Feed aggregator

Origin Energy lost electricity customers but grew revenue, price and margin for the full-year 2017. Overall the result was strong at virtually every line.

How hard will climate impacts in China hit Australia's economy? It’s a question for the Senate inquiry into national security implications of climate change.

AGL is offering households with rooftop solar systems a free service to help them protect potential savings by monitoring their systems.

Origin results show its retail division made the most of a "transitioning energy market." But CEO says further power price rises "would be bad for everyone."

Kennards House, Cornwall At the agricultural show white-coated exhibitors vie for prizes as the heavy horses are hitched and cocks crow in the poultry tent

After noting the whereabouts of their parked cars relative to the windblown hedgerow trees, visitors converge on the entrance to Launceston’s one-day agricultural show.

Cloud shrouds Kit Hill to the south but Caradon, Kilmar Tor and Hawk’s Tor on Bodmin Moor, as well as nearby wind turbines, are silhouetted against an increasing expanse of blue sky.

Continue reading...

New Energy Solar has today been recognised as an ABA100 Winner in The Australian Business Awards 2017.

The Andrews Labor Government has today appointed Mr John Bradley as the new Secretary of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP).

Today's chart shows how there's been a slight dip as wind power has increased output in July, and how prices were higher when gas dominated the fuel mix in the state.

If power can be generated where it is consumed, it can closely follow demand growth. Where does much of that growth come from? The "leisure-pull".

Despite an upbeat renewables outlook, Origin Energy CEO says the market is not out of the woods yet, and that for investment to keep up momentum, policy stability remains at a premium, and the introduction of a Clean Energy Target is critical.

Light-weight new drone features standard solar cells, encapsulated in composite material without losing efficiency.

A dinosaur that seemed to be an evolutionary mishmash turns out to have a key place in history.

The Shetland Monkeyflower has a bigger flower with a wider throat than its ancestors.

Former US Vice President and Chair of the Climate Reality Project Al Gore and Victoria's climate and energy minister Lily D'Ambrosio (right) ride on a tram after speaking at the climate conference in Melbourne. AAP/Tracey Nearmy, CC BY-ND

A little over half the world’s population sees climate change as a serious problem (54% according to a 40-nation Pew Research survey). Coincidentally, roughly the same number identify as Christian or Muslim (55%).

On the one hand, these statistics speak to the success of climate change communication. In just a few decades, climate scientists have convinced a large part of the world’s population that a set of powerful, invisible forces have important implications for the way we live. World religions took centuries to achieve similar success.

On the other hand, religion spreads without the support of empirical evidence and is capable of generating changes in people’s behaviour that climate scientists would envy. Religion pervades almost every aspect of the lives of believers, from the food they eat to what they do on the weekend. We argue that scientists can take lessons from this.

Actions louder than words

One way that religions succeed is to focus not just on what adherents say, but what they do. A key strategy is to encourage or require adherents (including leaders) to engage in behaviours that act as signals of commitment to their beliefs. Followers, for example, may be asked to dress in distinctive (often impractical) garb, engage in regular rituals in public (sometimes multiple times a day), or abide by seemingly arbitrary dietary restrictions.

Even more is required of leaders, from highly restricted diets, giving up worldly possessions, to lives of celibacy. The costs of these behaviours make them hard-to-fake signals of sincerity that help spread belief to otherwise sceptical outsiders and bolster support among followers.

We like to think that science is completely different. While religion is dogmatic and based on faith, science is continually questioning, grounded in the scientific method and the many useful predictions and technologies that emerge from it.

But we do not, as individuals, test all the claims that scientists and science communicators make. Out of practical necessity, we must all take a good deal of what science tells us, as well as it’s implications for how we should live our lives, on trust.

Sending signals of commitment

Al Gore’s 2006 movie An Inconvenient Truth was hailed as a turning point in public awareness of climate change, but it also attracted heated criticism. Some criticism was directed at the movie’s content, but much was also made of Gore’s apparent hypocrisy, including his use of private jets, home energy consumption and acquisition of beachfront property.

