The Conversation

Flatworms of the genus Temnosewellia liivng on the Orbost spiny crayfish (Euastacus diversus). Andrew Murray

I am so proud of our recent publication, mostly because it has been a long time coming. We received an Australian Research Council grant in the year 2000 to work on this so it has taken us some time to achieve our goal.

The characters in this story are the Australian freshwater spiny crayfish and their flatworm friends, which are called temnocephalans. These worms spend their entire lives living on the bodies of the crayfish, and in many cases, one species of flatworm is found on only one species of crayfish.

Their partnership has endured for 100 million years. To put that in perspective, our own species Homo sapiens has occupied the earth for 0.2 million years, so we are a blink compared to these ancient creatures. There are three genera discussed in our paper: one genus of crayfish and two types of temnocephalans. I will introduce them in turns.

Spiny crayfish (genus Euastacus)

The genus Euastacus are cool-climate specialists who live in leafy upland rivers, where they hide under rocks and burrow into the banks. The genus originated on the ancient continent of Gondwana and persists only in eastern Australia.

Unlike their more familiar relatives such as yabbies, spiny crayfish grow slowly and live for a long time. The larger species, such as the Murray Cray, take up to 7 years to become sexually mature and can live for 50 years or more. Nobody knows exactly how long, and really large specimens (which could be very old indeed) are increasingly difficult to find.

Fishing pressure and habitat alteration has caused serious declines in many species, while climate change puts all of them at risk. No less than 75% of the Euastacus species are endangered. Those most at risk reside on isolated mountains in northern Queensland.

We collected 37 different species of Euastacus for our study. Each one lives in a different river system or National Park, and some were collected by hand, others using nets. Patience and persistence were required in every case.

I remember one trip in particular, when David, Kim, my husband and I were in the Grampians National Park on New Year’s Eve 2003 – after a day of collecting we set up our microscopes on a picnic table in the campsite to pick worms from our crayfish and label our specimens. Members of the public were intrigued and after looking down our microscope, one young camper presented us with a drawing of a crayfish (probably Euastacus bispinosus) that has hung on my office wall ever since.

Drawing of a spiny crayfish by Daniel Artus, age 5. Original artwork, Daniel Artus

Temnocephalans – ectosymbiotic flatworms

I have written about temnocephalans before, and it is worth looking at the video in my article here to see how they move.

Basically, they look like little hands with eyeballs and they stay attached to the crayfish using large suction discs. The “fingers” are tentacles that they use to catch prey from the water.

We have no evidence that they harm the crayfish, so we say that they are symbiotic (meaning the relationship is probably of mutual benefit). It may be that temnocephalans keep the crayfish clear of other parasites and that crayfish stir up sediment providing sources of food for the worms.

There are two genera of temnocephalans in our study: Temnohaswellia have six tentacles and are usually white, while the genus Temnosewellia are brown and have five tentacles. The former genus was named after William Haswell, a director of the Queensland Museum, while the latter was named after our own co-author Kim Sewell.

Some temnocephalan species live on more than one crayfish species, a pattern common among the Temnohaswellia. Others are found exclusively on one species of crayfish, a pattern common among the Temnosewellia. This is true especially among the far northern populations, which are most at risk of extinction.

In order to complete this study, we dissected individual worms so we could send samples to London for DNA analysis and keep enough of the animal in Australian so we could identify each species.

In some cases, the temnocephalans we found did not even have names. Kim, Lester and David had to complete careful microscopic and taxonomic work and publish species descriptions before we could continue.

Co-evolution

By analysing DNA sequences from 37 crayfish species and 33 species of temnocephalans, we were able to describe the ancient association between them.

The evolutionary history was reconstructed in matched evolutionary trees (called a co-phylogeny) allowing us to see patterns of divergence over a period of time that included extensive climate change as continents separated and drifted north.

Host-shifts are evident in the patterns revealed, meaning when one group diverged (as in when a new crayfish species formed) the other followed (a new temnocephalan species was born). There are few datasets available of this type and they are of great interest to evolutionary biologists.

Co-extinction

Unfortunately, the close association between crayfish and flatworm species means that if one goes extinct the other is likely to follow. Our analysis suggests that if all the endangered Euastacus species go extinct, then 60% of temnocephalan species will follow suit.

Both types of organisms are so unique and special they deserve protection, but climate change will make this challenging due to their reliance on clear cold water and shady habitats.

It is our hope that by highlighting these issues, more people will care about the future of freshwater crayfish and the tiny animals (there are others) that live on them or in their burrows. In any case, we are delighted to be able to offer this unique insight into the phenomenon of co-evolution.

Disclosure

Susan Lawler and co-authors received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Coal is the biggest source of electricity. Coal image from www.shutterstock.com

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

CC BY-ND

China's coal future is up in the air. Coal image from www.shutterstock.com

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

Something remarkable happened in China in 2014. China’s coal consumption - the highest in the world - appeared to stabilise for the first time in 16 years. Many commentators proclaimed a new era for China’s energy mix and perhaps even the beginning of the demise of coal in China.

As China is the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, this was heralded as good news for the climate.

But the future is rather more uncertain. China is a major regional power with a major energy economy. Its primary energy consumption has grown by more than 500% over the past 30 years. China overtook the United States as the world’s largest primary energy consumer in 2010.

Not surprisingly, the world has been watching the role of coal in China’s energy development with considerable interest over the past few decades.

Twin threats: pollution and climate change

In 2010, China released its 12th Five-Year Plan (FYP), the country’s defining economic plan for 2011-15. It fundamentally changed China’s approach to energy and climate policies.

Instead of broad goals and statements, the plan shifted to specific policy instruments aimed at reducing emissions. It was driven in no small part by domestic environmental concerns centred on smog, air and water pollution.

The 12th FYP established binding targets to reduce energy intensity by 16%, reduce carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions intensity (emissions per unit of GDP) by 17%, and increase the proportion of non-fossil fuels in the primary energy mix to 11.4% – all by 2015.

These targets were reinforced by the historic US-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change in 2014.

Through the announcement, and its pledge ahead of the Paris climate summit in December 2015, China promised to peak in CO₂ emissions around 2030 (and try to peak earlier), cut emissions intensity by 60-65% of the 2005 level, and source around 20% of its primary energy consumption from non-fossil fuels by 2030. Provided that economic growth is limited to 5.5% (China’s economy grew by 6.9% in 2015), China’s emissions in 2030 would return to close to 2005 levels.

After the Paris Agreement, China announced its 13th Five-Year Plan, covering 2016-20. With a focus on capping energy consumption to within 5 billion tonnes of coal equivalent (capping overall energy use, not only coal use) by 2020 and addressing air pollution, energy intensity will be reduced by 15%, CO₂ emissions intensity will fall by 18%, and the proportion of non-fossil fuels will increase to 15%.

What does this mean for coal?

BP’s 2016 Energy Outlook shows China’s fuel mix is changing. The share of coal in primary energy is projected to fall from 66% in 2014 to 47% by 2035. Demand for coal is likely to peak in 2027 and then fall by 0.3% each year over the next seven years.

To compensate for China’s reduced reliance on coal, the share of natural gas is expected to more than double, with the share of non-fossil fuels also increasing rapidly to bridge the gap.

One interesting question is what does this mean for coal-fired power infrastructure in China?

Two main drivers influence the building of new power plants.

The first is growth in future electricity demand. This is influenced by population growth and the intensification of energy use in developing economies, such as China.

The second is “business-as-usual retirement” of infrastructure. This is driven largely by regulatory compliance and competitiveness in the electricity market, as well as a preference to shift to low-carbon sources to assist in meeting emissions reduction targets.

Most power plants approaching retirement age are located mainly in the USA and Europe, as you can see in the chart below. China, on the other hand, has a remarkably young fleet with a median age of 10 years.

And this is where the dilemma emerges. Very few plants are approaching the age of natural retirement in China, even by 2030 when emissions are scheduled to peak.

Global Data/Author provided, CC BY-ND

Given the age of coal-fired infrastructure in China, it doesn’t appear as though business-as-usual retirements will drive a dramatic reduction in China’s coal use.

