The Conversation

The Simien mountains in Ethiopia are one of the world's most threatened natural heritage sites. Simien mountains image from www.shutterstock.com

Would we knock down the pyramids or flatten the Acropolis to make way for housing estates, roads or farms? You would hope not. Such an indictment would deprive future generations of the joy and marvel we all experience when visiting or learning about such historic places.

Yet right now, across our planet, many of the United Nations’ World Heritage sites that have been designated for natural reasons are being rapidly destroyed in the pursuit of short-term economic goals.

In our paper published in Biological Conservation, we found that expanding human activity has damaged more than 50 of the 203 natural sites, and 120 have lost parts of their forests over the past 20 years. Up to 20 sites risk being damaged beyond repair.

So how can we better look after these precious sites?

Jewels in the crown

Globally recognised areas that contain the Earth’s most beautiful and important natural places are granted natural World Heritage status by UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). Each natural World Heritage site is unique and therefore irreplaceable.

Current sites include iconic landscapes such as Yosemite National Park in the United States, and important biodiversity conservation areas such as Serengeti National Park in Tanzania.

Wildebeest gather at the river’s edge on migration in Serengeti National Park. Wildebeest image from www.shutterstock.com

The World Heritage Convention strives to protect natural World Heritage sites and keep their condition as close to pristine as possible. As with those hundreds of cultural World Heritage sites such as Petra and Masada, no human modification or damage is acceptable. These sites are the natural world’s crown jewels.

We examined the degree of human pressure (including roads, agriculture, urbanisation and industrial infrastructure) and direct forest loss across areas with natural World Heritage status.

These changes are not compatible with maintaining the natural heritage of these places. And should sites be damaged beyond repair, we will have lost some of the common heritage of humankind forever.

Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Rhino image from www.shutterstock.com Which sites fared worst?

We found that human pressure within sites has increased in every continent except Europe over the last two decades. Asia is home to the worst-affected sites, including Manas Wildlife Sanctuary in India, Komodo National Park in Indonesia, and Chitwan National Park in Nepal. Development has also badly affected Simien National Park in Ethiopia and it has been listed as World Heritage “in danger”. European sites, such as St Kilda, were already highly modified 20 years ago and have largely remained as such since then.

Change in human footprint between 1993 and 2009 across natural World Heritage sites inscribed prior to 1993. Sites that experienced an increase (which may threaten their unique values) are shown in red, while sites that experienced a decrease are shown in green. Site boundaries are not to scale and have been enlarged for clarity. Allan et al. 2017

A majority of the sites have lost areas of forest. Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada lost 2,581 square kilometres (11.7%) and Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve in Honduras lost 365 square km (8.5%) of forest since 2000.

The processes behind why the sites lost forest cover are diverse. In the Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve, also “in danger”, illegal drug trafficking created insecurity and instability in the region, which allowed widespread illegal deforestation and illegal settlement to occur.

Deforestation in Patuca National Park in Honduras. J.Polisar

In North America, even celebrated places like Yellowstone have been affected, losing some 6% of forest cover. This, and the losses in Wood Buffalo National Park, is almost certainly due to the largest pine beetle outbreaks on record. These are stripping trees of foliage and making them more susceptible to fire.

Although pine beetle damage is a semi-natural phenomenon, it is being assisted by human-caused climate change, as winters are no longer cold enough to kill off the beetles. This is notoriously hard to manage on the ground, but instead requires the United States and Canada to strengthen their efforts to fight climate change nationally and on the global stage.

Time to stop paving paradise

The 192 signatories to the World Heritage Convention need to respond to these findings. The World Heritage Committee must use information like this to immediately assess these highly threatened sites and work with nations to try to halt the erosion.

The UNESCO World Heritage Committee meets again this July in Poland. It is not too late; with urgent intervention most sites can still be retained.

A mining site in Kahuzi Biega Park, Democratic Republic of the Congo. A K Plumptre WCS

The method we have used makes it much easier to identify natural World Heritage sites that may need to be added to the “in danger” list so extra attention and resources are channelled towards saving them.

Sites such as Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve, which have lost so much forest in such a short time, need to be identified and those nations supported in averting further decline. Ultimately, World Heritage status can be retracted if the values a site is listed for are undermined. This would be an international embarrassment for the host nation.

The global community can play a role by holding governments to account so that they take the conservation of natural World Heritage sites seriously. We already do this for many of our cultural sites, and it is time to give natural sites the equal recognition and support they deserve.

Just as we would defend the Colosseum in Rome, Petra in Jordan, or Mont St Michel in France, we must fight against the planned highway across the Serengeti in Tanzania, uranium mining in Kakadu and logging of the Styx Valley in Australia, and forests being cleared for agriculture in Sumatra, Indonesia. This work is a call to action to save our natural world heritage.

James Watson receives funding from The Australian Research Council. He is the Director of Science and Research Initiative at the Wildlife Conservation Society,

James Allan receives a stipend from The Australian Research Council

Sean Maxwell receives a stipend from The Australian Research Council.

The rise of renewable energy is one reason the world is shifting away from coal. Wind turbine image from www.shutterstock.com

Last year we found that the growth in global fossil fuel emissions have stalled over the past three years. But does this mean we are on track to keep global warming below 2℃, as agreed under the 2015 Paris Agreement?

In our study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change today, we looked at how global and national energy sectors are progressing towards global climate targets.

We found that we can still keep global warming below 2℃ largely thanks to increasing use of clean energy, a global decline in coal use, improvements in energy efficiency, and a consequent stalling of emissions from fossil fuels over the past three years.

Nations need to accelerate deployment of existing technologies to lock in and build on the gains of the last three years. More challenging, is the needed investment to develop new technologies and behaviours necessary to get to net-zero global emissions by mid-century.

World moving away from fossil fuels

We looked at several key measures, including carbon emissions from fossil fuels, the carbon intensity of the energy system (how much carbon is produced for each unit of energy) and the amount of carbon emitted to produce one dollar of wealth.

The world share of energy from fossil fuels is starting to decline. There has been no growth in coal consumption and strong growth in energy from wind, biomass, solar and hydro power. The emerging trend is therefore towards lower carbon emissions from energy production.

Energy efficiency has also improved globally in recent years, reversing the trends of the 2000s. These improvements are reducing the amount of carbon emissions to produce new wealth.

From all these changes, global fossil fuel emissions have not grown over the past three years. Remarkably, this has occurred while the global economy has continued to grow.

As the global economy grows, it is using less energy to produce each unit of wealth as economies become more efficient and shift towards services.

These promising results show that, globally, we are broadly in the right starting position to keep warming below 2℃.

But modelling suggests that stringent climate policy will only slightly accelerate this historical trend of improvements in energy intensity. And to keep warming below 2℃ will require deep and sustained reductions in the carbon intensity of how energy is produced.

China leading the charge

We also looked at the countries that will have the greatest global impact.

The slowdown in global emissions in the past three years is due in large part to the reduced growth in coal consumption in China. Fossil fuel emissions in China grew at 10% per year over most of the 2000s, but have not grown since 2013. This signals a possible peak in emissions more than a decade earlier than predicted.

China is showing a significant decline in the share of fossil fuels in its energy sector. This has been driven by the decline in coal and the growth of renewable energies. The carbon intensity of fossil fuels has also been falling, for instance by burning coal more efficiently.

The United States has also reduced emissions in the last decade, with significant declines in coal consumption, particularly in the last few years. These declines have several causes, including a weaker economy in the last decade and continued improvements in energy efficiency, which have led to lower energy demand.

Emissions in the US have further declined due to a decline in carbon intensity of fossil fuels driven by the shift from coal to natural gas and the growth in renewables.

Emissions have declined in the European Union for several decades, most notably in the past 10 years as a weaker economy, along with continual improvements in energy efficiency, has led to declines in emissions. These declines are speeding up with the growing share of renewables in the energy sector.

India has sustained an emissions growth of 5-6% per year and is expected to continue growing, with little change in the underlying drivers of emissions growth.

Australia’s fossil fuel emissions have been stable or declining since 2009 as a result of the combined decline in the energy intensity of the economy and the carbon intensity of energy. However, fossil fuel emissions have grown since 2015.

The devil is in the detail

There is one big “but” in our analysis. We found that current fossil fuel trends are consistent with keeping warming below 2℃ because the future climate scenarios we use – assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – allow for relatively large amounts of fossil fuels use in the future.

These scenarios assume that large amounts of the carbon emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels will be removed using carbon capture and storage (CCS).

CCS is also widely used together with bioenergy to produce a technology that in effect removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In this process, plants remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, burning these plants produces bioenergy, and the resulting CO₂ emissions are captured and stored underground. The plants grow again and the cycle is repeated.

Most scenarios rely on large-scale deployment of CCS, in the order of thousands of CCS facilities by 2030, to keep warming under 2℃. At present, just a few tens of facilities are being planned. There is also a lack of commitment to CCS in most pledges under the Paris Agreement for 2030.

Although many of the current indicators are consistent with limiting warming to 2℃, there is now an urgent need for deployment of CCS to avoid the divergence from those pathways. That is unless technological alternatives can be deployed to cover the mitigation gap that is quickly emerging.

Many emissions scenarios also include removing large amounts of CO₂ from the atmosphere. Although bioenergy with CCS is the preferred technology in those scenarios, there is an equally urgent need to invest in the research and development of alternative negative emission technologies, potentially with a smaller environmental footprint.

Turning the slowdown into a decline

It is significant that emissions growth has slowed in the last three years. This is necessary to move onto an emission pathway consistent with keeping global average temperatures below 2℃ above pre-industrial levels.

The short-term challenge is to lock in this slowdown from declining coal use, switching coal for gas, and the increasing share of clean energy. This will reduce the risk of emissions rebounding if the global economy grows more strongly in the short term.

However, our research shows that for emissions to move onto a downward trend at the required speed will require emission reductions in a broader range of sectors and more rapid deployment of existing low-carbon technologies.

Ultimately, reaching zero emissions this century will require a rapid program of research and development to support a wide range of low-carbon technologies, including systems to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Pep Canadell receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program of the Australian Department of the Environment.

Corinne Le Quéré is affiliated with the UK Committee on Climate Change.

Glen Peters receives funding from the Research Council of Norway.

Cities are facing more heatwaves, but not all strategies to keep us cool are equal. Sydney image from www.shuttrstock.com

The recent spate of heatwaves through eastern Australia has reminded us we’re in an Australian summer. On top of another record hot year globally, and as heatwaves become more frequent and intense, our cities are making us even hotter.

This is the urban heat island, where city temperatures can be significantly warmer than the surrounding rural regions.

The question, then, is what we can do to keep our cities cooler.

Why are cities hotter?

The temperature difference is caused by a range of factors, including dense building materials absorbing more of the sun’s energy, fewer trees to provide shade, and less soil to cool by evaporation.

Buildings can also act like the hairs on a husky, reducing wind speeds and blocking thermal radiation up to the night sky. On top of that, waste heat from car engines, air-conditioners and other energy use adds to overall air temperatures.

Why does this matter? Even a small increase in air temperature pushes up overall energy demand, and about 25% of our energy bills are for only 40 hours per year when the grid is most heavily used.

The most extreme heat events can buckle train lines, cause rolling blackouts and cost billions in lost productivity. And it’s not just bad for our wallets.

Heat stress can cause organ failure or exascerbate heart or breathing problems. Since 1900, extreme heat events have killed more Australians than bushfires, cyclones, earthquakes, floods and severe storms combined.

So, what can we do?

There are a number of things individuals can do to reduce the impact of heat in their homes, such as installing light coloured roofing material, insulation or an air-conditioner.

But it gets more complicated when considering the city as a whole, and how these small actions interact with each other and with the climate.

Air-conditioners

In heatwaves, air-conditioners save lives, allowing stressed bodies time to cool. But our homes can only be made cooler by blowing heat outside, along with the extra energy to run the system.

As well as increasing outside air temperatures in the short term, the fossil fuels burned add to global warming. A world cooled by air-conditioning probably isn’t the answer.

Trees and parks

Trees provide shade, but also cool the air, because evaporating water from leaves takes energy, reducing peak temperatures by 1-5° C.

Most city planners agree on the broad benefits of urban vegetation, with some metropolitan councils developing urban greening strategies.

