of the July 7th event in South Australia, we analysed the extent to which AGL bid capacity to high price bands (typically the market cap price) for the Torrens Island A Power Station. We also looked at the proportion of capacity that was available below and above $300/MWh. In aggregate, Torrens Island A offered its entire capacity to the market at less than $300/MWh 96.5% of time in 2015. For the remaining 3.5% of the year (or about 300 hours) some capacity was pushed into high price bands. Our analysis shows a correlation between periods of high scheduled demand and Torrens Island A’s bidding of capacity into high price bands. The proportion of time when some capacity was priced above $300/MWh is clearly skewed to times of high scheduled demand. In 2015, for the top 10% of scheduled demand periods, the amount of time some capacity was bid into these high price bands was 16.7%. For the top 1% of scheduled demand periods it increased to 35%. On July 7th 2016, it is clear is that Torrens Island had bid an unusually high volume of capacity at the market price cap, at a time it was needed to ensure supply as a pivotal supplier, consistent with exercising market power. While there is nothing in the rules to prevent this, the lack of appropriate competitive discipline means significant market distortion accumulated.
![The Conversation](https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/73693/count.gif)
Mike Sandiford receives funding from ANLEC and the ARC.
Parliament House want your help to name their possum
Life returns to a Cornish orchard
Harrowbarrow, Tamar Valley Short twigs of February-grafted cherries already show swelling buds above the yellow plastic tape
The new tall fence should help protect Mary and James’s orchard from the attention of roe deer, which come from the valley’s sheltering woodland to nibble leaves, bark and the precious shoots of new grafts, as well as shed their potentially dangerous ticks.
Most of the fruit trees are more than 30 years old, but this diverse and catalogued collection of once widely grown apples, cherries and pears is constantly being refined and added to. Short twigs of February-grafted cherries already show swelling buds above the yellow plastic tape that binds specific varieties to vigorous root-stocks. Lanky poor specimens of cherries have been dug out and the spaces infilled with more apples.
Continue reading...Tasmania's coastline glows in the dark as plankton turn blue
Eerie scenes on north-west coast show bioluminescent waters caused by ‘sea sparkle’
The waters along Tasmania’s north-west coastline have taken on a bizarre, glowing appearance in recent days. Photographs taken off Preservation Bay and Rocky Cape showcase bioluminescent waters caused by Noctiluca scintillans (AKA sea sparkle), tiny plankton emitting blue light in self-defence.
The phenomenon, which is best seen in calm, warm seas, is foreboding. “The displays are a sign of climate change,” Anthony Richardson, from the CSIRO, told New Scientist after an occurrence in Tasmania in 2015.
Continue reading...SA power plan: Why so much gas, when storage is so cheap?
Contested spaces: saving nature when our beaches have gone to the dogs
![](https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/160086/width496/image-20170308-24179-dflmw8.jpg)
This is the ninth article in our Contested Spaces series. These pieces look at the conflicting uses, expectations and norms that people bring to public spaces, the clashes that result and how we can resolve these.
There’s no doubt about it, Australians love the beach. And why not? Being outdoors makes us happy, and all beaches are public places in Australia.
Head to a beach like Bondi on Christmas Day and you’ll share that space with more than 40,000 people. But we aren’t just jostling with each other for coveted beach space. Scuttling, waddling, hopping or flying away from beachgoers all around Australia are crabs, shorebirds, baby turtles, crocodiles, fairy penguins and even dingoes.
Beaches are home to an incredible array of animals, and sharing this busy space with people is critical to their survival. But, if we find it hard to share our beaches with each other, how can we possibly find space for nature on our beaches?
Beach birdsHere’s a classic example of how hard it is to share our beaches with nature. Head to a busy beach at dawn, before the crowds arrive, and you will most likely see a number of small birds darting about.
You may recognise them from the short movie Piper – they are shorebirds. As the day progresses, swimmers, kite surfers, dog walkers, horse riders, 4x4s and children descend upon the beach en masse, unwittingly disturbing the shorebirds.