Increasing climate action

Of course the pledges announced prior to Paris are only part of the story. The Paris Agreement aims to hold warming to well below 2℃ and attempt to limit warming to 1.5℃.

Estimates suggest the Paris pledges would result in warming of 2.7-3.6℃. Accordingly, much greater emissions-reduction efforts are likely to be required to hold global average temperature increase to less than 2℃.

A recent study looked at the implications for global coal-fired power investments (operating, committed and planned) for a 2℃ average temperature rise scenario (in line with the International Energy Agency’s global mitigation scenario).

The investments in recent and new coal-fired power plant capacity are dominated by expansion in Asia, in particular China and India. A global reduction in coal-fired power infrastructure to shift from the business-as-usual scenario to the 2℃ mitigation scenario unsurprisingly would require China to make a significant contribution to this reduction.

Accordingly, China would need not only to reverse its growth trend in installed capacity by 2030, but also decommission some 400 gigawatts of coal-fired infrastructure, approximately equivalent to a third of its capacity, before the end of its useful life.

The implication is that non-OECD countries including China could be asked to carry more of the economic burden to transform the global energy system because these countries will need to prematurely retire cost-effective coal power assets. Questions about whether this is realistic and around compensation for the cost of such early retirements may influence the prospects of addressing the risk of climate change.

A second driver of China’s coal consumption trend is the push to reduce air pollution, in particular damaging pollution known as PM2.5. While BP’s Energy Outlook for 2016 suggests that this will drive the switch from coal to natural gas, in the absence of serious constraints on carbon emissions, energy security drivers may favour the use of coal-derived synthetic natural gas (syngas or SNG).

While this reduces air pollution, the production process is very carbon-intensive. China has made ambitious plans to develop this technology.

With the release of the 13th FYP earlier this year, the energy sector was expecting a limit on total coal consumption and cuts to coal production in order to peak emissions by 2030.

Yet while some production cuts have been announced, precisely how this will play out for coal-fired power infrastructure and actual coal consumption remains to be seen.

Caroline Stott, UQ Energy Initiative Research Officer, contributed to this article.

Chris Greig owns shares in Rio Tinto, BHP and Wesfarmers. He is chief investigator on a grant provided by ACALET (Australian Coal Association Lowe Emissions Technologies Ltd).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What policies do voters want?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National tally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does the target mean for coal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

National policy implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is nitrogen trading?

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

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

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

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

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

How would it work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opportunity for the future?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capturing carbon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How cheap?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A game changer?

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

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

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

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

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

Why are batteries a threat?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is he right?

Checking the source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to a collection of studies published in 2015:

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

One recent study in that report found:

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

Verdict

Malcolm Turnbull was essentially correct on both points.

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

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

Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.

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

Jonathan Nott receives funding from the ARC.

Winter is here! Despite many Australians opting not to heat their homes to the point of complete comfort, many of us nevertheless will soon receive a nasty surprise when the energy bills arrive.

With Australia’s historically cheap energy, old housing stock in many areas, mild climate and frequent emphasis on low building costs, many homes are little more than “glorified tents” when it comes to thermal performance.

Besides wanting smaller bills, many residents also want to improve comfort, lessen their environmental impact and boost their home’s value.

So here is list of 22 things you can do to improve your home’s energy performance – some cheap, some free, and some that can even make you some money up-front as well as cutting your bills. Of course, to reach the ultimate goal of a home heated and powered by 100% renewable electricity you may still wish to put some solar panels on your roof, but why not consider the following actions first?

1. Make sure you get the maximum discount on your energy bills. Although not available everywhere, in Victoria discounts of up to 38% are available on gas or electricity. Ring up your retailer and just ask, or threaten to switch, or better yet seek out a retailer that doesn’t treat their discounts like state secrets.

2. Monitor your power usage with the help of a “smart” electricity meter or in-home electricity display. This real-time (or near-real-time) information is more useful than the coarse monthly data commonly printed on energy bills. It can help identify appliances that have inadvertently been left on or those that draw excessive power when not in use.

3. Heat your water off-peak. If you have a resistive-electric hot water storage tank, make sure it heats up at night, when off-peak power rates apply. In some areas, “time of use” rates are available.

4. Get rid of your ‘garage fridge’. It can cost hundreds of dollars a year to run an inefficient 20-year-old fridge, especially if it’s in a garage that hits 50℃ in summer.

5. Ditch your super-hot plasma. If you have a 10-year-old television that gets so hot you can fry an egg on the screen, check out the newer models that can use one-tenth of the electricity.

6. Install a modern showerhead, such as those designed with double-impinging jet technology that use only 5 litres of water per minute. Old showerheads can pass up to 35 litres per minute. Why not grab a bucket and stopwatch and test yours?

7. Insulate any exposed hot water pipes, including the pressure-relief valve on your hot water tank. Make sure hot water pipes do not run uninsulated straight into the soil in your garden. Insulate electrically heated storage tanks where it is safe to do so.

8. Check your heaters and air conditioning. Gas heating systems should be checked at least every two years by a qualified person, not least to keep poisonous carbon monoxide gas at bay. All heating or cooling system filters should be cleaned regularly to improve energy efficiency and air quality.

9. Inspect your ducts. Poorly installed or degraded ductwork can lead to big energy losses, which can go unnoticed for decades. Ensure that small children or animals have not gone under your house and damaged your gas heating ducts. Check also that air returns are properly “boxed-in” and do not draw air in from the wall cavity instead of from the living space. However, cleaning the inside of your ducts is not critical for energy saving, and risks damaging them in the process.

10. Banish drafts, for instance by plastering over those ubiquitous wall vents – relics from the days when homes relied on unflued heaters or gas lights. Seal off unused chimneys and fill any other cracks, gaps or holes around doors, windows, skirting boards, floorboards and architraves. Remember to close air-conditioning ceiling vents in winter. Ventilation should be controlled by opening windows, not by having permanent holes in the walls.

Older houses can be full of drafts, including from wall vents which are a throwback to times when homes were full of indoor pollution. Bidgee/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

11. Eliminate ceiling-mounted downlights wherever possible. A small number of modern wide-beam LEDs can adequately replace a larger quantity of narrow-beam halogen downlights. Aim to have as few holes cut into your ceiling as possible, because these holes let heat escape in winter and let it in during summer.

12. Install downlight covers over all downlights that protrude into accessible attic spaces. Not only does this reduce fire hazards and keep out insects, but it will also reduce air flow through the roof.

13. Replace all regularly used lights with LEDs. LEDs use a tenth of the energy of halogen or incandescent bulbs, so will pay for themselves in just a few months (even less in places where free replacement is on offer). Replace less regularly used bulbs with LEDs as and when they burn out, and vow never to buy a non-LED bulb again.

14. Insulate your attic…. If you don’t have roof insulation, buy some. If you do, check it meets the recommended “R value” for your climate. Ensure all vertical attic surfaces (walls, skylight tunnels) are also insulated, and include a layer of aluminium in your attic space. Thermal imaging can be used to identify existing flaws, such as gaps or sections of insulation inadvertently moved by tradespeople working in the attic.

15. …and your floors and walls too. In cooler Australian climate zones, floor and wall insulation can help keep heat in, making your home warmer and cheaper to operate.

16. Cover your windows from the inside… with drapes, curtains or blinds. This will keep in heat at night and on cold winter days, and keep out the sun in summer. Cheaper or do-it-yourself thermal window treatments such as plastic films or even bubble wrap can be applied in some situations (just don’t expect to win any design awards).

17. …and the outside. Trees, plants, external awnings, blinds or shade sails can all keep out the summer sun and stop windows getting hot. Remember that significant heat will reflect onto windows from sizzling decks, paved areas and walls (but not lawns). It’s better to keep out the sun in the first place rather than try to cool your house down.

18. Double glazing for windows cuts out noise, improves security and saves energy too. For many Australian climate zones, I recommend that homeowners never buy a window in future that isn’t double-glazed. Retrofit options options such as “secondary glazing” are also available.

19. Fit a pool cover if you have a swimming pool. Not only will this stop the water cooling down overnight in summer, but a cover can also minimise cleaning, chemical use and the running time for your filter pump. Consider upgrading to a more efficient pump if yours is more than a decade old, and ensure it does not run for more hours each day than required.