However, urban trees can be a vexed issue for some councils; they use water, can be costly to maintain, can damage utilities and property, and can worsen air quality instead of improving it. Larger cities are often made up of dozens of councils; getting them to agree is a major challenge.

White roofs

We know that black surfaces get hotter in the sun, but demand for dark roof tiles still far outweighs demand for light colours. More reflective roofs can reduce a household’s energy bill, as well as the overall temperature of a city.

White roofs are most effective in warmer climates, because in cold climates, the cost savings in summer must be balanced with additional heating costs in winter.

Green roofs and walls

Green roofs and walls are building structures with integrated vegetation. They provide cooling benefits by shading buildings and through evaporation from leaves. They generally show less cooling benefit than white roofs, cost more to install and maintain, and use additional water and energy.

But they do look nice, improve biodiversity and make people happier.

Pavement watering

Prior to an extreme heatwave, it may be possible to reduce temperatures by wetting down building and road surfaces. It’s a traditional practice in Japan, and is now being considered in major cities like Paris.

But temperature and humidity are important factors in heat stress, so pavement watering should only be undertaken if the extra humidity does not increase heat stress.

Large scale rooftop solar

Solar panels convert energy from the sun into electricity, so less energy is required from the network overall. If enough roofs were covered with solar panels, could that lower air temperatures?

Probably a little. Other benefits include a reduction in the energy required for cooling (because the roofs are shaded by panels), and a stable, lower cost, decentralised renewable energy system.

Building density

A building with lots of thermal mass (think sturdy, double-brick home) can be an effective way to keep inside temperatures more stable. Heat is absorbed during the day and released at night. The same idea can work for an entire city.

An urban cool island can form in high-density cities like Hong Kong because tall buildings provide extra heat capacity and shade.

For similar reasons, the tight street layout of traditional Arabian and Mediterranean cities keep those streets cooler.

Shading structures

Installing light shading structures over streets, pavements and roofs can reduce the surface temperature of materials, and reduce the heat absorbed and radiated back into streets. Shading structures need to be designed so that they do not limit airflow, trapping heat and air pollution in streets.

Which is best?

To figure out what works best, we need to be able to model the physics of different strategies, in different types of cities and in different climates. We can then assess the economic and health impacts and decide on appropriate and plans that give us the biggest bang for our buck.

Here we have focused on heat in cities, but there are other important concerns like air quality or flooding.

In colder cities, an urban heat island could actually be a good thing. Each city is different; each requires a tailored and integrated plan developed over the entire metropolitan region, and then implemented locally by councils, businesses and households.

Mathew Lipson receives funding through an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship, UNSW Sydney and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.

Melissa Hart receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, the NSW Environmental Trust and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

Monstrous, or just misunderstood? National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Fans of the movie Finding Nemo may remember the terrifying fish that scares Dory (a blue tang) and Marlin (a clown fish) at the bottom of a trench.

But in reality this “monster”, a black seadevil, is only about 9 cm long, which would make it about a third of the size of Dory and potentially smaller than Marlin or Nemo.

In 2014, researchers at Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute began studying a single black sea devil. It was caught and moved to a special darkroom laboratory designed to simulate its dark and cold natural habitat.

While this misconception or inaccuracy may seem harmless, it could pose problems for future conservation efforts, as people are more likely to support conservation of cute rather than creepy-looking animals.

While the angler fish is easily turned into a scary monster, the similar-sized tiny Pac-Man looking octopus is cute and popular with the public.

Deep sea commercial fishing nothing to celebrate

From 2000-2010, scientists described about 1,200 new species in the Census of Marine Life Program. While this figure may seem astounding, a further 5,000 individual dead creatures are in specimen jars, waiting to be described. The scientific process of describing new species is slow.

Specimens must be methodically collected, identified, and then the identity of new deep-water species must be confirmed.

People have always had a fascination for unusual creatures that they may never see. Many exotic land animals can be seen in zoos around the world, but few deep sea species are on display in aquaria. In the meantime, people on social media are hungry for images of strange and exotic animals of the sea.

As a result, a Russian fisherman working on deep sea commercial trawlers last year gained huge numbers of social media followers after posting photos and videos of some of the deep sea creatures caught on his ship, with some even stuffed by craftsmen on board.

Presumably, many of these specimens are bycatch, accidentally caught in nets trawling for other species popular with consumers. Sometimes bycatch, which includes marine mammals, is thrown back into the sea but it may end up on consumer plates.

If images are posted on social media by laypeople in a way that appears sensational and even heartless, and without any accurate information about the animals, then there is no resulting respect for these sea creatures or educational value. Simply viewing these creatures as freaks, ignores the importance of their role in keeping our oceans healthy.

A tripod fish deep below the Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Ocean Exploration & Research/Flickr, CC BY-SA Deep in danger

Most people will never spend time on a trawler fishing in deep oceans, but marine conservation and management policy depends on all of us being aware of the risks that human activities pose to marine ecosystems, such as deep water fishing, off shore mining and pollution.

If we call unusual deep sea animals monsters or demons or freaks, then we may harm their conservation as people are unlikely to connect with them or care about saving them.

On the other hand, their rarity clearly makes them popular on social media sites. For other species, this has resulted in increases in illegal trafficking for exotic pets, and aquariums. Deep sea species may potentially become illegally sourced taxidermy curiosities or food. Humans may end up eating these animals of the deep to extinction before their species are even known to science.

Rhinochimaera. NOAA Ocean Exploration & Research/Flickr, CC BY-SA Saving our ‘blue heart’

We still have so much to learn about deep marine ecosystems and their inhabitants, which have special adaptations for living in these typically cold and dark waters. With new submarines and technology, scientists are able to explore the ocean more easily.

The deepest part of any ocean is the Challenger Deep valley in the Mariana Trench, part of the Pacific Ocean, which is about 11,000 metres deep. By comparison, Mount Everest is about 8,550 metres tall.

The cold water of the North Atlantic, down to depths of about 1,800m, is home to the Greenland Shark, which can live for as long as 400 years!

A new species of beaked whale has also been discovered recently. It is smaller and darker than other beaked whales, perhaps because it forages for deep sea fish and giant squid at depths of up to 3,000m below sea level.

The public’s perceptions are often based on how ‘cute’ an animal is. NOAA Ocean Exploration & Research/Flickr, CC BY-SA

Every habitat on earth is interconnected, and whatever we as humans do on the ground, or in the oceans has an impact on marine ecosystems. Removing deep sea predators and prey, and disturbing deep sea habitats, will change marine ecosystems in ways that we do not yet understand.

Some experts have compared the rapid global spread of unsustainable fishing technologies and practices to a pathological disease outbreak. Oceans are sometimes called the lifeblood of our planet, while rainforests are its lungs.

In reality, about 80% of our oxygen is produced by microorganisms in the oceans. This makes our oceans both the lungs and lifeblood of our planet. In fact, oceans are the blue heart of our planet and we must all try harder to save them.

Carla Litchfield 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.

And not a steak in sight. Veggie BBQ image from www.shutterstock.com

Sausages, hamburger patties, lamb chops and T-bone steak. There is nothing like the traditional barbecue on Australia Day.

But like a piece of bone inconveniently lodged between our teeth, a small but growing segment of our society – vegans – question the ethical side of the Aussie BBQ tradition.

They ask: why is it that we continue to eat meat and animal products (such as milk and eggs), when we know (no matter how much we try not to know) how many of these products arrive on our table?

While there have been many improvements in farm animal welfare and food labelling, there are still many concerns.

Why vegan?

Veganism is a response to the ethical problems created by these industries, which treat animals as nothing more than raw material to be processed into food. The principles of veganism advocate the exclusion of “…flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey and animals’ milk, butter, and cheese” from our diet, and aim to “abolish man’s dependence on animals – and to create - a more reasonable and humane order of society”.

Despite the clear moral appeal to veganism, however, the number of vegans in Western societies remains low. Vegans constitute only 1-2% of Americans, 5% of Israelis, 2% of British and 1% of Australians. Why is this so?

In her book Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows (2011) Melanie Joy, a US psychologist and vegan activist, provides an answer to this question.

Joy claims that despite having an affection for animals, people consume meat because they have a mental disconnect between eating meat and killing animals; an ingrained belief that meat consumption is normal, natural and necessary; and cognitive distortions that perceive animals as lacking any individuality or personality.

Melanie Joy’s TED Talk on veganism. You don’t have to go vegan to save the planet

So how can we break down these cognitive distortions and engage in more ethical consumption practices?

In her recent TED Talk, Joy suggests that the solution ultimately lies in normalising veganism.

We agree with this, and additionally suggest that partial solutions can help many people gradually reach this goal over time. Here are four practical strategies that people can adopt to become more ethical consumers in their journey towards veganism:

Reduce the volume of all foods we consume daily. Although this strategy is not about directly cutting meat and dairy intake, it offers a way we can indirectly reduce intake by simply consuming less food.

This might seem like a trivial solution, but with over 60% of Australians found to be obese or overweight, it is clear that most of us consume more food than we need.

Ironically, some of us even consume extra food to fuel intense workout programs or exercise boot camps. Why not achieve similar health outcomes by simply having a lighter lunch or following a simpler exercise regime?

In fact, research suggests that the benefits of calorie restriction diets partially parallel those of intense fitness programs, in terms of muscle function, life extension and general health.

Choose ethical food. There has been a marked increase in the availability of “credence foods”. This includes plant-based, vegan options, but also animal-based products with higher welfare standards.

The strategy of choosing credence food decreases our demand from factory farms and moves us to a more ethical position.

For instance, we can select pastured eggs over battery or barn eggs, or organic, free-range meat products over cheaper, factory-farmed products. While credence products are more expensive, they become more affordable when we reduce animal products in our diets.

Become a vegetarian. Vegetarianism is essentially the midway point on the veganism journey – excluding meat consumption, but allowing dairy and eggs. This is a particularly good option for many people who still struggle to find worthy cheese substitutes.

Nevertheless, vegetarianism alone will not solve our environmental concerns, nor alleviate animal suffering.

Fortunately, innovation is lifting the game of vegan cheese, and providing a more compelling reason to gradually stop using dairy products altogether.

Bring some vegan into your life. Some of us associate adopting veganism with a leap of faith, and need more confidence before committing fully to its doctrine. We can shift toward a vegan diet by weaving it partially into our lives – in other words, becoming “part-time vegans”.

For instance, we can choose one or two of our daily meals to be vegan and then eat whatever we want for the rest (aligning with Mark Bittman’s “vegan before 6pm” idea), or participate in the “veganuary” or “Meatless Monday” programs.

No matter which strategy we choose, the act of opting for a strategy is in itself a huge step forward. Why not start by throwing a veggie pattie on the barbie this Australia Day?

Ozgur Dedehayir works for QUT. He receives funding from the Institute for Future Environments (QUT).

Carol Richards receives funding from the Institute for Future Environments (QUT), the Australian Research Council and The Norwegian Research Council.

Peter O'Connor 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.

New coal power technology can't meet Australia's climate targets alone. Coal power image from www.shutterstock.com

As Australia’s energy debate heats up, some politicians are calling for cleaner and more efficient coal power stations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg told ABC radio on Tuesday that “ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants actually drive down the carbon footprint by up to 40%”.

And last week Resources Minister Matt Canavan referenced a report, as yet not released by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, which claims that Australia can meet its carbon emission targets by replacing existing coal generators with ultra-supercritical coal generation.

So, is this a reasonable strategy to reduce Australia’s emissions?

Cleaner coal

Australia’s coal generation fleet is ageing and needs replacing. Two-thirds of the 25 gigawatts in operation (after Victoria’s Hazelwood power station is retired this year) is more than 30 years old, according to ACIL Allen’s generator report. By 2025 a further 18% of the fleet will be more than 30 years old.

That means that in 2025 a mere 4GW of our existing coal power will still be considered adequately efficient. This is important because efficient generation affects not only how much generators are paying for fuel, but also carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions.

Modern coal power plants feed pulverised coal into a boiler to combust. Tubes in the boiler walls then absorb the heat and the steam generated in these boiler tubes turns the steam turbine and generates electricity.

The difference between subcritical, supercritical and ultra-supercritical boilers is in the steam conditions created in the boiler. Supercritical and ultra-supercritical boilers are often referred to as high-efficiency, low-emissions technologies.