We share beaches with an extraordinary array of life, including many shorebirds.Unlike seabirds, shorebirds do not spend their life at sea. Instead, they specialise on the beach: foraging for their invertebrate prey, avoiding waves, or resting.
However, shorebird numbers in Australia are declining very rapidly. Several species are officially listed as nationally threatened, such as the critically endangered Eastern Curlew.
There are few places you can let your dog run for as long and as far as it pleases, which is one of the reasons beaches appeal to dog owners. But this disturbance results in heavy costs to the birds as they expend energy taking flight and cannot return to favourable feeding areas. Repeated disturbance can cause temporary or permanent abandonment of suitable habitat.
![](https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/160088/width237/image-20170308-24226-avq9ze.jpg)
The fascinating thing about many of these shorebirds is that they are migratory. Beachgoers in Korea, China, Indonesia or New Zealand could observe the same individual bird that we have seen in Australia.
Yet these journeys come at a cost. Shorebirds must undertake gruelling flights of up to 16,000 kilometres twice a year to get from their breeding grounds in Siberia and Alaska to their feeding grounds in Australia and New Zealand. In their pursuit of an endless summer, they arrive in Australia severely weakened by their travels. They must almost double their body weight before they can migrate again.
And these birds must contend with significant daily disruption on their feeding grounds. A recent study in Queensland found an average of 174 people and 72 dogs were present at any one time on the foreshore of Moreton Bay, along Brisbane’s coastline. And 84% of dogs were off the leash – an off-leash dog was sighted every 700 metres – in potential contravention of regulations on dog control.
Managing the menagerieOne conservation approach is to set up nature reserves. This involves trying to keep people out of large areas of the coastal zone to provide a home for nature. Yet this rarely works in practice on beaches, where there are so many overlapping jurisdictions (for example, councils often don’t control the lower areas of the intertidal zone) that protection is rarely joined up.
![](https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/160091/width237/image-20170309-24182-1akelhs.jpg)
![](https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/160078/width237/image-20170308-24201-13o3hf7.jpg)
However, our work at the University of Queensland shows we don’t need conservation reserves in which people are kept out. Quite the reverse. We should be much bolder in opening up areas that are specifically designated as dog off-leash zones, in places where demand for recreation is high.
In the case of Moreton Bay, 97% of foraging migratory shorebirds could be protected from disturbance simply by designating five areas as off-leash recreation zones. Currently, dogs must be kept under close control throughout the intertidal areas of Moreton Bay.
By zoning our beaches carefully, the science tells us that the most intense recreational activities can be located away from critical areas for nature. And there’s no reason why this logic couldn’t be extended to creating peaceful zones for beach users who prefer a quiet day out.
By approaching the problem scientifically, we can meet recreational demand as well as protect nature. Proper enforcement of the boundaries between zones is needed. Such enforcement is effective when carried out in the right places at the right time.
We believe that keeping people and their dogs off beaches to protect nature is neither desirable nor effective. It sends totally the wrong message – successful conservation is about living alongside nature, not separating ourselves from it.
Conservationists and recreationists should be natural allies, both working to safeguard our beautiful coasts. The key is to find ways that people and nature can co-exist on beaches.
You can find other pieces published in the series here.
![The Conversation](https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/72078/count.gif)
Madeleine Stigner received funding for the work referred to in this article from Birds Queensland and the Queensland Wader Study Group Nigel Roberts Student Research Fund.
Kiran Dhanjal-Adams received funding for the work referred to in this article from the Centre of Excellence in Environmental Decisions, the Australian Research Council, Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, the Queensland Wader Study Group, the Port of Brisbane Pty Ltd, the Goodman Foundation and Birdlife Australia’s Stuart Leslie Award.
Richard Fuller received funding for the work referred to in this article from the National Environmental Science Programme's Threatened Species Recovery Hub, the Australian Research Council, Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, the Queensland Wader Study Group, the Port of Brisbane Pty Ltd, the Goodman Foundation and Birdlife Australia’s Stuart Leslie Award.