Remember to cover up when not sunbathing. Kgbo/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

20. Use reverse-cycle to heat your home…. If your home has reverse-cycle air conditioning (also known as a heat pump), this may be the cheapest way to heat, especially as gas prices rise. On heat mode, reverse-cycle units harvest free renewable ambient heat from the air outside your home and pump it up to the toasty temperature you need inside. Having installed high-efficiency reverse-cycle units, I can heat my own home for one-third of the cost of ducted gas heating.

21. …and your water. If your hot water system is nearing its use-by date, consider replacing it with a heat pump. This is an especially good option for homes that already have solar panels and low feed-in tariffs.

22. If you can eliminate all gas use in your home (for space heating, water heating and cooking), you can eliminate your gas bill with its nearly A$1 per day fixed supply charges.

And then there is solar…

In Australia these days, you won’t be paid much money for selling your electricity back to the grid. However, it might still pay to install solar if you can consume most of the energy yourself, by running your pool pumps, appliances, space heating and cooling devices, hot water system and even an electric car with solar electricity harvested during the day.

In future, as electricity storage batteries get cheaper, there may be even more economic reasons to have solar panels on your roof.

This article doesn’t list every possible behavioural trick or home improvement. Sadly, some homes will never be fantastic energy performers without significant modification. But hopefully there are a few things on this list that will work for you – even if it’s only a case of finally covering that drafty doorstep, or giving your creaking “beer fridge” a dignified retirement.

In addition to his role at the University of Melbourne, Tim has conducted over 400 home energy assessments/consultations working or volunteering with organisations such as the not-for-profit Moreland Energy Foundation - Positive Charge.

We see their spokespeople quoted in the papers and their ads on TV, but beyond that we know very little about how Australia’s lobby groups get what they want. This series shines a light on the strategies, political alignment and policy platforms of ten lobby groups that can influence this election.

Formed in the mid-1960s, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) is one of Australia’s longest-running and most influential environmental lobby groups. The non-profit membership organisation campaigns against pollution and mining, and advocates for clean energy and strong environmental laws.

The ACF’s major focus this election is shaping up to be the Great Barrier Reef. The recent, catastrophic bleaching event has thrust the Great Barrier Reef front and centre into the election debate, and the ACF is putting pressure on all major political parties to address this issue.

It seems this pressure is working. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull this week announced a A$1 billion commitment for the Great Barrier Reef; although the ACF has criticised the lack of reference to climate change in this announcement.

CC BY-SA

ACF membership costs A$10 and those who join are encouraged to give additional contributions. Almost 90% of the ACF’s income derives from donations and bequests. It also receives a small amount of funding from federal and state government, and a modest amount from membership fees.

While the ACF does not explicitly align itself with any particular political party, the greener a party’s credentials, the higher it ranks in the ACF’s estimation.

Screenshot of the ACF's election scorecard.

The ACF’s Environmental Scorecard ranks the three major parties on their environmental credentials. The Greens leads the way with a 77% score. Labor is on 53%, and the Coalition on only 11%.

The ACF has also endorsed the Greens’ climate change policies. But it hasn’t explicitly suggested that people vote for them.

The ACF has made some progress through collaboration with the private sector. Since 2004, it has been part of the Australian Climate Roundtable (previously the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change). This unlikely coalition includes the Australian Aluminium Council, Australian Industry Group, Business Council of Australia, and Energy Supply Association of Australia. The coalition has agreed to a set of principles underpinned by an agreement to try and meet the Paris Agreement’s 2℃ target.

This approach of working with businesses, rather than against them, has arguably been one of the reasons for the ACF’s success.

The ACF also has a strong history of working with other environmental groups. The Places You Love Alliance brings together the ACF with other groups including the Wilderness Society and WWF, to campaign for stronger environmental laws.

Screenshot of the Places You Love website.

In recent years, the ACF has retreated from an “insider” approach of lobbying politicians for policy change, towards a more grassroots approach, harnessing community support. This is the basis for the ACF’s drive to put the Great Barrier Reef on the election agenda through amassing public support, rather than lobbying parties directly.

The ACF’s approach is more conservative than some other more radical environmental groups, which may be another reason for its success.

Much of the ACF’s success in achieving environmental objectives over the decades has occurred before the courts. In the late 1970s through the 1980s, the ACF launched several high-profile challenges to development on environmental grounds.

In 1980, the High Court of Australia prohibited the ACF from challenging a decision about a new resort in central Queensland. The High Court stated that “a belief, however strongly felt, that the law generally, or a particular law, should be observed” does not allow a group to challenge a decision.

Despite this setback, tenacity paid off. In a 1989 case, the ACF challenged a decision to grant licences for the export of woodchips. The Federal Court found the ACF had a “special interest” in the subject matter, permitting it to challenge the decision. This case famously extended the ability of public interest groups to challenge decisions made by government.

Even today, the “ACF cases” are still referred to as the basis for standing when a group seeks to challenge a decision.

More recently, the ACF challenged the original Carmichael Mine approval under the EPBC Act. This challenge never made it to final judgment before the Federal Court, as Environment Minister Greg Hunt conceded an error in the decision-making process.

The ACF tries to amass public support rather than lobbying politicians directly. Nathan Paull/AAP

This concession sparked the so-called “lawfare” saga when the then Attorney General George Brandis launched an offensive against the rights of environmental groups to engage in “lawfare”. He described this as litigation brought by groups that:

have no legitimate interest other than to prosecute a political vendetta against development and bring massive developments … to a standstill.

Following Hunt’s concession, the decision was set aside, and a new approval for the Carmichael mine was granted in October 2015. The ACF has since launched a challenge to this revised decision, which was heard by the Federal Court in May. The decision is pending.

The ACF has campaigned hard for strong action on climate change, throwing its weight behind a carbon price in the past. The short-lived carbon price introduced by the Gillard government is counted as one of the ACF’s successes.

But interestingly, a carbon price hasn’t featured as prominently in the ACF’s election campaign lobbying in 2016.

Read the other articles in The Conversation’s Australian lobby groups series here.

Justine Bell-James has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility.

India is the world's third-largest coal producer, but also the second-largest importer Coal image from www.shutterstock.com

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

More than a fifth of India’s population lacks access to electricity, posing a major development challenge. India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has promised to bring affordable access to electricity to all of these people by 2019.

While Modi has committed to increasing renewable generation, India is also increasing coal production. India is the world’s third-largest coal producer and its second-largest coal importer.

This is creating a growing tension between development and India’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change.

Transforming economies

The world economy is changing faster than ever and Asia is at the forefront of its transformation. The growth, led by China over the past decade and more recently by India, shows that Asia has significant progress to make. But there are enormous challenges in realising the dream of the Asian Century.

For instance, in India, 22% of the population is living below the national poverty level. Only 47% of the households have access to a toilet, while 105 million people lack access to clean drinking water and 240 million people don’t have access to electricity.

But there is also bright news for India. The country’s economy is growing quickly and will soon surpass China’s. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in its recent interim economic outlook, has predicted that India’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will grow by 7.4% in 2016 and 7.3% in 2017.

In his electoral victory speech, Modi promised a “shining India” of new hopes and aspirations. The reality, however, is far more complex.

Resources are the focal point of this tension, particularly the increasing demand for energy. India’s energy demands will increase significantly, driven by rapid urbanisation, improved electricity access and an expanding manufacturing base.

Energy security is closely linked with food and water security, which are the backbones of the nation and a growing challenge in the face of climate change.

Indian government and businesses are addressing these issues by managing supply, increasing production of coal-based thermal plants and growing renewable energy sources. Coal supplies around half of India’s total energy supply.

Will constraints on resources, particularly access to affordable coal, disrupt India’s economic growth?

What role for coal?

India is the world’s third-largest producer of coal for electricity. While production has increased over the past few decades, the pace of growth has been insufficient to meet demand. Consequently, India has become more reliant on imported coal.

India’s thermal coal imports have increased from almost zero in the 1990s to having it overtake Japan as the world’s second-largest importer in 2013. The Indian government seems to promise adequate supply to its coal-fired electricity generation capacity by expanding its coal production as well as encouraging imports.