Ultra-supercritical power stations are designed to operate at higher steam temperature and pressure. This improves efficiency, and has been made possible by new materials that can cope with higher temperatures.

Ultra-supercritical coal power stations operate under steam conditions above 593-621℃ and 28.4 million pascals (a measure of pressure). You can find further detail in this report.

Using higher temperatures means greater efficiency, producing more electricity using less coal. Australia’s most efficient coal power station, Kogan Creek, is able to convert 37.5% of the gross energy, or calorific value, of coal into electricity. Hazelwood converts only 22%. The remaining energy is lost as heat.

By comparison, ultra-supercritical coal stations are able to convert up to 45% of the gross energy of coal to electricity.

Advanced ultra-supercritical coal generation is expected to convert over 50% of the gross energy of coal to electricity, but the expensive alloys required to accommodate the very high temperature requirements make the plants very expensive. Before advanced ultra-supercritical coal plants can be deployed, new design changes like this will first need to be tested and evaluated in pilot implementations.

Reducing fuel use reduces emissions. Hazelwood’s reported CO₂ emission intensity from 2014-15 was 1,400kg of greenhouse gas for every megawatt-hour of electricity it produced. Kogan Creek emitted 831kg per megawatt-hour.

The greater efficiency of ultra-supercritical generators can reduce emissions intensity to 760kg per megawatt-hour for black coal. Advanced ultra-supercritical generators can reduce emissions even further. Upgrading or replacing Victoria’s brown coal generators to ultra-supercritical would reduce emissions intensity to 928kg per megawatt-hour.

So greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced if ultra-supercritical generators replaced Australia’s old, inefficient coal generators.

But is it enough?

The problem is just how much CO₂ emissions can be reduced. Emissions from coal power are the largest contributors to Australia’s total emissions.

In 2013-4, coal generators emitted 151 million tonnes of greenhouse gas, generating 154 million kilowatt-hours of electricity. Details can be found here. This is 29% of Australia’s total emissions in 2013-14 of around 523 million tonnes. (Transport contributed around 18% to total emissions.)

Let’s assume the current fleet of power stations is operating at 80% capacity, considered to be an economic optimum for coal power. This would generate 176 gigawatt-hours of electricity and 165 million tonnes of emissions. This allows for a 14% increase in consumption of electricity by 2030, which is likely given projections of population and economic growth.

If we then replace the entire 25GW, both black and brown, with ultra-supercritical generation, according to the assumptions included in the Australian Power Generation Technology Report, emissions would total 139 million tonnes. This would represent a 16% reduction in coal emissions, but a mere 5% reduction in Australia’s total emissions in 2013-4.

And then we would have those ultra-supercritical power stations for the next 30-40 years, incapable of reducing our emissions further as global targets tighten.

If Australia were to wait until advanced ultra-supercritical coal power is tested and trialled, then we could speculate that emissions from coal generation could reduce by a further 10% to 124 million tonnes. This would be a more promising 25% reduction in coal emissions, but still only a 7.7% reduction in Australia’s total emissions.

Understanding Australia’s emission reduction target

Australia’s emission reduction target for 2030 is 26-28% below 2005 levels.

Emissions in 2005 were 594 million tonnes. Australia’s climate target would require emissions to reach around 434 million tonnes in 2030, a reduction of 160 million tonnes.

If coal power stations were to reduce emissions by 26-40 million tonnes through a shift to ultra-supercritical generators, then Australia would still be a very long way from meeting its committed targets.

The only way shifting to ultra-supercritical coal power could meet Australia’s 26-28% climate target is if carbon capture and storage (CCS) were applied.

Ultra-supercritical coal plants are expected to generate electricity at A$80 per megawatt-hour, according to the Australian Power Generation Technology Report. This is 45% more expensive than the average wholesale cost of electricity for 2015-16. If CCS is added, then the projected cost swells to A$155 per megawatt-hour, nearly three times last year’s wholesale cost of electricity.

These costs eventually get passed on to electricity bills, and it’s unlikely that consumers will be willing to see electricity prices rise that much.

Until we see more detail underpinning the current enthusiasm for “clean coal”, we’ll have to speculate on the assumptions of the report referenced by minister Canavan.

Lynette Molyneaux 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.

Fields of gold: Australia's wheat industry contributes more than A$5 billion to the economy each year. Wheat image from www.shutterstock.com

Australia’s wheat yields more than trebled during the first 90 years of the 20th century but have stalled since 1990. In research published today in Global Change Biology, we show that rising temperatures and reduced rainfall, in line with global climate change, are responsible for the shortfall.

This is a major concern for wheat farmers, the Australian economy and global food security as the climate continues to change. The wheat industry is typically worth more than A$5 billion per year – Australia’s most valuable crop. Globally, food production needs to increase by at least 60% by 2050, and Australia is one of the world’s biggest wheat exporters.

There is some good news, though. So far, despite poorer conditions for growing wheat, farmers have managed to improve farming practices and at least stabilise yields. The question is how long they can continue to do so.

Worsening weather

While wheat yields have been largely the same over the 26 years from 1990 to 2015, potential yields have declined by 27% since 1990, from 4.4 tonnes per hectare to 3.2 tonnes per hectare.

Potential yields are the limit on what a wheat field can produce. This is determined by weather, soil type, the genetic potential of the best adapted wheat varieties and sustainable best practice. Farmers’ actual yields are further restricted by economic considerations, attitude to risk, knowledge and other socio-economic factors.

While yield potential has declined overall, the trend has not been evenly distributed. While some areas have not suffered any decline, others have declined by up to 100kg per hectare each year.

We found this decline in yield potential by investigating 50 high-quality weather stations located throughout Australia’s wheat-growing areas.

Analysis of the weather data revealed that, on average, the amount of rain falling on growing crops declined by 2.8mm per season, or 28% over 26 years, while maximum daily temperatures increased by an average of 1.05℃.

To calculate the impact of these climate trends on potential wheat yields we applied a crop simulation model, APSIM, which has been thoroughly validated against field experiments in Australia, to the 50 weather stations.

Climate variability or climate change?

There is strong evidence globally that increasing greenhouse gases are causing rises in temperature.

Recent studies have also attributed observed rainfall trends in our study region to anthropogenic climate change.

Statistically, the chance of observing the decline in yield potential over 50 weather stations and 26 years through random variability is less than one in 100 billion.

We can also separate the individual impacts of rainfall decline, temperature rise and more CO₂ in the atmosphere (all else being equal, rising atmospheric CO₂ means more plant growth).

First, we statistically removed the rising temperature trends from the daily temperature records and re-ran the simulations. This showed that lower rainfall accounted for 83% of the decline in yield potential, while temperature rise alone was responsible for 17% of the decline.

Next we re-ran our simulations with climate records, keeping CO₂ at 1990 levels. The CO₂ enrichment effect, whereby crop growth benefits from higher atmospheric CO₂ levels, prevented a further 4% decline relative to 1990 yields.

So the rising CO₂ levels provided a small benefit compared to the combined impact of rainfall and temperature trends.

Closing the yield gap

Why then have actual yields remained steady when yield potential has declined by 27%? Here it is important to understand the concept of yield gaps, the difference between potential yields and farmers’ actual yields.

An earlier study showed that between 1996 and 2010 Australia’s wheat growers achieved 49% of their yield potential – so there was a 51% “yield gap” between what the fields could potentially produce and what farmers actually harvested.

Averaged out over a number of seasons, Australia’s most productive farmers achieve about 80% of their yield potential. Globally, this is considered to be the ceiling for many crops.

Wheat farmers are closing the yield gap. From harvesting 38% of potential yields in 1990 this increased to 55% by 2015. This is why, despite the decrease in yield potential, actual yields have been stable.

Impressively, wheat growers have adopted advances in technology and adapted them to their needs. They have adopted improved varieties as well as improved practices, including reduced cultivation (or “tillage”) of their land, controlled traffic to reduce soil compaction, integrated weed management and seasonally targeted fertiliser use. This has enabled them to keep pace with an increasingly challenging climate.

What about the future?

Let’s assume that the climate trend observed over the past 26 years continues at the same rate during the next 26 years, and that farmers continue to close the yield gap so that all farmers reach 80% of yield potential.

If this happens, we calculate that the national wheat yield will fall from the recent average of 1.74 tonnes per hectare to 1.55 tonnes per hectare in 2041. Such a future would be challenging for wheat producers, especially in more marginal areas with higher rates of decline in yield potential.

While total wheat production and therefore exports under this scenario will decrease, Australia can continue to contribute to future global food security through its agricultural research and development.

Zvi Hochman receives funding from Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) and the National Australia Bank. He is a board director of Birchip Cropping Group Inc. (BCG) a not-for-profit agricultural research and extension organisation led by farmers from the Wimmera and Mallee regions of Victoria.

David Gobbett receives funding from the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC), Sugar Research Australia (SRA), and Wine Australia through the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources Rural R&D for Profit Programme.

Heidi Horan receives funding from the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) and National Australia Bank.

Will 2017 be the year Australia sorts out its energy policy? Power image from www.shutterstock.com

2017 is the year when many long-festering energy policy problems must be addressed. Our outdated energy market model is falling apart. The gas industry is lining its pockets at the expense of Australian industry. Climate policy is urgent, but controversial among key decision-makers. Our fossil fuel exports are under threat from global forces.

The objectives are clear: provide reliable, affordable and low-carbon energy services to households and business, and build a sustainable energy export sector.

The problem is that there is little agreement on how we interpret and frame these goals, let alone how to achieve them. Some see threat where others see opportunity. Powerful interests are keen to protect their investments. Meanwhile diverse competitors are emerging from many directions and consumers clamour for equity, rights, affordability and choice.

These debates are set in a context of Chief Scientist Alan Finkel’s review of the sector, a federal review of climate policy, and debate about extending the Renewable Energy Target.

Australian business is calling for certainty in energy and climate policy: that’s one thing they can’t be certain they’ll get this year. But there will be some useful groundwork.

Into the jungle

The energy and environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, has criticised state governments for introducing uncoordinated and overly aggressive renewable energy policies.

He is seeking “harmonisation”, which is code for capping growth of renewable energy, as he and his prime minister struggle to satisfy the rampant extreme right within their party.

But state governments know supporting renewable energy is a vote winner. The economics and climate pressures are shifting in favour of renewable energy.

The ACT’s “contracts for difference” auction approach to renewables has reduced risk for project proponents while delivering low-cost renewable energy projects additional to the RET, and delivering ambitious climate targets. Others are copying.

The problem for the minister is that the nature of the energy sector has changed from a centralised, top-down, slowly changing system dominated by big businesses, governments and large investments to a chaotic, decentralised, diverse and rapidly changing jungle.

Even if state governments could be brought into line, local governments, the private sector, households and community groups will pursue their agendas. Competitive democracy is at work.

So we may see a rethink of the design and operation of energy markets in 2017. Governments will focus on reliability, energy security, consumer rights and providing fair access for emerging competitors balanced by higher expectations.

Reliable supply

Debates in the wake of the Basslink failure and South Australia’s blackout suggest that few politicians, industry participants and commentators have a comprehensive understanding of the fundamentals of delivering reliable and secure energy services in a modern world.

But it’s not just about having enough well-maintained energy supply. We can now manage demand by using energy more efficiently, actively managing demand, and storing energy.

We can then use a mix of supply-side options to satisfy this demand. For instance, we can install storage in regional pumped hydro dams and at solar thermal generators. We can transport electricity via batteries in electric vehicles instead of power lines.

We must face new challenges, such as increasingly extreme weather events and bushfire risks from power lines, without disrupting consumers. And consumer rights must be protected when they may have equipment and services provided by multiple energy businesses.

So appliance manufacturers, distributed energy and storage providers will need to incorporate new features into their products and meet tougher performance standards, to play their part in maintaining system reliability and security.

In return, governments will have to open up access to the electricity market and encourage investment in a smarter, distributed energy system.

2017 is the year when a new framework for our electricity service system must be designed.

Reducing demand

Australian policymakers seem to have a blind spot on energy efficiency. Energy efficiency plays a key role in managing electricity demand. For example, energy efficiency didn’t appear to rate a mention following the South Australian blackout. The draft Finkel Review focuses on supplying electricity, mentioning energy efficiency ten times, but only in passing.