While ad hominem attacks do not undermine the factual claims made in the movie, Gore’s actions undoubtedly reduced the credibility of his message to some people. If he is still flying extensively and buying up beachfront property, how bad can the problem really be?

We argue that because all of us, scientists and non-scientists alike, must take much in science on trust, behavioural signals are potentially just as important to the spread of scientific knowledge as they are to that of religion. It does not follow that science and religion stand on the same epistemological foundations; rather it is an acknowledgement that trust in the vast stocks of scientific knowledge and its implications can only be established by any one individual using non-scientific means.

Going beyond talk

Scientists and science communicators should therefore be prepared to make better use of signals, particularly costly signals, to demonstrate they are truly committed to what they are advocating.

Whether or not An Inconvenient Truth was undermined by apparent hypocrisy, it was a lost opportunity on Gore’s part. If, for example, he had sold his energy-intensive mansion and refused to fly to his engagements, he could have sent a credible signal to the public that he was personally deeply concerned about the threat of climate change. As his new movie, An Inconvenient Sequel, is released around the world, he has another opportunity to bolster his argument with action.

We do not wish to lambast leading climate change communicators for hypocrisy. There are plenty of others who do that already. But our point is this: although the validity of scientific ideas should be independent of their messenger, our actions matter for generating the kind of deep commitment to scientific evidence that will be required to tackle the problems of our time. Scientists and science communicators need to focus not just on what we say, but on the signals we send via our actions.

Our personal action plan

Our own first step in this direction is a commitment to forgo air travel in 2018 as a costly signal of our belief in the need for urgent action on climate change. By far our largest contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is flying to academic conferences. A single return flight from Auckland to London is roughly equivalent to the average annual carbon dioxide emissions per capita of New Zealand.

Carbon offsets are one way to address emissions from flying, but (efficacy aside) they are controversial and tend to be cheap and invisible, which makes them ineffective as credible signals of commitment.

We make our commitment to forgo flying publicly and challenge other senior academics to do likewise. Forgoing flying, particularly for those in New Zealand and Australia, carries costs in that networking and exposure to new ideas can become more difficult. Giving a speech at an international conference is highly prestigious for an academic, and in New Zealand it is one of the criteria in our national research assessment exercise.

With careful planning, we believe we can overcome some of the costs in forgoing opportunities to travel. We intend to make better use of prerecorded talks and video conferencing and support local and online conferences and research networks. By committing to these practices, and encouraging others to do the same, scientists can demonstrate that change is possible and send a powerful signal that they are personally committed to action on climate change.

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.

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has been in the headlines lately for all the wrong reasons. Beyond money-laundering allegations and the announcement that CEO Ian Narev will retire early, the CBA is now also being sued in the Australian Federal Court for misleading shareholders over the risks climate change poses to their business interests.

This case is the first in the world to pursue a bank over failing to report climate change risks. However, it’s building on a trend of similar actions against energy companies in the United States and United Kingdom.

Read more: Why badly behaving bankers will never fear jail time

The CBA case was filed on August 8, 2017 by advocacy group Environmental Justice Australia on behalf of two longstanding Commonwealth Bank shareholders. The case argues that climate change creates material financial risks to the bank, its business and customers, and they failed in their duty to disclose those risks to investors.

This represents an important shift. Conventionally, climate change has been treated by reporting companies merely as a matter of corporate social responsibility; now it’s affecting the financial bottom line.

What do banks need to disclose?

When banks invest in projects or lend money to businesses, they have an obligation to investigate and report to shareholders potential problems that may prevent financial success. (Opening a resort in a war zone, for example, is not an attractive proposition.)

However, banks may now have to take into account the risks posed by climate change. Australia’s top four banks are heavily involved in fossil-fuel intensive projects, but as the world moves towards renewable energy those projects may begin to look dubious.

Read more: How companies are getting smart about climate change

As the G20’s Taskforce on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures recently reported, climate risks can be physical (for instance, when extreme weather events affect property or business operations) or transition risks (the effect of new laws and policies designed to mitigate climate change, or market changes as economies transition to renewable and low-emission technology).