For example, the power and coal minister, Piyush Goyal, stated last year that the nation would step up domestic production and stop imports of coal for electricity (not coal for manufacturing) by 2017. However, growing economic growth and population may not allow this.

The Modi government’s plans to give access to affordable electricity to all Indians within the next five years cannot be achieved without importing coal. During the recent visit of India’s energy minister to Australia, the minister admitted that the country will need more coal imports, possibly including from Australia.

Although in the short term the case for Australian coal in India may be weakening due to the current global economic slowdown, India will have to rely on imported coal at least in the immediate future to increase its economic growth. This is reflected by the case of Adani, which is trying to develop a huge Carmichael coal mine in Queensland to supply India with thermal coal.

India’s domestic production of coal is constrained for a variety of reasons. India’s coal reserves are not only insufficient but also unevenly distributed among regions.

A further challenge related to the energy sector is a lack of private participation. Until 2014 coal mining was allowed only for government and private companies directly using coal for electricity and manufacturing.

The Modi government amended this rule to enable private companies to mine coal for sale in the open market. This may help create a more favourable coal market for both foreign and domestic investors and increase domestic production.

Although the Modi government is keen to increase production of domestic coal mines through privatisation, challenges still remain, such as pollution. The costs associated with pollution from coal-fired power stations are very large, as we can see from China.

China’s health minister from 2007-13, Chen Zhu, stated that lung cancer is now the leading cause of death in China as a result of pollution. This required China to spend an extra US$278 billion over five years to control pollution, mainly caused by coal-fired power plants.

India will have to tackle a very similar situation in the future. Hence, coal energy consumption is likely to be one of the defining issues of India’s economy in the 21st century, particularly the way in which the nation simultaneously addresses climate change and access to energy.

This is the fifth article in our series on the past, present and future of coal. Look out for others in the coming days.

Tapan Sarker 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.

AAP/Lukas Coch

In what has been shaping up as the election that forgot climate change, there are signs emerging in the Coalition’s election campaign that it is starting to listen to polls, its own focus groups and social media chat on climate.

So far it is the Great Barrier Reef that has drawn out the biggest campaign fight on climate.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced that A$1 billion of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) fund would be directed towards a Reef Fund. 10% of the money from the CEFC will be quarantined to make loans available to farmers in North Queensland.

While Turnbull declared the greatest threat to the reef was global warming, he nevertheless specified that the run-off from farming into the reef was what would be tackled. This is seen to be a measure that could prolong the reef in a region where the Coalition is at risk of losing some marginal seats.

So, one pitch is that saving the reef is about retaining 70,000 jobs that it sustains. But a less believable pitch is that the fund will battle climate change, with Turnbull saying that solar panels for farms in the region will reduce reliance on diesel, and that farmers would have loans for more energy-efficient farm equipment.

Labor’s shadow environment minister, Mark Butler, derided the Reef Fund as a “shameless exercise in spin” insofar as such loans have already been available to farmers for years.

Not far from the reef, in the Galilee Basin, is one of the largest coal deposits in the world, which both Labor and the Coalition have approved mining leases for, but which the Greens’ Larissa Waters insisted must be stopped if we are not going to:

… further cook the reef.

But on Monday night on the ABC’s Q&A, Bill Shorten reaffirmed Labor’s commitment to coal. He said:

A Labor government isn’t going to ban coal mining in this country … Coal is going to be part of our energy mix for the foreseeable future.

At the same time, he acknowledged:

… when we talk about the reef and when we talk about climate change, they are inextricably linked.

But Shorten’s message was identical to Turnbull’s in referring to jobs, saying that:

… good environments generate good jobs. 70,000 people make a living from the reef. It generates $6 billion in turnover for the Australian economy.

Weather and climate

In another climate change publicity opportunity, in the wash-up of the east coast storm last week, Shorten and Turnbull spent a day surveying the flood damage in Tasmania – but only Turnbull ventured so far as to link the floods to climate change.

While Shorten was happy to link climate change to the reef, he did not want to go near linking climate and weather:

In terms of climate and weather, today for me is not a day where I will join the dots about extreme weather events.

But Turnbull had no such hesitation. In a rare moment, the Turnbull of old came out in a moment that harked back to his days as environment minister, when he had no problem talking up the dangers of climate change:

Certainly, larger and more frequent storms are one of the consequences that the climate models and climate scientists predict from global warming but you cannot attribute any particular storm to global warming, so let’s be quite clear about that.

Turnbull is incorrect about subtropical lows becoming more frequent, but he is right about climate scientists’ forecasts that storms will get bigger.

If national policies in Australia and around the world are not calibrated to the 2℃ guardrail, the energy we saw released by last week’s storms will pale compared to what might be in store for future generations.

Referring to the Eemian period of 120,000 years ago, which was the last time the global average temperature was as high as the threshold that the Paris agreement is trying to avoid, scientists are uncovering evidence of storms that were of an order not compatible with the built environments of today’s human settlements.

In recent research, James Hansen, the author of the book Storms Of My Grandchildren, points to the puzzle of giant rocks in the Bahamas, up to one thousand tonnes, that are in a place they just shouldn’t be. Scientists warn these geological freaks harbour a terrifying secret – epic superstorms capable of tossing around boulders like bored Olympians.

But so as to reassure voters, both leaders did talk up the importance of mitigating damage (through the likes of building levies) – but not mitigating climate change itself.

While it was remarkable for Turnbull to discuss climate change at all in this election campaign, he failed to join the dots between the adequacy of the Coalition’s emissions reduction targets for Australia realising a responsible contribution to avoiding a 2℃ threshold.

Social media as a barometer of climate concern

A likely explanation as to why Turnbull in particular is reasserting climate change and the reef as an issue – but not asserting any kind of policy that will fix it – may be his reverence for the power of social media, and what it is telling his media team about neglecting climate change.

An analysis of 150,000 conversations on social media in Australia for the first three weeks of the election campaign reveals climate change is among the top five political topics Australians are talking about on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and blogs.

More than half of the discourse is negative towards each leader, with only 22% positive about Turnbull and 35% positive on Shorten. But of these posts, grouped around leaders, the only issue (other than negative gearing) that is common to discussion of both leaders is climate change. Climate change also stands out as the only issue in the top five that was not being aired by the leaders.

The analysis, by Meltwater, is significant in that it is so different from a poll. Those who answer a poll know that it will be aggregated and is likely to have a political impact. Their answers may not actually reflect their concerns as much as it does the desire to have an impact.

Analysis of social media, however, is more likely to capture the “backstage” of what people are actually concerned about in their daily conversations.

Could it be that, buried in these backstage conversations, are clues as to why voters are turning away from the major parties? And that neglect of climate change is a big part of this? Could it also be why the major parties have made panicked preference decisions to block the Greens and independents, who combined may capture 25% of the national vote?

There is evidence also that the Coalition’s announcements on the Great Barrier Reef are calculated to neutralise social media concern about it as an issue.

Perhaps it is its focus groups or it could be simply the impact of talk show mega-star Ellen DeGeneres’ “Remember the Reef” video-message campaign.

The campaign, which is also part of a promotion for a new film, Finding Dory, has seen Disney, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority collaborate on raising awareness about the threats to the reef.

But more remarkable than this campaign was the barrage of tweets from Environment Minister Greg Hunt, strenuously defending the government’s management of the reef.

A further tweet personally invited DeGeneres out to visit the reef to allay her fears. But the fear is mostly coming from Hunt it seems, that the Disney campaign really could get out of control, based on an animated movie that is to be screened just two weeks out from election day.

All countries will have to reduce emissions. Coal image from www.shutterstock.com

The Paris climate agreement was an important success for climate diplomacy as nation states showed a strong will to cooperate on climate action.

But instead of imposing binding national emission targets, the Paris Agreement is based on voluntary country commitments (known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions- INDCs). This poses some challenges.

First, the INDCs proposed so far are not enough to limit warming to well below 2℃, aiming for 1.5℃, as agreed in Paris. The INDCs shift a large burden of the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to after 2030.

Second, the INDCs cannot, yet, be verified and compared in a transparent manner to build mutual trust over time.