Yet the International Energy Agency describes energy efficiency as “the first fuel” – cutting demand is the same as building more supply, and cheaper. It could make the biggest contribution to cutting fossil fuel carbon emissions out to 2030.

Research by many groups such as Climateworks and Beyond Zero Emissions has shown that many energy efficiency measures actually save money while cutting carbon emissions, so have a “negative” carbon cost.

Despite ongoing analysis and adjustment, energy efficiency and demand management have not captured significant roles in the National Electricity Market. The National Electricity Objective, which sets the overall focus of the electricity market, focuses on the price of electricity that consumers pay, not the total cost of delivering energy services (which should include carbon). This undermines focus on actions that reduce the amount of energy needed.

Among the original 1992 draft objectives in the National Grid Management Protocol was:

To provide a framework for long-term least-cost solutions to meet future power supply demands including appropriate use of demand management

Our electricity market could have been a very different creature.

The National Energy Productivity Plan is a positive step forward. But it is poorly funded (A$18 million was allocated by COAG) and has vague governance. Yet it is supposed to deliver a large chunk of our 2030 emissions reduction target.

As with renewable energy, states and territories are filling the vacuum.

There is also emerging support for the concept of energy productivity. This goes beyond energy efficiency and aims to deliver more economic value from each unit of energy consumed. The Australian Association for Energy Productivity and Climateworks have published major reports on doubling energy productivity by 2030, while A2EP has worked with business to develop sector roadmaps and an “innovation scan”.

A much stronger focus on improving energy productivity may well be an outcome of the climate review. If so, it will play a significant role in reshaping our energy future. But it will require strong leadership, cultural change and policy intervention beyond past levels.

Keeping prices under control

Energy markets are failing to deliver on their objective of low prices, reliability and protection of the “long-term interests of consumers”. It is increasingly clear that emerging nimble technologies and business models are outflanking traditional structures. 2017 seems to be the year it is coming to a head.

Gas prices have been driven up by failure to manage impacts of a tripling of east coast gas demand from three Queensland LNG export plants. Industrial gas users are struggling to secure reasonably priced, long-term contracts.

The high gas prices and shortages at winter peak times have driven up electricity prices. In the wholesale electricity market, the highest bidder sets the price for all power stations.

So if that’s an expensive gas generator, all generators are paid handsome prices, regardless of how much it costs them to generate electricity. Over time, these prices flow over into electricity bills.

The solution for gas is not necessarily more gas supply. Decades of low gas prices have meant that Australian industry and households use gas very inefficiently, so there is substantial scope to save gas.

There is increasing potential to switch from gas to electricity and renewable fuels. Regional gas storage (or electricity storage) could reduce peak gas demand, reducing price spikes.

In any case, our gas industry seems to lack a social licence to increase gas production from coal seams, and we will need to cut fossil gas demand to meet our medium-term climate targets.

2017 is looking like a busy and challenging year across the energy sector.

Alan Pears has worked for government, business, industry associations public interest groups and at universities on energy efficiency, climate response and sustainability issues since the late 1970s. He is now an honorary Senior Industry Fellow at RMIT University and a consultant, as well as an adviser to a range of industry associations and public interest groups. His investments in managed funds include firms that benefit from growth in clean energy.

Polluted water and inadequate water supply, sanitation and hygiene cause around 80% of diseases and one in four deaths in developing countries. The world is recognising that existing strategies simply aren’t working.

We are starting a five-year project early this year to implement an innovative water-sensitive approach to revitalise 24 informal settlements in Fiji and Indonesia.

Funded by the Wellcome Trust, the project aims to turn informal settlements into independent sites that:

• recycle their own wastewater;

• harvest rainwater;

• create green space for water cleansing and food cultivation; and

• restore natural waterways to encourage diversity and deal with flooding.

Working with local slum communities, the project will design and deliver modular and multi-functional water infrastructure. This will be tailored to their settlements. Providing secure and reliable water and sanitation services and flood management should improve public health and create more resilient communities.

This project aims to reduce both environmental contamination itself and the likelihood of human contact with contaminants. In doing so, it will provide some of the first quantitative data on the link between improved environmental health and better community health.

Water management innovations in slums can deliver healthier, more sustainable and environmentally compatible solutions. Time to rethink failed approaches

In 2010, the United Nations recognised that access to safe water and sanitation is a human right. Five years later, the UN acknowledged it had failed to provide 2.4 billion people with improved sanitation, a goal set 15 years earlier.

The conventional hydraulic engineering solution to these challenges has changed little in 150 years. This approach has major financial, environmental and social costs.

The conventional approach is also an unlikely option for informal settlements this century. These are typically found in developing countries with high rates of urbanisation. These countries are struggling with inadequate resources for basic infrastructure for growing national populations, let alone the poor and vulnerable in informal settlements.

Traditional urban upgrading projects generally focus on basic infrastructure such as housing and drainage. This is delivered primarily via one-dimensional technical solutions. The problem is that these typically don’t take account of the existing local and environmental context.

These approaches often fail to allow for the high rates of urbanisation that characterise informal settlements. This, in turn, exacerbates the inextricably linked challenges of sanitation, water supply and public and environmental health.

The benefits of a new approach

Drawing on programs in Australia, China, Singapore and Israel, the project will alter the biophysical landscape to greatly reduce communities’ exposure to faecal and other hazardous contamination in the environment, while also improving biodiversity.

We anticipate multiple benefits. These include better community health, fewer infections with disease-causing bugs resulting in less diarrhoeal disease, and better intestinal health among children leading to improved growth.

The changes in the living environment should also improve wellbeing, increase food production and decrease violence against women and girls who will, for the first time, have access to domestic sanitation facilities and reliable water supplies.

Importantly, the project begins with a two-year baseline data assessment of both environmental and human health. The infrastructure upgrades will be delivered in year three. These will be followed by another two-year assessment of environmental and health impacts.

A local focus to achieve global goals

The recently adopted UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) renewed the commitment to universal delivery of essential water and sanitation services.

This global agenda includes goals such as health and wellbeing (Goal 3), improved water and sanitation (Goal 6) and sustainable cities and communities (Goal 11).

While these goals are clearly important, achieving them demands an integrated and holistic approach. Trying to solve each goal individually is not only inefficient in terms of time and money, it can have unintended consequences as it misses the intrinsic connections and feedback loops between them. Our project aims to avoid these pitfalls.

The project includes a significant capacity-building dimension in Fiji and Indonesia. Through dedicated training programs, we will develop in-country communities of practice around the intervention (design and implementation) and the environmental and public health assessments.

Project personnel will provide training and transfer knowledge on the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the technologies.

We will collaborate with local engineers, contractors, governments and community organisations. By building local capabilities around water-sensitive infrastructure, together with our in-country partners, we hope this in-depth engagement will leave a lasting legacy.

An international consortium led by Monash University will deliver the project. It brings together leading researchers in medicine, architecture, engineering, ecology, economics and social sciences, across Monash, CRC for Water Sensitive Cities, Stanford University, Emory University and the University of Melbourne. Other partners include the Asian Development Bank (funding the infrastructure upgrades), Melbourne Water and South East Water, World Health Organisation, Oxfam International and WaterAid.

Our hope is that this project will provide an evidence-based proof of concept that will improve slum upgrading and revitalisation. Providing essential water services and cleaning up the environment should deliver radically enhanced health outcomes for some of the world’s most vulnerable people.

This, we believe, is a real-world solution to achieving what everyone recognises is a global human right: access to clean water and sanitation.

Rebekah Brown receives funding from Australian Research Council.

Karin Leder receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

Zoos, emphasising natural behaviour and conservation, remain more popular than ever. Gabriel Pollard/Flickr, CC BY

The recently announced closure of the Ringling circus in the US, which has been running more than a century, has been heralded as bringing to an end an era when it was seen as entertaining for humans, especially children, to view animals performing tricks: dogs riding bicycles, elephants dancing, and lions jumping through hoops.

At almost the same time the killer whale Tilikum at Seaworld, Orlando, died. His shows will not be replaced, again ending an era of public entertainment by showing them animals doing tricks.

So attitudes must have changed since that time – we’ve become more ethical. Or have we?

Circus popularity waning

People no longer have to visit circuses to see animals perform tricks; videos are available by the thousands that effectively portray the same thing. In these animals are frequently doing unnatural and bizarre acts: dogs riding surfboards, or cats on sledges.

However, there is one important difference. Circuses reportedly use cruel methods to train animals, which are kept in cramped conditions, particularly when travelling from town to town.

This leads to performance of stereotyped behaviours, like weaving in elephants. These persist even after animals are retired from circuses and are evidence of poor welfare of circus animals.

The main reason that circuses such as Ringling Brothers Circus are closing is because of declining attendance, due in part to the many alternative attractions for children today.

Associated with this has been the unrelenting criticism by a wide variety of animal advocacy groups, from the more moderate, such as the RSPCA, to the more radical, such as PETA. Their strong influence on public opinion, through highly efficient use of modern media, is evident.

Circuses have fought back. In a recent review of The Welfare of Performing Animals by David Wilson, animal behaviourist Marthe Kiley-Worthington cites the amazing tasks that animals have been trained to perform as reason to maintain these outmoded forms of entertainment.

She justifies circuses on the grounds that animals don’t know that the tricks are demeaning to them, and that there is cruelty in every animal industry. This is like saying that murdering people is acceptable because people also kill during wars.

Viewing animals being belittled in this way – in particular animals forced to behave like children – is wrong because it damages our relationship with animals. It encourages anthropocentrism, in which humans must dominate and control the animal kingdom.

Zoos keep public support

Zoos have escaped criticism that their displays encourage humans to adopt such an anthropocentric attitude.

Firstly, this is because they attempt to keep animals in as natural a setting as possible. Nothing could be further from nature than a chimp riding a bicycle around a circus arena, but in a zoo chimps will have enrichment that supports their natural behaviour and companionship that replicates their social grouping in the wild.

Second, zoos purport to have both conservation and educational roles.

Third, they do not make extensive use of negative reinforcement, or punishment, when they teach animals tricks, if they do that at all.

Although live demonstrations of tigers, seals and other zoo animals are more popular than ever before, they focus on demonstrating animals’ capabilities in the wild or their physical prowess.

Why are attitudes changing?

This is evidence of a mature and responsible attitude towards animals developing in the public. This is due in no small measure to the public being shown the breadth and depth of the animal kingdom through modern media.

Since Charles Darwin’s day it has become increasingly clear that people want and need to see how the animal kingdom lives and functions. This symbiotic relationship may even be deeply embedded in our genetic makeup. It demonstrates that we are acknowledging and acting on our responsibilities for animals.

In the West, the Christian religion has also shaped our attitudes to animals, but its ancient origins provided an outdated, anthropocentric approach to the animal kingdom. As the Bible tells us in its first chapter:

God …said to them [mankind]… “Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

The decline of Christianity in the West, for all of the problems that this brings, may have one beneficial effect of encouraging a less dominant attitude towards animals. We may increasingly recognise that we all live in a giant ecosystem and are just as dependent on a vibrant natural world for survival as nature is dependent on us.

We need to understand animals better

With growing public acknowledgement of responsibility to animals, there is the danger of false anthropomorphism. Scientists are rapidly trying to discover what animals feel, but in the absence of this knowledge the public increasingly give animals the benefit of the doubt. This is further evidence of a changing attitude to animals.

From Rudyard Kipling to J.K. Rowling, animals have been credited with powers that no scientist can prove they have – which an objective scientist must condemn as false anthropomorphism. A goat is good at being a goat, but if it devoted 20% of its energy intake to cognitive processes as we do it simply would not survive.

Attributing human qualities to animals that they do not possess may make it easier for children, and some adults, to empathise with them, but it does not help us to provide for their needs in the ecological niche to which they are adapted.

We cannot justify the misery that many circus animals endure by their display of tricks, but neither can we justify ignoring the plight of animals suffering from intensive farming, climate change, habitat destruction or pet overpopulation.

Clive Phillips is on the Scientific Council for Voiceless and is a Director of Minding Animals.

People collapse, buildings collapse, economies collapse and even entire human civilizations collapse. Collapse is also common in the natural world – animal populations and ecosystems collapse. These collapses have the greatest impact on us when they affect resources our industries depend on, leaving ecosystems in tatters and sometimes ruining local economies.

In a new paper, I look at two natural resource industries – fisheries and forestry – that are highly susceptible to collapse.