For example, restrictions on coal mining may result in these assets being “stranded,” meaning they become liabilities rather than assets on company balance sheets. Similarly, the rise of renewable energy may reduce the life span, and consequently the value, of conventional power generation assets.

Companies who rely on the exploitation of fossil fuels face increasing transition risks. So too do the banks that lend money to, and invest in, these projects. It is these types of risks that are at issue in the case against CBA.

What did the CBA know about climate risk?

The claim filed by the CBA shareholders alleges the bank has contravened two central provisions of the Corporations Act 2001:

• companies must include a financial report within the annual report which gives a “true and fair” view of its financial position and performance, and

• companies must include a director’s report that allows shareholders to make an “informed assessment” of the company’s operations, financial position, business strategies and prospects.

The shareholders argue that the CBA knew – or ought to have known – that climate-related risks could seriously disrupt the bank’s performance. Therefore, investors should have been told the CBA’s strategies for managing those risks so they could make an informed decision about their investment.

Read more: We need a Royal Commission into the banks

The claim also zeros in on the lengthy speculation over whether the CBA would finance the controversial Adani Carmichael coal mine in Queensland. (The bank has since ruled out financing the mine.) The shareholders assert that the resulting “controversy and concern” was a major risk to the CBA’s business.

Global litigation trends

While the CBA case represents the first time worldwide that a financial institution has been sued for misleading disclosure of climate risk, the litigation builds on a broader global trend. There have been a number of recent legal actions in the United States, seeking to enforce corporate risk disclosure obligations in relation to climate change:

Energy giant Exxon Mobile is currently under investigation by the Attorneys General of New York and California over the company’s disclosure practices. At the same time, an ongoing shareholder class action alleges that Exxon Mobile failed to disclose internal reports about the risks climate change posed to their oil and gas reserves, and valued those assets artificially high.

Similar pathways are being pursued in the UK, where regulatory complaints have been made about the failure of major oil and gas companies SOCO International and Cairn Energy to disclose climate-related risks, as required by law.

In this context, the CBA case represents a widening of litigation options to include banks, as well as energy companies. It is also the first attempt in Australia to use the courts to clarify how public listed companies should disclose climate risks in their annual reports.

Potential for more litigation

This global trend suggests more companies are likely to face these kinds of lawsuits in the future. Eminent barrister Noel Hutley noted in October 2016 that many prominent Australian companies, including banks that lend to major fossil fuel businesses, are not adequately disclosing climate change risks.

Hutley predicted that it’s likely only a matter of time before we see a company director sued for failing to perceive or react to a forseeable climate-related risk. The CBA case is the first step towards such litigation.

Anita Foerster receives support from Australian Research Council Discovery Project – DP 160100225, ‘Developing a Legal Blueprint for Corporate Energy Transition’.

Jacqueline Peel receives support from Australian Research Council Discovery Project – DP 160100225, ‘Developing a Legal Blueprint for Corporate Energy Transition’.

Can 10 men and a dog, led by British explorer Pen Hadow, become the first to sail to the North Pole?

Sierra Leonean emergency services and aid agencies are working to find victims of the heavy mudslides and flooding which devastated areas around the country’s capital Freetown on Monday. Thousands of people are still missing

• Sierra Leone’s deadly mudslide: thousands missing as search continues
  

Continue reading...

Major 190-mile road will strip national park and home to thousands of indigenous people of its protected status, making it vulnerable to deforestation

Bolivia has given the go ahead to a controversial highway which would cut through an Amazon biodiversity hotspot almost the size of Jamaica and home to 14,000 mostly indigenous people.

President Evo Morales enacted the new law opening the way for the 190-mile (300km) road through the Isiboro Sécure Indigenous Territory and National Park, known as Tipnis, its Spanish acronym. The road will divide the park in two and strip it of the protections won in 2011 when a national march by thousands of protesters ended in clashes with the police and forced the government to change its position.

Continue reading...

How can a brass band and a steam train help you understand the universe?

Campaigners plan to plant enough trees to counteract the climate impact of the US President.