Third, countries lack incentives to increase their level of ambition without reducing their competitiveness as well as securities that other countries do not free-ride; to counteract this the right institutions are needed.

Lastly, the INDCs do not automatically become national law after a country ratifies the Paris agreement. Only the promise to review and revise INDCs every five years is legally binding. Countries have to make an additional effort to include their proposed climate policy in their other national policies – for example to counteract the expansion of coal power plants.

Raising the bar

To be effective, the Paris agreement, or any international agreement, has to address these challenges. In this respect, sufficiently high national carbon prices that increase over time would be a meaningful climate policy instrument for three main reasons.

First, carbon prices are relatively easy to compare and represent a transparent indicator of the ambition level of national climate policies.

Second, a carbon price drives up the cost of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, rendering high-emission forms of energy (such as coal power) unprofitable over the long term and low-emission technologies (such as wind and solar) competitive.

Third, the additional revenue from carbon pricing could remain in the respective countries and be used to achieve other societal targets, such as the Sustainable Development Goals.

When negotiating international carbon prices, for example in the context of the G20, individual countries would pledge to increase their domestic carbon price levels via emission taxes, fossil energy taxes, or emissions trading schemes featuring a price floor.

However, these price increases would only come into effect if other countries were likewise implementing high prices. This strategy would circumvent the concern that carbon pricing leads to competitive disadvantages. It would also include a sanctioning mechanism if participants were to lower their carbon prices.

Sharing the burden

A truly global coordination and increase of carbon prices can only occur if an effective burden sharing scheme is implemented. To engage developing countries, transfer payments are necessary. A particular country would receive international support if they accept a national carbon price.

Funds would have to increase with the price level, compensating for higher emissions reduction costs. Reducing the level of ambition would lead to a loss of international support.

This mechanism in turn increases the trust that other countries will pursue ambitious climate policies themselves. The climate finance envisaged in the Paris Agreement could be a main pillar of this strategy.

This article was co-authored by Christian Flachsland, head of governance group, and Ulrike Kornek post-doc in the governance group at the Mercator Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change.

Ottmar Edenhofer will be in Australia from 13-17 June and will present public lectures in Brisbane (University of Queensland), Canberra (ANU) and Melbourne (Climate and Energy College).

Ottmar Edenhofer is Director of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change.

Coal is a relatively cheap, abundant and well-established source of energy. Ray Hornsay/Flickr, CC BY-SA

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

The availability of efficient and reliable energy for industrial, agricultural and household use is critical for productivity growth and improvement in human wellbeing. But many people across the planet live in a state of energy poverty.

The energy-poor are people living without electricity services and clean energy – for cooking, lighting, heating and other daily needs. According to the World Bank, one-third of the world’s economies have severe energy crises and about 1.1 billion people lack access to electricity.

A large population in developing economies, particularly in Africa, relies on traditional biomass sources of energy that themselves cause problems, such as severe deforestation and carbon pollution. What’s more, many inhabitants of these countries face power outages of up to 20 hours a day.

An economical and sustainable energy source for deprived populations is clearly needed.

Enter coal

Coal is a relatively cheap, abundant and well-established source of energy, but it’s also a major source of carbon pollution. Hence the controversy about whether burning coal can end energy poverty in the coming decades.

In the past, coal has occupied a significant share in the energy mix of developing economies, but it has been under attack due to its emissions, which include sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide.

Amid calls for the use of efficient and clean technologies for electricity generation, the world’s largest producer and consumer of coal has already embarked on dynamic pathways to achieve energy efficiency and sustainability and combat carbon emissions. China’s initiatives for boosting the use of renewable energy sources, cutting the use of high-ash coal and resuming import tariffs on coal have reshaped the global energy mix landscape.

Coal is a relatively cheap, abundant and well-established source of energy, but it’s a major source of carbon pollution. Señor Codo/Flickr, CC BY-SA

Likewise, other developing countries including India are changing their energy mix by shifting their focus to renewables to reduce their reliance on coal-based energy. Although more than 50% of India’s new electricity generation is expected to be met by renewables, the country still needs to rely on coal-based generation to meet expanding demand.

The World Bank has already paused funding for new coal power generation except for exceptional cases, leaving a question mark over coal as a cure for global energy poverty.

But the slowdown in world coal demand is partly due to China’s structural shift away from construction and export-led manufacturing, which has significantly reduced coal prices. This has, in turn, slashed revenues of many exporting countries. And the collapse in prices is resulting in the closure of many mining businesses as companies are unable to recover production costs.

Still, energy-poor developing economies need coal as a cheap and readily available resource to provide electricity for their growing populations unless they find a way to completely replace it with alternative renewable sources.

Current and future trends

Many developing economies are facing a huge shortfall in electricity and are expanding their energy production capacity. This situation is likely to intensify as the world population increases. By the end of 2030, developing countries will need about 950 terawatt-hours electricity to meet their energy needs.

Consider India, which has the second-largest population in the world. It accounts for only 6% of global energy consumption and has 240 million people without access to electricity. With another 315 million Indians expected to move to urban areas in the next few decades, the country’s energy demand is likely to surge in the coming years.

Neighbouring Pakistan is facing a serious energy crisis and many people in that country are spending more than 12 hours each day without electricity. The new Pak-China economic corridor has created an opportunity for the country to use indigenous Thar coal reserves to generate 6,600 megawatts (MW) power, expanding its installed capacity of 24,829 MW by 25%.

According to global statistics, coal contributed to 39% of the world’s energy mix in 2014. The World Coal Association claims that about 1 billion people around the globe have received electricity from coal-powered energy generation. And that the industry has created 7 million jobs worldwide.

A large population in developing economies is reliant on traditional biomass sources of energy that themselves cause problems. Colleen/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Many developing economies, including China and India, are connecting millions of their inhabitants to coal-based electricity systems. Over the last two decades, China has been able to electrify about 700 million households through coal-fired energy production.

India is still meeting the majority of its energy demand from coal-fired electricity generation and was among the world’s three largest coal importers in 2015.

Prospects of coal energy

Energy poverty is a major human and environmental crisis. A balanced energy mix with a high degree of physical safety, low environmental hazards and sustainable supply prospects is essential for poverty alleviation and energy security.

But, in the face of competing alternative energy sources, the role of the coal industry in energy poverty alleviation has become even more challenging.

While renewable energy sources are in their infancy and facing many uncertainties, developing economies have a long way to go before they can completely abandon fossil fuel energy sources. Indeed, these countries need major structural reforms and risk-tolerant investment capital in the renewable sector if the twin goals of reduced carbon emissions and the elimination of energy poverty are to be achieved.

All that means the coal industry will potentially remain a major part of the world’s energy mix. But it needs drastic measures to produce clean and efficient energy if it is to play a role in energy security and poverty alleviation without the adverse environmental effects that threaten to introduce other risks to water, global climate and food security.

The author would like to thank Associate Professor John Steen and Dr Jo-Anne Everingham for their valuable comments on this article.

This is the third article in our series on the past, present and future of coal. Look out for others over the next week or two.

Shabbir Ahmad 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.

Controlling our homes with the tap of an app may have hidden energy costs. Smart home image from www.shutterstock.com

Light globes that change colour with the tap of an app, coffee machines you can talk to, and ovens that know exactly how long to cook your food: our homes are getting smart. These devices, just a few examples of what is known as “the internet of things” (or IOT), have been called the “next great disruptor” and “the second digital revolution”.

One of the great hopes of this revolution is that it will help households save energy. Sensors can turn off lights and appliances when not in use, or turn the heating down when people go to bed. Smartphone apps can provide households with more insight into the energy use of their appliances.

While estimates vary widely, industry proponents suggest that emerging connected home technologies could help households reduce their energy bills by 10-25%. Such claims are largely speculative given the absence of robust “before and after” research.

Social research from Australia and the UK is revealing ways in which IOT might also increase energy demand. We have identified three “hidden” energy impacts which are rarely considered in IOT research or energy-saving predictions.

New updates and hardware

Estimates of the true energy and data costs of IOT are currently vague. In part, this is due to the variety of possible impacts within the home, within distributed information infrastructures, and in the production, transportation and disposal of goods.