From the infamous 1980s collapse of the Canadian cod industry to the apparent imminent collapse of the Heyfield sawmill in southern Victoria, we can see a recurring pattern. And by getting better at predicting this pattern, we might be able to avoid collapse in the future.

The stages of collapse

In fisheries, collapse follows a familiar pathway, which has up to eight stages. In a 1993 report for the US Marine Mammal Commission on harvesting ocean resources, L.M. Talbot described these stages:

1. fishers discover a new fishery, or a new method of harvesting an existing stock

2. fishers develop the new resource with little or no regulation

3. major fishing effort results in over-capitalisation of the equipment used to harvest the resource – the value of the fishery can sometimes even be less than the investment fishers made

4. fishers develop the capacity to catch more fish than the fishery can sustain

5. fishery becomes depleted and the number of fish caught begins to decline

6. fishers intensify their efforts to catch fish to offset the decline in harvest

7. intensive fishing continues as fishers attempt to recoup investments in over-capitalised equipment

8. fishery is depleted to such levels that it is no longer economic for fishers to go fishing. At this stage the fishery is fully collapsed.

In some cases, regulators attempt to manage the fishery as fishers intensify their efforts. Examples include putting in place quotas and economic subsidies, or reducing the fishing capacity of the fleets.

However, these are often belated and ineffective. This is particularly so given uncertainty about the fishing resource, lack of information on the ecology of the target species, and the fact that an industry with vested interests will lobby hard to protect those interests.

Subsidies at these stages – such as tax breaks and/or fuel rebates – may mean that fishing becomes artificially profitable. Fishers may remain in the industry and continue to overinvest to obtain a greater share of a dwindling resource.

Many forestry industries around the world show similar stages.

Native forest harvesting in Australia is a highly capital-intensive industry. It uses heavy machinery that costs a lot to purchase, leading to high interest repayments. Such efficient harvesting may not only employ relatively few people, but also outstrip the amount of timber that can be sustainably harvested (like stage four in fisheries collapse).

Significant amounts of timber and pulpwood need to be processed continuously to pay the interest and other bills for equipment (stage seven).

Moreover, logging may continue even though it is highly uneconomic to do so (stage eight) and other industries that are damaged by logging (such as the water and tourism industries) are significantly more economically lucrative.

Why do industries overharvest?

Fisheries and forestry often allocate greater harvest limits than the ecosystem can produce without declining.

One key reason this happens is that fish or timber allocations often don’t account for losses from natural events.

For example, the mountain ash forests of Victoria rely on severe wildfires to regenerate. They are also extensively logged for paper and timber production.

Yet the organisation responsible for scheduling of logging in these forests (VicForests) does not account for losses due to fire when calculating how much timber can be harvested. Major fires in 2009 badly damaged more than 52,000 hectares of this forest. But environmental accounting analyses indicate there has been relatively little change in sustained yield allocation since these fires.

Yet, modelling suggests that, over 80 years, wildfire will damage 45% of the forest estate. This amount should therefore should not be included as timber available for logging.

Another driver of the problem of resource over-commitment can be gaming, where stock availability and direct employment are deliberately overstated. This may be to secure the status and influence of a given institution with government, or for other reasons such as leverage in negotiations over access to resources.

The autobiography of Julia Gillard, the former Australian prime minister, suggests this occurred during debates over the fate of forests in Tasmania, alleging that Forestry Tasmania overstated forest available for harvest. Forestry Tasmania denied these allegations.

What can we do?

Early intervention in fisheries and forestry industries can prevent ecosystem and industry collapse. We also need to better ways to assess resources, including accounting for losses of resources due to natural disturbances.

However, in some cases resources have been so heavily over-committed that industry collapse is virtually inevitable. For example, environmental accounting work in the wet forests of the Central Highlands of Victoria suggests very little sawlog resource is left as a result of many decades of overcutting and associated wildfire. Clearfell logging makes these forests more prone to particularly severe fires.

The collapse of the sawlog industry is highly likely, even if there is no fire. This is clear from the pleas from sawmills for access to further forest resources – even when such extra resources basically do not exist.

Now the industry needs to transition to plantations for paper production and for timber (82% of all sawn timber already comes from plantations in the state).

Alternative industries like tourism that employ far more people and contribute more to the economy must be fostered. There are many examples to draw on – New Zealand is one of many.

When governments know in advance about likely industry collapse, then it is incumbent upon them to intervene earlier and help foster transitions to new (and often more lucrative) industries. This ensures that workers can find jobs in new sectors, and the transition is less painful for the community and less costly for taxpayers. Failure to do this is unethical.

The closure of the Hazelwood power station in Victoria is a classic example of a lack of planning for industry transition. The need to close Hazelwood was discussed in formal reports by the former State Electricity Commission more than 25 years ago.

The need to transition the native forest industry to plantations is equally clear and must be done as a matter of urgency.

David Lindenmayer receives funding from The Australian Research Council (ARC Laureate Fellowship), the Australian Government's National Environmental Science Program (Threatened Species Recovery Hub), and the Government of Victoria. David Lindenmayer is the Research Director of the Threatened Species Recovery Hub within the National Environmental Science Program. He is also the Research Director of the Long-term Ecological Research Network (LTERN) within the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN).

The social cost of carbon estimates the damage caused by a tonne of carbon dioxide. Coal image from www.shutterstock.com

One of the key measures President Barack Obama used to develop climate policy could be under threat under President Donald Trump. The “social cost of carbon”, a dollar measure of how much damage is inflicted by a tonne of carbon dioxide, underpins many US and other energy-related regulations (and in the UK too, for example).

The latest estimates from William Nordhaus, one of the best-known economists dealing with climate change issues (together with Nicholas Stern), put the social cost of carbon in 2015 at a baseline of US$31.20. This rises over time as the impacts of climate change worsen.

Conversely, the social cost of carbon is also the “government’s best estimate of how much society gains over the long haul” by reducing CO₂ emissions.

Nordhaus uses an economic model known as the Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy (or DICE) model, which he developed in the 1990s. I understand it’s one of the leading models for examining the effects of climate change on the economy. Other researchers have adapted and modified DICE to examine issues associated with the economics of climate change.

Social costs of carbon estimates have been – and remain – helpful for assessing the climate impacts of carbon dioxide emission changes, but perhaps not for the incoming Trump administration in the US.

‘More bad news than good news’

First, though, let’s consider the update to Nordhaus’ DICE model. He finds that the results strengthen earlier ones, which indicate “the high likelihood of rapid warming and major damages if policies continue along the unrestrained path” – his view of current policy settings. He revises upwards his estimate of the social cost of carbon by about 50% on the last modelling.

Further, Nordhaus argues that the 2°C “safe” limit set under the Paris Agreement seems to be “infeasible” even with reasonably accessible technologies. This is because of the inertia of the climate system, rapid projected economic growth in the near term, and revisions to the model.

His view is that a 2.5°C limit is “technically feasible” but that “extreme virtually universal global policy measures” would be required. By implication, such measures could refer to geo-engineering and, in particular, removing CO₂ from the atmosphere.

Nordhaus also notes:

Of the six largest countries or regions, only the EU has implemented national climate policies, and the policies of the EU today are very modest. Moreover, from the perspective of political economy in different countries as of December 2016, the prospects of strong policy measures appear to be dimming rather than brightening.

As a result of the DICE modelling, Nordhaus states that there is more bad news than good news and that the need for effective climate change policies is “more and not less pressing”.

His results relate to a world without climate policies, which, as he says, “is reasonably accurate for virtually the entire globe today. The results show rapidly rising accumulation of CO₂, temperatures changes, and damages.”

An end to the use of the social cost of carbon?

As well as the definition earlier of that cost, it could also be described as a government’s best estimate “of how much society gains over the long haul by cutting each tonne” of CO₂ emissions.

While the Obama administration relied on the DICE model (and others) in arriving at a social cost of carbon – such cost is already important in the formation of 79 federal regulations – it appears that the incoming Trump administration might modify or end this use.

It has been argued – by Harvard’s Cass Sunstein and the University of Chicago’s Michael Greenstone – that such action would defy law, science and economics. It is probably unlikely that use of the social cost of carbon would be done away with completely (lowering the operative number might be more likely), although Greenstone and Sunstein do contemplate it.

Sunstein and Greenstone conclude that, without it, federal regulations would have no quantifiable benefits. And that would have implications for emission reductions and assessing progress on dealing with climate change.

And Nordhaus concludes:

The future is highly uncertain for virtually all variables, particularly economic variables such as future emissions, damages, and the social cost of carbon.

That’s definitely the case for climate change policy and action in the US following the election of Donald Trump. For President Trump’s supporters, it appears that “turning back the clock is the most important thing the president-elect can do to help businesses succeed”.

And the president may well do that. He has argued for an increase in coal use and suggested that, under his administration, the US would withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement.

David Hodgkinson 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.

Can coal be part of Australia's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Coal image from www.shutterstock.com

Replacing old coal power stations with new “ultra-supercritical” stations could help meet Australia’s greenhouse gas targets, according to research commissioned by Resources Minister Matt Canavan. Other analysts have reacted with scepticism.

Echoing recent prime ministers, Canavan retorted that these criticisms were part of an “ideological” attack on coal:

Coal has an important role to play as Australia and the rest of the world reduce carbon dioxide emissions… Australia has the resources to be a low-cost and efficient energy superpower. Access to affordable and reliable power underpins our economy and is the key to long-term jobs in the manufacturing sector.

This is not the first time Canavan has put his weight behind increasing Australia’s coal production to “help the environment”.

But technological promises and government support for coal’s bright future stretch back almost 40 years, long before the election of Tony “coal is good for humanity” Abbott, and have been entirely bipartisan, as have claims that Australian coal is especially clean.

Early days

The NSW was funding “supercoal” research for air-pollution reasons from the early 1980s. Climate change entered the fray in 1988, when delegates at the Australian Coal Association conference were told:

Coal’s contribution to the greenhouse effect is small… Means of controlling C0₂ emissions from coal-fired plant are considered best achieved by improved overall operating efficiency using new technology, rather than by endeavouring to capture C0₂ emissions.

The early Labor advocate of climate action, Graham Richardson, told a reporter in July 1989:

Fortunately we use mostly – but not entirely – the cleanest coal in the world. But that doesn’t mean we can’t improve the technology and so limit how much carbon dioxide is blown up the spout.

(Times change; Richardson recently called on Opposition Leader Bill Shorten to recant on his “silly” green goals.)

The same year the visiting president of the US National Coal Association told a government committee that, while much of the low-emissions technology was still in the laboratory stage, he was confident it could be applied soon to plants using coal to produce energy.

In 1991 Australian government funds supported an international conference on clean coal in Sydney.

After Australia’s first climate policy, the National Greenhouse Response Strategy, was agreed in December 1992, it quickly became clear that the Commonwealth was not going to stand in the way of state-level support for new coal-power stations.

On March 21 1994, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change became international law. Coincidentally, Singleton Council in New South Wales approved a new coal-fired power station. Greenpeace launched a legal challenge, but this failed in November 1994. The State Electricity Commission of Victoria’s greenhouse reduction plans died with privatisation.

Peak (clean) coal

It is debatable, but Labor perhaps had more concern – for both climate change and coalminers’ jobs – than the incoming Howard government. The Prime Minister’s Science Engineering and Innovation Council in 1999 suggested Australia ratify the Kyoto Protocol and see it as an opportunity and spur to new technologies.

This fell on John Howard’s deaf ears, but a December 2002 report, chaired by Rio Tinto’s chief technologist and government chief scientist Robin Batterham, was taken up, and the enthusiasm for carbon capture and storage (CCS) was born. A COAL21 plan followed in 2004, and the Australian Coal Association Low Emissions Technologies group was formed.

Howard’s enthusiasm for coal over renewables was such that he even called a “secret” meeting of fossil fuel producers to advise on lower emissions technologies.

The 2004 Energy White Paper continued the trend in support for CCS over renewables.

Labor’s innovation in 2007 was to say yes to both. As opposition leader, Kevin Rudd announced he would bring in a National Clean Coal Centre.

Had the Coalition won the 2007 election, it would have removed the Renewable Energy Target and replaced it with a scheme that would have allowed coal-with-CCS to be considered “low carbon”.

In 2008 the coal association spruiked “NewGenCoal” in television adverts.

It all started to go wrong in 2009, shortly after the launch of the expensive and controversial Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, Rudd’s brainchild.

Former Liberal minister Ian MacFarlane, who had previously urged the coal industry to sell its message, told ABC’s Four Corners:

The reality is, you are not going to see another coal-fired power station built in Australia. That’s, that’s a simple fact. You can talk about all the stuff you like about carbon capture storage, that concept will not materialise for 20 years, and probably never.

Geology intervened as the Queensland ZeroGen project ended in late 2010, when the state government decided to stop throwing taxpayers’ money at it.

And in 2013 it emerged that the coal association’s funding for low-emissions technologies had been broadened to include “promoting the use of coal”.

While there is now a functioning CCS plant in Canada, in Australia CCS limps on and the sums involved now are pitifully small.

Dark days ahead

Three concepts from the study of technological innovation may help us understand what is going on.

The first is the “hype cycle” – the observation that initial unrealistic enthusiasm for a shiny new technology goes up like a rocket and down like a stick, followed by a more gradual, tempered enthusiasm over time (for a recent appraisal see here).

The second is the sailing ship effect. When challenged by steamships, the incumbent technology added more sails, automated sailors and so on, trying to keep up. But ultimately it was in vain – a new technology won out.

Thirdly, supporters of incumbent technologies highlight teething problems in the challenger technologies, in what academics call “discursive battles”.

It’s fair to guess three things. Promises of clean coal, high-efficiency, low-emissions (HELE) coal power and bio-energy carbon capture and storage(BECCS) will escalate, but perhaps learning from the public mockery of the last two efforts – Australians for Coal and Little Black Rock.

Protests, by people who agree with James Hansen’s 2009 assessment that coal-fired power stations are death factories, will continue. Legal challenges will escalate.

Governments – state and federal – will keep wrestling with the greased pig that is the “energy trilemma”. 2017 will be bloody, and noisy.

Marc Hudson 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.

Sydneysiders cool off in heatwave conditions gripping eastern Australia in January 2017. AAP Image/Joel Carrett

It’s official, 2016 set another record for being the world’s hottest. Three international agencies have confirmed today that last year was the hottest on record.

NASA reported that 2016 was 0.99℃ hotter than the 20th-century average, while the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) called it at 0.94℃. NOAA also calculated that global land temperatures were 1.43℃ higher. The UK Met Office, using its own data, also reported that 2016 is one of the two hottest years on record.

The figures vary slightly, depending on the baseline reference period used.

Heat records don’t linger for long any more. 2016 surpassed the 2015 record, which surpassed the 2014 record. Three record hot years in a row sets yet another record in the 137-year history of modern accurate and standardised meteorological observation.

For Australia, the Bureau of Meteorology described 2016 as a “year of extreme events” and the fourth hottest at 0.87℃ above the 1961-1990 average. The warming trend is clear.

Australia is already on average 8℃ hotter than the average global land temperature, so further warming means our heat risk is far greater than for other industrialised countries.

This dangerous warming trend sends a dire warning, as average warming delivers many more extreme heat events, as we’re currently seeing in Queensland and New South Wales. These are the killers.

As Australia lurches from heatwave to heatwave, the message is clear: extreme heat is the new norm – so Australia needs to get “heat smart”.

Rising extremes

In Australia the number of days per year over 35℃ has increased and extreme temperatures have increased on average at 7% per decade.

Very warm monthly maximum temperatures used to occur around 2% of the time during the period 1951–1980. During 2001–2015, these happened more than 11% of the time.

This trajectory of increased temperature extremes raises questions of how much heat can humans tolerate and still go about their daily business of commuting, managing domestic chores, working and keeping fit.

We can’t just get used to the heat

Air-conditioning and acclimatisation are not the answer. Acclimatisation to heat has an upper limit, beyond which humans need to rest or risk overheating and potential death. And air-conditioning, if not powered by renewable electricity, increases greenhouse gas emissions, feeding into further climate changes.

We have two key tasks ahead. The first is to stop the warming by drastically reducing emissions – the 2015 Paris Agreement was a step along this path. Several studies have shown that Australia can achieve net zero emissions by 2050 and live within its recommended carbon budget, using technologies that exist today, while maintaining economic prosperity.

Our second task is to adapt to the trajectory of increasing frequency of dangerous heat events.

A heat-smart nation

We can prevent heat-related deaths and illnesses through public health mechanisms. Australia enjoys a strong international track record of world-leading public health prevention strategies, such as our campaign against smoking.

We can equally embrace the heat challenge, by adopting initiatives such as a National Climate, Health and Wellbeing Strategy, which has the support of Australia’s health sector. Its recommendations outline a pathway to becoming a heat-smart nation.

At a recent heat-health summit in Melbourne, experts declared Australia must adopt four key public health actions to reduce heatwave deaths.

These are:

• Prevent

• Prepare

• Respond

• Educate.

These fundamental public health strategies are interlinked and operate at the government, health sector, industry and community levels.

Prevention includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as reducing exposure. The Bureau of Meteorology provides superb heat warnings that allow us to prepare. Global organisations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provide reports that can underpin greater understanding.

The next challenge is for the populace broadly to act on that knowledge. This requires having options to protect ourselves and avoid hazardous heat exposures while commuting, working and at home.

The health sector must also prepare for demand surges. Tragic outcomes will become increasingly common when, for example, ambulance services cannot meet rising demand from a combination of population growth, urbanisation and forecast heat events.

The health sector will need the capacity to mobilise extra resources, and a workforce trained in identifying and managing heat illness. Such training remains limited.

Individuals and workplaces also need to prepare for heatwaves. In a heat-smart nation, we’ll need to reschedule tasks to avoid or limit exposure, including rest periods, and to ensure adequate hydration with cool fluids.

We’ll need to think about housing. Building houses without eaves or space for trees to provide shade forces residents to rely on air-conditioning. In such houses, power failures expose residents to unnecessary heat risks, and many air-con systems struggle when temperatures exceed 40℃.

Urban planners and architects have solutions. There are many options for safe housing design, and the government should consider supporting such schemes.

We’ll need to think about our own health. Active transport, such as walking and cycling, both reduces emissions and improves fitness. Promoting active transport throughout summer requires the provision of shade, rest zones with seats, and watering stations along commuting routes. High cardio-respiratory fitness also boosts heat resilience: a win-win.

Ultimately, Australia has two options: ignore the risks of increasing heat extremes and suffer the consequences, or step up to the challenge and become a heat-smart nation.

This article was co-authored by Clare de Castella Mackay, ANU.

Liz Hanna has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Commonwealth of Australia, The Victorian Department of Human Services, and the United Nations. She is President of the Climate and Health Alliance and is the Key Contact for Climate for the Australian College of Nursing

Kathryn Bowen receives funding from the World Health Organization, the Asian Development Bank, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, National Health and Medical Research Council, Government of Victoria.

Mark Howden 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.

Have you ever left your car running as you wait for a passenger to return from a quick errand? It’s called idling, and while it may feel easier than switching it off and on again, it wastes money and fuel, and dumps pollutants into the air. Vehicle emissions are a very significant contributor to air pollution, which causes health problems.

Few of us would leave the tap running or the fridge door open, and many are diligent about turning off lights. But when it comes to air pollution, many people are wasteful and unaware.

We need major public health campaigns to change people’s beliefs about what they can do to reduce air pollution, similar to the campaigns and enforcement that made our public spaces smoke-free and our schools and beaches sun smart. Australia also needs stronger policy aimed at curbing air pollution.

The Australian government’s fuel efficiency standards and noxious vehicle emission standards review, under way now, offers a chance to do that – but what’s been proposed so far doesn’t go anywhere near far enough.

A lack of awareness and weak standards

Air pollution is associated with cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, dementia, cancer, pregnancy complications and adverse birth outcomes.

Many governments around the world now ask citizens to stay home when particulate matter – meaning the mix of solid particles and liquid droplets in the air – from vehicles, fossil-fuel and wood burning are at hazardous levels.

And bans on diesel vehicles in some places are part of a broader push to cut the amount of harmful particulate matter, nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide in the air.

Australia, by contrast, lags behind the rest of the world on policies to reduce air pollution. Take, for example, our rules on sulfur in fuels – a particularly damaging component of vehicle emissions.

Australia has one of the world’s most lenient sulfur standards for petrol, allowing 150 parts per million. That’s 15 times the limit allowed in the European Union, Japan and the US. It’s three times what’s allowed in Brazil and China (China will allow just 10 parts per million from 2018).

Australia’s air quality standards, which are also being reviewed under the National Clean Air Agreement, feature good targets – even better than the World Health Organisation recommendations for PM2.5. However, without stricter measures to reduce vehicle emissions, these air quality targets will not be achieved.

The Australian government’s review of fuel efficiency and vehicle emission standards is looking at particulate matter, ozone, nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (known collectively as NOx), and carbon. But what has been proposed so far worryingly includes a do-nothing scenario.

Doing nothing comes with significant cost

The OECD estimates that there are approximately 740 preventable deaths per year in Australia due to ozone and PM2.5 (the very fine particulate matter from vehicle emissions which, when inhaled, goes deep into the lungs and can pass into the bloodstream), but that does not include NOx – so these are very conservative estimates.

To put this in context, there are 1,280 deaths on our roads each year and another 740 deaths due to vehicle emissions. This is a significant cost for choosing a transport system reliant on fossil fuel.

If the strictest standard being considered by Australia under the review – the Euro 6 standard – is mandated for both light and heavy vehicles, a net benefit of A$675 million will be realised by 2040. This figure is very small compared to the current annual cost of vehicle pollution to Australia of A$4 billion.

But the standard Australia considers the strictest option is actually business as usual now in the US and Europe. Surprisingly, the impact statement doesn’t even discuss banning or phasing out diesel vehicles in cities – a policy that experts now consider global best practice.

What could be done?

The decisions being made this year on Australia’s fuel efficiency and vehicle emission policies can improve the health of our urban air. This is a great chance to simultaneously improve fuel efficiency, demand higher-quality fuels and implement emission testing for vehicles to improve the air in our cities.

In the short term, we can all try to use cars less often and not idle our cars when in use. Raising awareness helps; a recent study showed millions of dollars could be saved in fuel costs by exposing drivers of fleets to anti-idling initiatives.

Purchasing a vehicle with automatic idle-stop technology will help cut vehicle emissions. This technology, popular in high-end European car models, automatically switches off the vehicle when it is still and allows the driver to restart the car when their foot presses the accelerator.

To achieve a population-level benefit from such technology, however, would require policymakers to include it in the Australian Design Rules, the national standards for vehicle safety, anti-theft measures and emissions. That process can take many years.

A more sustainable approach to air pollution would be to upgrade Australian refineries to supply low-sulfur fuel. Although costly, the alternative – the escalating health burden associated with vehicle emissions – is a cost too high for society to pay.

We cannot afford to continually invest in a transport system operated solely on fossil fuels. Supporting public transport that operates with “clean” fuels (such as our trams and trains, which run on electricity) will go some way to reducing air pollution in our cities. It is worth noting, though, that while our electricity is mostly fossil-fuelled, this only shifts the air pollution to someone else’s backyard.

Importantly, we need to raise public awareness of the quality of our air and ensure the government considers the long-term ramifications of short-sighted policies.

We must all do our part to improve air quality in Australia – and that means not idling your car, which is an offence that can attract fines as high as $5,000 and/or jail time in some parts of the world.

We can survive weeks without food, days without water, but only minutes without air. Let’s start treating our air as the valuable commodity it is.

Robyn Schofield receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program's Clean Air and Urban Landscapes Hub, and the Australian Research Council.

Mark Stevenson has received funding from the NHMRC and the ARC.

A photo from Sea Shepherd allegedly shows a Japanese whaling vessel with a dead minke whale on board. EPA/GLENN LOCKITCH / SEA SHEPHERD HANDOUT

Photographs allegedly showing Japanese whaling operations in the Southern Ocean emerged this week. Coinciding with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to Australia, critics have called for greater action from the Australian government on the issue.

Japan has stated that, despite various resolutions at the International Whaling Commission and criticism from many governments about its so-called “scientific” activity, it abides by its own interpretation of the Whaling Convention – the international agreement that governs whaling. This interpretation focuses on Article VIII of the convention, which allows a country to issue its own permits to kill whales for research.