For example, one estimate suggests that the data servers required to power the internet already produce as much greenhouse gas as the airline industry (around 2% of global emissions). Some predict that server electricity use will treble in the next decade.

While IOT is still a relatively small (and largely unknown) part of this growth, its share is likely to increase substantially in coming years.

As with smartphones and other computers, updates for connected devices add to growing data traffic and hence energy consumption by data centres and transmission networks.

There may also be more energy demand from the increasing need for data centres, control rooms and home networks located within people’s homes (as observed in some of our research). This hard infrastructure takes up space, runs on energy and may require air-conditioned cooling or heating to keep it operating normally.

The rapid emergence of new software for household appliances such as fridges and washing machines may encourage more frequent upgrading of these devices – as seen with televisions and computers over recent years.

Given that it also takes energy to make appliances, discarding and upgrading devices that aren’t smart enough would undermine policies intended to reduce electronic waste (e-waste) and reduce embedded energy.

New needs

Like the industrial revolution of the home, which raised cleanliness expectations and resulted in more energy and water consumption overall, devices like smart thermostats might also raise expectations for comfort, particularly if air-conditioned heating and cooling is used more often and in more rooms.

For example, home automation company Lutron promotes the creation of “pleasance” - a seductive concept promising the perfect combination of luxury, relaxation, pleasure and comfort - all enabled by smart tech.

This vision permeates a range of ambience and aesthetic connected technologies, such as mood and scene lighting, automated water fountains, smart toilets and whole-house audio-visual systems.

By themselves, such features may be relatively low-power. But they add to existing services and are likely to require a degree of always-networked, always-ready standby power consumption.

In one recent estimate, connected devices were forecast to grow globally from 10 billion in 2014 to between 30 billion and 50 billion by 2020. With potentially billions of networked devices in the not-too-distant future, globally these impacts could be considerable.

With more devices at our fingertips, we are also using them more often. Instead of watching only one television, multiple family members can use their tablets and smartphones at the same time. Even though each individual device might be super efficient and battery-powered, it may add up to more energy demand overall.

Even devices marketed to save energy might increase it. For example, some smart apps allow householders to switch their heating or cooling off remotely when they forget.

However, they also provide new opportunities to turn it on remotely. As one article suggests: “if you want the aircon roaring before you come home … use the app to turn it on before you get home”.

Having more connected devices can also create more complexity. This is opening up markets for new devices that integrate and consolidate technologies across the home.

For example, virtual helpers like Amazon’s Echo (Alexa) and the Google Home Assistant can do everything from turning on your lights to playing your favourite music. These devices are new additions for most homes, consuming small amounts of energy in their own right, but adding to the energy demands of distant data servers.

New services

New services are also emerging, such as smart versions of mattresses and fridges that monitor health and assist with sleep, diet and medication patterns.

The security industry is also rapidly evolving to provide surveillance features which allow constant home monitoring from a distance and enable lights and appliances to be switched on to deter burglars. Devices also provide live-stream video sent to smartphones and tablets so householders can check on the activities of their children and pets.

All these devices involve various forms of energy demand, which includes powering the devices themselves. They also transmit data over the internet and make greater use of streamed media content; another key component of the growing energy used by the internet.

That does not mean that IOT has nothing to offer: the devices we have described above arguably have many benefits.

But we do need to pay more attention to these hidden impacts as governments and households embrace these technologies for their promoted energy-saving benefits.

Yolande Strengers receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Energy Consumers Australia. She is affiliated with the Sociological Association of Australia (TASA).

Janine Morley and the DEMAND Centre receive funding from the RCUK Energy Programme and EDF as part of the R&D ECLEER Programme.

Larissa Nicholls receives funding from Energy Consumers Australia.

Mike Hazas receives funding from the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

Sparrows are one of the five most common birds in Australian cities. Sparrow image from www.shutterstock.com

In Australia, like so many other countries, the house sparrow is one of the five most commonly seen birds in backyards and gardens. This is a result of intentional introductions over the past two centuries.

The story of how house sparrows came to Australia has several new twists. Recent research shows just how much effort was made to introduce the species as an early form of bio-control (almost a century before the cane toad was introduced to help control the cane beetle).

Most surprisingly, historical documents reveal that the first house sparrows to arrive and breed in Australia actually arrived from India, not England as has been believed for more than 100 years.

Alongside them came the most vilified introduced bird in Australia, the common myna.

Introduced birds

Over the past two centuries Australia has become a new home for hundreds of introduced species of plants and animals. Many of these have become serious pests, causing major losses to agricultural production and threatening Australia’s endemic biodiversity.

The house sparrow and myna dominate many urban areas in Australia but, on account of their dependence on people, have mostly stayed in human-modified environments. They have apparently caused little damage to native species.

While species have been introduced to Australia for a variety of reasons, many people assume that these birds were introduced for very frivolous ones.

Common belief is that English songbirds were introduced by homesick colonists so they could once again hear the familiar sounds of home, in a land where the birds were unfamiliar. But our research reveals a different story.

If you have mynas nearby, you’ll know about it. Myna image from www.shutterstock.com The sparrow campaign

The first sparrows arrived in Australia in late 1862. They were shipped after a prolonged campaign led by Edward Wilson, editor of the Melbourne Argus.

Wilson had established the Victorian Acclimatisation Society, set up with the support of the Victorian government to import useful species. Sparrows, it was thought, could help the struggling agricultural sector.

A series of articles and editorials in 1860-61 drew attention to famines in Hungary and France that were reportedly caused by the destruction of so many songbirds in the farming districts of those countries.

Studies in Switzerland showed that while sparrows do cause some damage to fruit crops, this is outweighed by the number of insect pests that the birds feed to their nestlings (3,000 per nest).

In 1860 Wilson called for farmers to “wage war” on insects pests with sparrows and starlings. He also confessed that:

I like to see a bird in the streets, and I have a kindly feeling for the sparrow for his friendly confidence in this way.

This attitude may explain accusations of frivolity, but the sparrow was valued above other birds because they associated more strongly with people than other birds, and their worth had been demonstrated in Europe and New York where they had been introduced to attack insects defoliating city trees.

By today’s standards, however, efforts to ascertain the ecological and agricultural risks were very poor. The same people are also to blame for the introduction of the rabbit, fox and carp – to mention just three major pests.

Indian arrivals

So, in the early 1860s, Wilson and the Acclimatisation Society went to great efforts to transport birds from Europe. Birds were kept alive during the long voyage by sea and then acclimated to Australian conditions by being held in large aviaries in Melbourne (on the site that later became the Melbourne Zoo), before their release around the colony. This was a challenging enterprise and the value of a live sparrow arriving in Melbourne encouraged greater care on board the ships.

An inadvertent consequence of the economic value placed on the arrival of a sparrow in Australia was that it created a new market for opportunism. The sea passage from India was significantly shorter than that from Europe and an enterprising shipping agent in India, G. J. Landells, took full advantage of this.

New research has uncovered clear documentary evidence that house sparrows arrived from India in 1862 and were breeding successfully in Melbourne before any arrived alive from England (in early 1863). This means it is highly likely that the house sparrows in Australia today are a genetic mix of Indian and European sparrows. The house sparrows in India were native to the subcontinent and are a different race of house sparrow from the one in Europe.

The newspapers of the time also make it clear that, along with each shipment of sparrows from India, a number of common mynas also arrived. This is presumably because they were abundant in the same places as the sparrows and it was argued that they would be a useful addition for eating insects in towns and farms.

In 1863, Landells placed an advertisement in The Sydney Morning Herald offering to export more “minas” to Melbourne for 20 shillings each, and house sparrows at ten shillings each.

While it’s unlikely that he became rich on the back of such a market, his enterprise changed the avian landscape of Australia’s backyards forever.

Simon Griffith receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

To halt climate change and prevent dangerous warming, we ultimately have to stop pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. While the world is making slow progress on reducing emissions, there are more radical options, such as removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and storing them underground.

In a paper published today in Science my colleagues and I report on a successful trial converting carbon dioxide (CO₂) to rock and storing it underground in Iceland. Although we trialled only a small amount of CO₂, this method has enormous potential.