The same issues are raised each summer when Japanese whaling fleets head south. But the apparently obvious questions have complex answers.

Didn’t the International Court of Justice ban Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean?

The 2014 International Court of Justice (ICJ) whaling decision was quite narrow. It ruled that the old JARPA II scientific program was not for the purposes of scientific research.

Therefore, the court deemed that Japanese whaling was a commercial operation, something that had been banned under the Whaling Convention since 1985.

Labor’s former attorney-general, Mark Dreyfus, noted that the court had not completely ordered cessation of whaling for all time. And this is correct.

While the judgment gave guidance on what is and what isn’t “for the purposes of scientific research”, it did not ban Japan from conducting further scientific research activity under the convention.

In response to the judgment, the Japanese government abandoned the JARPA II program. The current and very similar NEWREP-A program took its place. This program, in all likelihood, is “not for the purposes of scientific research” either.

Should Australia take Japan back to court?

Following the ICJ case, Japan ruled out the jurisdiction of the ICJ in “any dispute arising out of, concerning, or relating to research on, or conservation, management or exploitation of, living resources of the sea”.

Therefore, Australia could not take Japan back to the ICJ on this issue.

Is the whaling fleet operating in Australian waters?

The waters below 60 degrees south fall under the Antarctic Treaty, to which Australia and Japan are both parties. The treaty was a peaceful territorial compromise between countries (like Australia) that claim parts of the Antarctic continent, and other countries (like Japan) that do not recognise those claims.

Australia claims about 5.9 million square kilometres of the Antarctic continent, and the adjacent ocean out to 200 nautical miles.

However, the treaty “freezes” any arguments over the sovereign claims by Australia, New Zealand, France, UK, Chile, Argentina and Norway, and has developed a complex web of instruments that protect the Antarctic environment and maintain the continent as a place of peace and science.

While Australia does not relinquish its claim to Antarctica under the treaty, it agrees to comply fully with the treaty’s rules and obligations. In turn, this means countries that don’t recognise claims are free to go about scientific research and peaceful activities.

Japan does not recognise Australia’s claim to the Antarctic continent. As such, it views the waters off the Australian Antarctic Territory as the high seas, which are governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The Antarctic Treaty’s Environment Protocol also explicitly states that it does not affect the rights of countries under the Whaling Convention.

In almost all cases, only Australian citizens are bound by Australian law in Antarctica. If there are any issues of jurisdiction under the provisions of the treaty, countries must resolve them peacefully, or refer them to the ICJ.

Didn’t the Australian Federal Court say whaling is illegal?

In 2008, the Humane Society International took Japanese whaling company Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha to court over whaling in Australia’s Antarctic waters, which Australia calls the Australian Whale Sanctuary.

The Federal Court held that whaling in Australia’s maritime claim was illegal under Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity (EPBC) Act.

It’s not up to the Federal Court to question Australia’s claim to Antarctic waters, so it applied Australian law in a consistent manner. The EPBC Act is also one of the few that extends to non-Australian citizens in Australian-claimed waters in Antarctica.

But remember that Japan does not recognise Australia’s claim to Antarctic waters. Even though the Federal Court recognised this, it held that this was not a reason to withold judgment. In 2015, Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha was held in contempt of court orders by continuing to kill whales, and was fined A$1 million.

The Japanese government responded to the case, stating that “this issue relates to waters and a matter over which Japan does not recognise Australian jurisdiction”. Therefore, the restraining orders and injunction on further whaling are still outstanding and will likely remain so.

Should we send Australian ships to confront the whalers?

The Australian and Japanese governments are under an obligation to prevent Antarctica becoming a place of discord. Any confrontation on the high seas would be seen as an incredibly aggressive and potentially illegal act.

The Australian vessel Oceanic Viking was sent to monitor the fleet in 2008 to compile evidence for the ICJ case. It did not intervene physically with the whaling fleet, likely due to its potential illegality, aggressiveness, concern for the safety of lives at sea, and environmental reasons.

Japan is transparent about its catches and reports all its activities (including the number of whales it kills) to the Whaling Commission as part of its self-issued scientific whaling permit. Countries that are members of the commission therefore have access to all the information on Japanese activities.

The Greens are calling for the Australian Border Force to be sent to Australia’s Antarctic waters, but, for the reasons above, this is likely to be futile.

What now?

Australia appears to have exhausted most legal options. Professor Tim Stephens noted, however, that the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea could be a forum where Japan is challenged over its activities.

Obligations under the Law of the Sea Convention include mandatory dispute resolution, the protection and preservation of the marine environment, and duties to cooperate.

Several alternative courses of action have been suggested and new resolutions at the Whaling Commission have yet to be implemented. However, the decision to stop Japanese whaling is, in reality, likely to come only from the Japanese people themselves.

Indi Hodgson-Johnston receives scholarship funding from the University of Tasmania's Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies and the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre.

In our recent study we found that 40% of 203 Sydney homes we sampled contain lead in garden soil above the Australian health guideline of 300 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).

This presents a hazard because soil lead can adhere to or get absorbed into edible plants. An additional pathway of exposure occurs when contaminated soil dust enters homes and is accidentally ingested. Lead is a potent neurotoxin that affects childhood development.

Urban agriculture and VegeSafe

Urban agriculture is becoming more popular across Australia. Almost half (48%) of all households in metropolitan areas are now growing some form of edible produce.

Most lead contamination is a result of the historical use of lead petrol and lead-based paint (now phased out) and previous industrial emissions. Scientists and regulators are well aware of these legacy issues, but the general public remains underinformed about the potential risks.

To help urban gardeners assess contamination risks associated with their garden soils, we started the community science initiative VegeSafe in 2013. This program offers free soil metal screening to participants.

Each participant receives a formal report on their soil metal results and advice about what to do next if soils contain elevated concentrations of metals. We have provided 5,500 free soil metal tests to over 1,300 homes and community gardens (Australia-wide), the largest program and study of its kind in Australia.

What did we find?

As well as the 40% of Sydney gardens containing soil above the 300 mg/kg Australian health guideline, approximately one in seven homes had soils lead levels greater than 1,000 mg/kg. Soil metal concentrations were typically greatest around drip lines.

Soil lead concentrations were greatest in the City of Sydney and former local government areas of Leichhardt Municipal Council and Marrickville Council, which had mean soil lead concentrations of 883 mg/kg, 960 mg/kg and 689 mg/kg, respectively.

Soil lead concentrations of vegetable garden soils from 141 Sydney homes. Map represents one of four areas around homes (front yard, drip line, back yard and vegetable garden) in this study. Source: Rouillon et al. 2016

Homes with painted exteriors built before 1970 were more likely to have soils contaminated with lead. The highest levels are at homes 80 years or older. This is likely to have been caused by lead-rich paint, which contained up to 50% lead prior to 1970. Lead in paint was reduced to less than 1,000 mg/kg (0.1%) by 1997.

We observed the environmental benefit of the withdrawal of lead from paints and leaded petrol (removed in 2002) in our study. Garden soils at newer homes contain the least lead. Soil lead concentrations decrease with distance from Sydney’s city centre, where there are more old homes and greater density of traffic and industry.

Cross-section schematic of a typical inner-Sydney residential home with median soil Pb (lead) concentrations for painted pre-1970 homes, non-painted pre-1970 homes, post-1970 homes and reference homes. The vegetable garden is displayed at the rear of the back yard, as this was the case for the majority of homes. Source: Rouillon et al. 2016 Public health

Lead exposure is especially detrimental for children because their neurological and skeletal systems are developing. Adults are also adversely affected, with studies showing increased blood pressure and hypertension associated with sub-clinical exposures.

Toxicological evidence also shows that exposure reduces semen quality and extends the time to pregnancy. In short, lead is detrimental to all human systems and exposures should be avoided or minimised at all times.

Our study demonstrates lead contamination in garden soils is greater at painted homes than non-painted homes. Many pre-1970 Australian homes still contain paint with up to 50% lead on exterior walls, fences, eves, doors and window frames.

The main risk of exposure arises when lead-based paint deteriorates or is removed improperly. Indeed, many home renovators unwittingly expose themselves and others due to a lack of knowledge of lead hazards.

Paints containing lead are no longer used in Australia, but remain on countless homes. Reducing exposure

The United States Environmental Protection Agency introduced legislation specifically targeting houses with lead paint to prevent contamination and to minimise avoidable lead exposures.

Unfortunately this regulatory gap has not been filled in Australia. Despite the widespread historic use of lead-based paints and the high proportion of exposure related to it, our data reveals a concerning legacy of soil lead contamination in older suburbs.

We recommend that people residing at or planning to purchase or renovate homes built before 1970 should get their soils and paint tested for lead. Using a qualified lead-abatement decorator in older homes would also help prevent exposure. Where parents and homeowners think they may have caused exposure, their GPs can provide a blood lead test.

Reducing even low-level exposures is critical, as demonstrated by Bruce Lanphear’s “prevention paradox” (see the image below). The graphic illustrates that the most IQ points across a population are lost from low-level lead exposures.

Bruce Lanphear’s prevention paradox. The majority of IQ points lost to lead exposure occurs in children who have low-to-moderate exposure to lead. Adapted from Reference (Lanphear 2015) What can gardeners do?

Where non-food-growing soils exceed the Australian soil metal guidelines, we recommend maintaining year-round cover of lawn or mulch to minimise dust generation.

Where metal guidelines are exceeded in food-growing soils, we recommend either replacing existing soil with new, uncontaminated soil, or relocating the food garden to an above-ground vegetable plot (again with new soil).

In this way, gardeners can exercise our motto, which is to carry on gardening knowing their soils are clean.

The VegeSafe program is ongoing for all Australians. Gardeners can send their soil samples to Macquarie University for free soil metal screening of their soil. We do, however, take donations to help sustain our program – so please support your citizen science.

Mark Patrick Taylor is affiliated with: Broken Hill Lead Reference Group. LEAD Group Inc. (Australia). NSW Government Lead Expert Working Group - Lead exposure management for suburbs around the former Boolaroo (NSW) Pasminco smelter site, Dec 2014–ongoing. Appointed by NSW Environment Minister to review NSW EPA’s management of contaminated sites, October 2015–ongoing. The VegeSafe project receives funding support via voluntary donations from the public. The VegeSafe study published in the journal Environmental Pollution was completed during a period of cash and in-kind support for a broader evaluation of the use and application of field portable XRFs for the assessment of environmental contamination. This funding support came from two sources: OIympus Australia Pty Ltd and the National Measurement Institute, North Ryde, Sydney.

Louise Kristensen, Marek Rouillon, Paul Harvey, and Steven G George do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

If you're feeling hot this summer, consider a retrofit. Fan image from www.shutterstock.com

Sitting at home in the summer heat, your mind may start to wander to that fancy new air conditioner.

But when it comes to making your house comfortable and sustainable, prevention is better than cure. By prevention we mean simple retrofits that will set you on the path to comfort and sustainability.

As we spend more than ever on maintaining and improving our homes, we’re also becoming more aware of how their design and use impact on our health and society. Add to this climate change and rising energy costs.

There are many ways to reduce energy and stay comfortable (for instance here and here). Numerous reports suggest it should be possible to reduce your energy use by 50-80% using existing and available materials and appliances.

Appliance are the easy bit, and you can find the most efficient appliances using energy star ratings. But before you go out and buy that air conditioner, consider the following principles that can help you decide what you need to create a comfortable home.

Prevention better than cure

For a long time the perfect “room temperature” was considered to be around 21℃. But we now understand that as humans we like temperature variations rather than vanilla indoor environments.

As explored in Lisa Heschong’s book Thermal Delight in Architecture (1979), most of us are not looking for a beige thermal environment after all. So to start with, we need a change in attitude. Bring back the cardigan for winter and the shorts for summer!

The next point is basic knowledge about your climate zone. For instance, in Melbourne there are more heating days (159) than cooling days (35). So, if you are retrofitting in summer, remember the main annual task is actually letting the sun in in winter.

Even with climate change, Melbourne will still require heating on more days than cooling for decades to come, whereas in Brisbane the priority is keeping out the heat and catching the breeze.

So Melbourne homes need reversible sunblock. You can use plants with seasonal foliage to shade summer windows, or temporary techniques like temporary sail shades or movable window awnings can work. Plants can also cool outdoor spaces through evapotranspiration, which helps combat the growing “urban heat island” problem and makes the backyard a more pleasant place to be.

Despite some bad press over the years, insulating ceiling, floors and walls where possible remains the best way to address 50-80% of heat gains/losses. In many homes ceiling insulation is cheap and easy to fit and can even be topped up. Insulated homes have also been found to perform better during extreme weather events and are quieter, more comfortable and natural places to be.

In summer sun, black roofs are bad news. Coating surfaces can reflect excess heat. Coating technology has been employed in paint products for your walls and roofs, and is also being developed in landscaping materials for the backyard.

Single-glazed windows are responsible for 10-35% of heat gains/losses in our homes. A range of double-glazed window products is now available, or you can even get a secondary glass pane to place over existing windows.

Double-glazed (or triple-glazed) homes are more comfortable in extreme weather, and are also quieter and more comfortable. Add drapes and blinds for added temporary use to keep out sun or keep in warmth when needed.

While these preventive passive measures might seem basic, the fact is that (a) technologies, markets and pricing are changing rapidly, so it makes sense to be open to new retrofitting ideas and products; and (b) comfort remains the big-ticket item and it will only get more so as climate change affects all of our homes. Addressing this first will reduce the requirement for other technologies and appliances.

The principles of retrofitting

Another area of technology progress is digital data systems to monitor indoor energy services. Energy supplier portals, temperature loggers and smartphone apps are now widely available.

For the more enthusiastic, if you buy a couple of temperature loggers and place one in your main living area and one in your main bedroom you can collect data at intervals as small as one second. You can use this data to identify how your house is performing and how you are using it. More importantly, you can satisfy yourself that the retrofit you’ve just paid for has made a difference.

We’ve only covered a few focus areas in this article. There are many good options we haven’t dealt with. However, we propose three principles for any retrofit project:

1. prioritise big-ticket items (such as thermal comfort) – what do you need most and what uses the most energy? – to plan and design around your climate zone and home needs

2. prevention is better than cure – focus on passive elements before turning to appliances

3. diversity is better than standardisation – don’t aim for 21℃, aim for controllable comfort, openable windows and adjustable systems room by room. Design in easy adjustment through movable technologies such as fans, curtains, plants and shades.

With all the hard work done, it’s time to sit back and enjoy the new indoor environment, but be aware that, as with our climate, our conventions, routines and expectations of comfort are constantly changing.

Some argue for evidence of a comfort dividend, where occupants of newly eco-retrofitted homes increase their use of heating or cooling appliances (or both).

Undoubtedly, as consumption patterns change and social standards shift, we will need to adjust our eco-retrofit priorities. Homes are not just a material work in progress, but are sites of social and cultural life after all.

Trivess Moore receives funding from the Australian Research Council and built environment and related bodies from time to time to fund research on housing, including sustainable housing retrofit.

Andrew Carre has previously undertaken life cycle assessment studies of buildings for Forest and Wood Products Australia.

Ralph Horne receives funding from the Australian Research Council and built environment and related bodies from time to time to co-fund research on housing, including sustainable housing retrofit.

Pets suffer just as badly as their humans in the heat. Robert Occhialini/Flickr, CC BY-NC

As the weather heats up, Australian households won’t just be cranking up the air conditioning for themselves. Some households will be turning it on for their dogs or cats.

Our research on energy demand and household cooling highlights a recent trend towards air-conditioning rooms or homes for pets. As well as cooling homes occupied by both humans and their furry friends, air conditioners may be left on when dogs or cats are home alone.

Some pet owners also leave doors and windows open for their dogs and cats to move between indoor and outdoor areas. This means that air conditioners have to work harder and use more energy to maintain indoor temperatures.

Our research is consistent with an emerging international trend towards the “humanisation of pets”, which is contributing to energy use in households.

A 2013 study released by E.ON UK (a UK power company) on “hot-dogs and thermo-cats” found that more than half (52%) of UK pet owners turn up the heating for their pets when they go out. Some UK households also leave radios or televisions on for pets so that they don’t get lonely when their owners leave the home.

In other areas of everyday life, cats and dogs now play iPad games, eat specialised diets, have heated mats or air-conditioned kennels, and have their own fashion accessories and electronic toys.

The energy impacts of home cooling

On average across Australia, heating and cooling make up 40% of our energy use in households, not including hot water.

Most Australians who live in southern states use cooling in their homes sporadically, turning it on during hot summer afternoons and evenings when they get home from work or other activities. The rapid growth in residential air conditioning for this purpose has been one of the main contributors to Australia’s peak electricity demand, which has increased energy bills.

Not doing too much is a great way to keep pets cool. Cat image from www.shutterstock.com

Trends in pet cooling could change the energy demand for cooling in homes. Australia has one of the highest rates of pet ownership in the world, with 63% of households keeping an animal as a pet.

According to a 2013 report by the Animal Health Alliance, there are 4.2 million pet dogs and 3.3 million pet cats in Australia. Of these, 76% of dogs and 92% of cats are kept exclusively or partly indoors.

Providing air conditioning for pets during the day when people aren’t at home would raise residential energy demand. It could also extend and possibly increase electricity peaks if more areas of the property (such as kennels or garages) are being cooled for a longer time.

What makes pets hot?

Although cats and dogs differ in their physiology, in general older, sick or overweight pets may be less resilient to the heat. Some breeds may also be more vulnerable than others.

For example, short-snout dog breeds (Bulldogs, Pekes and Pugs) are more likely to suffer from heatstroke. This also applies to short-faced cats like Persians or exotics.

Many things can exacerbate heat stress for pets. For example, people living in apartments may find it more difficult to provide cool outdoor spaces for dogs, or to engage in “waterplay”, as recommended by Pets Australia.

How to keep pets cool

Advice on how to keep pets cool varies and is different for cats and dogs. Pets Australia recommends providing cool spaces such as shade, cold tiles or digging holes in the soil. Other examples include giving dogs cool treats like frozen meat, providing lots of water for hydration and stopping exercise.

Some websites recommend keeping pets inside on hot days, preferably with an air conditioner or fan turned on. Other sites recommend cooling mats or vests such as gel pads, which can be refrigerated or frozen prior to use.

Sometimes you just need a dip. Pamala Wilson/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Murdoch University provides advice on how to recognise heatstroke warning signs, and what to do if you suspect your pet is suffering from heatstroke. The growing market for pet cameras is one way to keep an eye on pets while owners are out of the house.

What needs to be done?

As climate change continues to increase the severity and duration of heat waves, the incidence of heatstroke in pets is likely to increase too. This applies especially to those living in energy-inefficient housing or with access to poor-quality outdoor environments.

There is a clear need to seriously consider pet cooling in the design of energy-efficient housing and in energy policy that targets households.

It may also be timely to reconsider pet types and breeds appropriate for the Australian climate. Siberian huskies, for example, prefer cooler climates and may be more likely to suffer from heatstroke than breeds with smooth or short coats.

More research is also needed to understand how Australian households are changing the ways they keep their pets cool, and what can be done to reduce heat stress in pets without increasing energy demand or electricity peaks in homes.

In the meantime there is a range of advice on how to keep pets cool. Many creative solutions are available that don’t require leaving the air conditioner running.

Yolande Strengers currently receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Energy Consumers Australia and the Victorian Council of Social Services. She is a member of the Australian Sociological Association (TASA).

Cecily Maller receives funding from the Australian Government and in the past has received funding from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth) and the Victorian Government. She is a member of the Institute of Australian Geographers and The Australian Sociological Association (TASA).

Larissa Nicholls receives research funding from Energy Consumers Australia and the Victorian Council of Social Service.

Cancelled flights might be your worst nightmare, but imagine a world with no flights. Flight image from www.shutterstock.com

In Australia, the amount of aviation fuel consumed per head of population has more than doubled since the 1980s. We now use, on average, 2.2 barrels (or 347 litres) of jet fuel per person per year.

This historically unprecedented aeromobility has enormous environmental costs. Aviation is contributing to around 4.9% of current global warming and this is forecast to at least triple by 2050. Domestic aviation in Australia produces around 8.6 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year.

Offsetting schemes, technology solutions and other attempts to lower the carbon emissions of aviation have failed dismally.

The only solution to these intractable environmental impacts is the dramatic reduction, or complete elimination, of air travel. It might be hard to imagine life without the plane, but the idea is not as crazy as it sounds.

Australian aviation fuel consumption per capita 1985-2015. Sources: Australian Petroleum Statistics and the ABS Estimated Residential Population.

Here are nine common objections to grounding planes, and our counterpoints:

1. There are no fast, cheap and clean transport alternatives to the plane.

So we build them. We construct a national high-speed rail network and more efficient intercity, rural and urban transport systems. These projects would involve Australian steel, thousands of new jobs and large-scale regional planning and infrastructure development.

These programs would ameliorate urban congestion, the most pressing priority of Infrastructure Australia, revitalise regional communities and dramatically reduce our imports of crude and refined petroleum.

The continual development of communications technologies, including fast internet and virtual reality, will make much business travel redundant. Investing in virtual technologies and forcing the political and corporate elite to use other transport modes would hasten political support for, and investment in, the development of transport alternatives.

2. What about the economic value of tourism?

If we abandoned all tourist flights, the economy would be A$14.4 billion better off. International visitors spent A$38.1 billion in Australia in 2015-16. But, Australians travelling overseas spent far more – A$52.4 billion – in the same period.

International tourism, both in and outbound, would continue under a no–aviation scenario. As an island nation we will become reliant on ships. Travel by cruise ship is already booming. While cruise ships are currently highly polluting, their conversion to non-fossil-fuel energy, in contrast to the plane, is more achievable.

3. What about our education export industry?

Transnational education, teaching of students by Australian university offshore programs and via online distance education, is already significant, accounting for 30.2% of all higher education international students in 2015. We would invest more heavily in these educational platforms and technologies.

4. What about the jobs in the aviation industry?

Technological replacement and offshoring have decimated full-time jobs in Australia’s aviation industry. The employment generated by growth in domestic tourism and the construction of high-speed rail, ships and other transport alternatives would more than compensate.

Aviation jobs per 1000 revenue passenger kilometres for domestic flights. Sources: BITRE Australian Domestic Aviation Activity data and the ABS Labour Force Survey statistics on employment in the air and space transport industries. 5. What about the needs of farmers and hospitality industries who rely on backpackers?

We would still have a backpacker labour force under conditions of “slow tourism” that uses alternatives to cars and planes. Particularly for longer-stay tourism, arrival and departures by boat would be a small component of a trip.

We could also start using our own population for these jobs by paying higher wages. This might also reduce unemployment and dependency on social welfare and raise additional tax revenue. In the longer term we would transition to agriculture and hospitality industries that are not reliant on exploited and underpaid holiday-workers.

6. What about medical, military and rescue flights?

We need to keep essential flights for medical, rescue and firefighting purposes, and some military capacity. For essential flights, mitigation strategies like offsets may work as emissions would be low in aggregate.

7. What about sport and culture?

Sport and air travel are closely linked. Our national rugby union team is the Qantas Wallabies. Although teams travel, more spectators than ever are staying put – preferring to watch live sports on TV. Technological improvements will continue to produce a better-than-real home experience. And the eSports teams of the future may not have to leave home either.

8. Prohibition never works!

Banning things like alcohol has proven historically difficult, even in Canberra. But no-fly zones are easier to enforce – you couldn’t smuggle an A380 into the country and fly it around without anyone noticing.

9. It’s too radical a change – it would cause chaos!

Arguably, the controllable outcomes of grounding aircraft will be far less severe than the chaos of uncontrolled global climate change. A transformed, low-emissions transportation system can be planned for and, while there will be significant readjustment, life will go on.

A “business as usual” climate change scenario will unleash destruction unparalleled in human history, including the genuine threat of species extinction.

As an island nation we are more dependent than most on the aeroplane. Rather than giving us special dispensation, this puts us in a position to be world leaders in sustainable transport. Our proposal to ground planes and dramatically reduce emissions would need tremendous action in terms of civic will, and a state apparatus politically capable of taking radical action.

Liberal democracies are capable of such action, as evidenced by Australia’s Snowy Mountains Scheme. And Trump’s mandate to build infrastructure shows nation-building projects still command public support. An aviation-free Australia is a genuine and necessary alternative.

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.