Here’s how it works.

Turning CO₂ to rock

Our paper is the culmination of a decade of scientific field and laboratory work known as CarbFix in Iceland, working with a group of international scientists, among them Wallace Broecker who coined the expression “global warming” in the 1970s. We also worked with the Icelandic geothermal energy company Reykjavik Energy.

The idea itself to convert CO₂ into carbonate minerals, the basis of limestone, is not new. In fact, Earth itself has been using this conversion technique for aeons to control atmospheric CO₂ levels.

However, scientific opinion had it up to now that converting CO₂ from a gas to a solid (known as mineralisation) would take thousands (or tens of thousands) of years, and would be too slow to be used on an industrial scale.

To settle this question, we prepared a field trial using Reykjavik Energy’s injection and monitoring wells. In 2012, after many years of preparation, we injected 248 tonnes of CO₂ in two separate phases into basalt rocks around 550m underground.

Most CO₂ sequestration projects inject and store “supercritical CO₂”, which is CO₂ gas that has been compressed under pressure to considerably decrease its volume*. However, supercritical CO₂ is buoyant, like a gas, and this approach has thus proved controversial due to the possibility of leaks from the storage reservoir upwards into groundwater and eventually back to the atmosphere.

In fact, some European countries such as the Netherlands have stopped their efforts to store supercritical CO₂ on land because of lack of public acceptance, driven by the fear of possible leaks in the unforeseeable future. Austria went even so far as to ban underground storage of carbon dioxide outright.

Our Icelandic trial worked in a different way. We first dissolved CO₂ in water to create sparkling water. This carbonated water has two advantages over supercritical CO₂ gas.

First, it is acidic, and attacks basalt which is prone to dissolve under acidic conditions.

Second, the CO₂ cannot escape because it is dissolved and will not rise to the surface. As long as it remains under pressure it will not rise to the surface (you can see the same effect when you crack open a soda can; only then is the dissolved CO₂ released back into the air).

Dissolving basalt means elements such as calcium, magnesium, and iron are released into pore water. Basaltic rocks are rich in these metals that team up with the dissolved CO₂ and form solid carbonate minerals.

Through observations and tracer studies at the monitoring well, we found that over 95% of the injected CO₂ (around 235 tonnes) was converted to carbonate minerals in less than two years. While the initial amount of injected CO₂ was small, the Icelandic field trial clearly shows that mineralisation of CO₂ is feasible and more importantly, fast.

Storing CO₂ under the oceans

The good news is this technology need not be exclusive to Iceland. Mineralisation of CO₂ requires basaltic or peridotitic rocks because these types of rocks are rich in the metals required to form carbonates and bind the CO₂.

As it turns out the entire vast ocean floor is made up of kilometre-thick oceanic basaltic crust, as are large areas on the continental margins. There are also vast land areas covered with basalt (so-called igneous provinces) or peridotite (so-called “ophiolitic complexes”).

The overall potential storage capacity for CO₂ is much larger than the global CO₂ emissions of many centuries. The mineralisation process removes the crucial problem of buoyancy and the need for permanent monitoring of the injected CO₂ to stop and remedy potential leakage to the surface, an issue that supercritical CO₂ injection sites will face for centuries or even millennia to come.

On the downside, CO₂ mineralisation with carbonated water requires substantial amounts of water, meaning that this mineralisation technique can only succeed where vast supplies of water are available.

However, there is no shortage of seawater on the ocean floor or continental margins. Rather, the costs involved present a major hurdle to this kind of permanent storage option, for the time being at least.

In the case of our trial, a tonne of mineralised CO₂ via carbonated water cost about US$17, roughly twice that of using supercritical CO₂ for storage.

It means that as long as there are no financial incentives such as a carbon tax or higher price on carbon emissions, there is no real driving force for carbon storage, irrespective of the technique we use.

*Correction: The sentence has been corrected to note that gas volume rather than density decreases when it is compressed. Thankyou to the readers who pointed out the error.

Dom Wolff-Boenisch 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.

Visits to Belize's reefs have been climbing, despite them being listed as World Heritage in Danger since 2009. Elizabeth Albert/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

In 2014, 1.88 million tourists visited the Great Barrier Reef, bringing an estimated A$5.17 billion into Australia’s economy and helping to employ some 64,300 tourism workers.

With those numbers, it’s easy to see how threats to the Reef’s future, such as the recent mass bleaching event, are confronting for the tourism sector. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many tourism operators have chosen to remain quiet about their concerns or downplay the issue, fearful that mentioning the threats would turn tourists away.

The federal environment department evidently felt the same way, judging by its request that all references to Australian World Heritage sites, including the Reef, be removed from a UNESCO report on climate change and World Heritage tourism.

But does this reasoning stack up? Three other famous tourist destinations have also been in the spotlight of the World Heritage Committee, with little indication that this has turned visitors away.

Galápagos Islands

Galápagos was listed as World Heritage In Danger from 2007-10, primarily because of the impacts of tourism, and was taken off again once the World Heritage Committee was satisfied that its concerns had been addressed. The area is now facing other issues, including biosecurity, sustainable development and fishing, but Galápagos tourism continues to grow, as shown in the graph below, with almost 225,000 visits in 2015.

Everglades National Park

Everglades National Park was listed as World Heritage In Danger in 1993, and remains on the list today (although it was briefly taken off in 2008 before being reinstated in 2010). Annual visitor numbers have fluctuated around the 1 million mark, although official figures count only those who pass through the park’s entrance stations, and many more people enter through the miles of surrounding waters.

Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System

Belize’s reefs have been on the World Heritage In Danger list since 2009, due to a range of issues including invasive species, oil and gas exploitation, and inappropriate visitor accommodation and associated infrastructure. Tourist numbers recently reached a high of 968,131 cruise arrivals in 2014.

Data compiled by author What can we learn from these numbers?

The first thing to note is that the Great Barrier Reef has, to date, avoided being listed as World Heritage In Danger, thanks to last year’s successful campaign by the federal and Queensland governments – although there is no guarantee it will not be added in the future.

But what do the statistics above tell us about what happens to tourism numbers when World Heritage sites are officially listed as “In Danger”?

Galápagos suffered a very slight downturn in tourism after it was added to the In Danger list in 2007, but since then tourism has continued to grow, and today numbers are higher than they have ever been.

In Belize, tourism has fluctuated since the site was listed as World Heritage In Danger in 2009, but here too, tourist numbers today are at record highs despite the fact that these reefs remain on the In Danger list.

Finally to the Everglades, which has been placed on the World Heritage In Danger list twice – both times at the request of the US government. This shows that, while sites can be taken off the list if their prospects improve, not all governments think that an In Danger listing is itself a bad thing. Certainly, Everglades tourism numbers do not seem to have suffered since it was placed back on the list in 2010.

Airboating in the Everglades: still a popular jaunt. chensiyuan/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Why did the United States lobby to have the Everglades officially described as In Danger, while Australia fought to keep the Great Barrier Reef off the list? As Carol Mitchell, Deputy Director of the South Florida Natural Sciences Center, has explained, the In Danger listing makes it clear to the national and international community that the Everglades still needs attention. Mitchell wrote to me:

It helps to keep some external pressure on both the federal and Florida state governments in their efforts to restore the park … both governments are strongly committed to Everglades restoration; nevertheless … the ability to call upon important, very visible international designations … does help to maintain those commitments.

Tourists already know the Great Barrier Reef is threatened

Despite what the Australian government and many tourism operators would like to believe, the threats to the Great Barrier Reef are already widely known, because they have drawn global media attention.

How this translates into the perceptions of prospective tourists in not yet clear. But the indications from elsewhere around the world is that In Danger listing does not have a significant impact on tourism, and presumably we could say the same about inclusion in documents such as UNESCO’s tourism report.

Many other factors are far more important to tourists, including the economic situation, access, weather events, service quality and, importantly, a site’s relative quality compared to alternative destinations.

Tourism operators are increasingly recognising that the Great Barrier Reef faces myriad threats, and that its outlook is poor. Many people agree with Tony Fontes, a dive operator from the Whitsunday Islands, who previously told me that an In Danger listing “might actually be the catalyst to ensure the GBR is properly protected”.

Recently, other GBR tourism operators have spoken out about the worst crisis ever faced by the GBR, with some 200 businesses and individuals pleading with the government to tackle climate change and the many other threats that together threaten the Reef’s future.

What needs to be done?

Ignoring the indisputable fact that the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem is under unprecedented pressures will help neither tourism nor the environment in the long term. A more effective strategy would be for the relevant agencies and operators alike to create realistic expectations, and responsibly inform tourists of the real situation.

University of Queensland professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg has summed up the situation:

The reef is in dire trouble, but it’s decades away before it’s no longer worth visiting. That’s the truth. But unless we wake up and deal with climate change sincerely and deeply then we really will have a Great Barrier Reef not worth visiting.

Australia has an international obligation to safeguard the Great Barrier Reef for future generations. As a relatively rich country, Australia needs to show global leadership, but this will require more government assistance, leadership from industry and, crucially, widespread public support for action. If reef tourists from around the world know the real situation, they might be able to help too.

Jon C. Day 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.

Miners were fired by a sense of solidarity but also by dangerous working conditions, which produced high death and injury rates. Janet Lindenmuth/Flickr, CC BY-SA

As the world moves to combat climate change, coal is becoming increasingly vilified for its greenhouse gas emissions. But coal played a vital role in the Industrial Revolution, and continues to fuel some of the world’s largest economies. Our series examines coal’s past, present, and increasingly uncertain future, and today we turn to its role in the development of industrial relations.

Coal mining, major industrial disputes, and the coal miner himself, are iconic representations of the industrial age. Demand for coal came from expanding urban centres as a result of the Industrial Revolution, and new coal-fired factories, mills and furnaces.

Miners were among the first workers to organise into trade unions from the middle of the 1700s, battling a lack of legal recognition and resistance from the mine owners.

By the 19th century, there were numerous attempts to combine and organise what were often local trade unions. By the beginning of the 20th century, lasting national bodies of miners had been formed in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States.

Origins of mining communities

Small pit-top communities emerging in the 1800s created bonds of association that flowed into newly established trade unions. Mines tended to concentrate in distinct regions following coal seams.

Miners were fired by a sense of solidarity but also by dangerous working conditions, which produced high death and injury rates. Proper records were not kept in the early period, but in the United Kingdom, for example, at least 90,000 miners died between 1850 and 1914.

Disasters were common in the industry. Their collective impact and lasting grief created a long tradition of anger over working conditions. The prevalence of occupational diseases – especially respiratory ailments – further encouraged union formation, and was a rallying call for organisation and political change.

Starting in the late 19th century, mechanisation not only reduced the total number of miners needed to raise a tonne of coal, it also introduced new hazards into the workplace. Machines with high-speed moving parts could catch clothing and limbs, causing serious injury or death.

In Australia and the UK, regulation usually followed major disasters. The US mining industry was more lightly regulated and only serious disasters prompted concerted federal government action; a situation that was unfortunately mirrored in other parts of the world. From 1900 to 1947, more than 90,000 US miners died at work.

Industrial conflict

By the late 19th century, the industry was characterised by uncertain profit margins, seasonal shifts in demand, uncertain supply lines, and owners who increasingly resented the rise of unions.

Mine owners were pressing for lower wages or faster work rates, and industrial conflict was common. And as older, more paternalistic forms of management of the early 1800s began to recede, the industry was characterised by major industrial battles.

Disasters were common in the mining industry. Orin Blomberg/Flickr, CC BY-ND

On the eve of the Great Strikes of the early 1890s in Australia, for instance, there was evidence that mine owners, in league with other employer groups, had decided to make a stand against the rising tide of union power.

Miners had joined other workers in asserting the right to form their own associations. They encouraged unions in new secondary industries and in other mines. In places such as the Hunter Valley in New South Wales, coal miners helped workers organise in the new base metal mines of the 1880s, and later in the Newcastle iron and steel industry from 1915.

In the US, there were violent and deadly clashes between miners and state and federal militia including the infamous 1914 Ludlow massacre in Colorado, where more than 60 strikers were killed.

In Australia, a seven-week miners strike in 1949 over wages and conditions but made worse by Cold War fears, saw federal government intervention and soldiers working in the mines.

Mining communities

Miners were also important in the development of the labour parties in Australia and the United Kingdom.

In the 1930s and 1940s, coal-mining communities in Australia, Wales, and England included members of the Communist Party. But the Labour parties were by far the dominant group, and mining communities would supply staunch Labour party politicians for many decades.

There was strict gender division of labour in coal-mining communities with men as breadwinners and women as wives and helpers. If women organised, it was in an “auxiliary” role.

Religion was often an important part of mining communities and this usually took the form of Protestantism that preached an acceptance of one’s fate; hyper religiosity in the face of the deadening weight of wage labour and the daily possibility of injury or death prevailed.

By the 1950s and 1960s, unionised coal miners had won better pay and conditions. In conditions of low unemployment and with the prestige garnered by their national organisations, coal miners had significant industrial power.

The withdrawal of their labour could bring an economy to a standstill as coal was required for factory machinery and transport. But towards the end of this long boom period, coal began to lose out to oil and gas.

The radical miner?

There is a common misconception that most coal miners were militant socialists. But miners and their communities could be socially conservative moderates who worked within the capitalist system.

Pit-top communities were homogeneous, and solidarity was often enforced through intimidation and exclusion, as well as moral consensus.

Working in a coal mine did not inevitably produce a radical political consciousness. Where strong union organisation was present, it was the result of hard work and efforts to organise members focused on protection rather than revolution.

Where strong union organisation was present, it was the result of hard work and efforts to organise members focused on protection rather than revolution. Amgueddfa Cymru - National Museum Wales/Flickr, CC BY-NC

The UK miners' strike protesting mine closures in 1984-85 was an occasion when, in the face of strong external threats, communities did come together powerfully.

With long memories of successful miners’ strikes in the early 1970s, Margaret Thatcher’s government embarked on a concerted attack on coal communities. This included plans to call in the military if needed, and reduce the power of the coal miners by encouraging nuclear energy.

But even in this case, the ultimately unsuccessful strike also produced internal dissent, a rival workers' organisation, and broke the exclusive coverage of the union in mining jobs.

Recession and globalisation

Coal mining continued to offer good jobs for working class communities but, increasingly, the jobs were being shifted to the developing world. And miners were losing their industrial and political muscle.

By 2007, there were 41,000 coal miners in the United States but only 22% were unionised. Recent high-profile bankruptcies of major US firms have again highlighted this development.

The centre of the global coal industry is now China. It accounts for 40% of global production; up to 80% of global coal mining fatalities; and no independent union representation.

Away from the spotlight of large mines, informal or artisanal coal mines are important in the developing world. While these small mines are important sources of income for poor communities (especially for women and children), conditions are squalid, safety unregulated and figures on the loss of life or serious fatalities largely unknown.

The reality of climate change has transformed the standing of coal mining. Those on the left were once unfailingly proud of their militant tradition. But as coal became associated with human-induced climate change this became less tenable.

The industry that spawned major unions, heroic though often unsuccessful industrial action, and transformed the political makeup of the UK and Australia, is now increasingly struggling. While the UK has only a handful of operating coal mines, the Australian situation is complicated by the renewed expansion of mining, including coal mining, from 2001.

This is the third article in our series on the past, present and future of coal. Look out for others in the coming days.

Erik Eklund 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.

Coal powered the machinery and lit what English poet William Blake described as 'dark satanic mills'. Sam Leighton/Flickr, CC BY-NC

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

Coal was king of the British Industrial Revolution. As coke, it provided an efficient fuel for reliably turning iron ore into iron.

Cheap iron built the famous bridge across the River Severn at Ironbridge Gorge in 1781. And the machinery that filled the new factories of the industrial age was built from it.

Coal then powered the machinery and lit what English poet William Blake (1757-1827) described as the “dark satanic mills” that revolutionised cotton manufacture. It powered James Watt’s double-acting piston engine, whose reciprocating motion was converted into rotary motion by means of a crankshaft.

The resulting steamships and railway locomotives reduced the time and cost of bringing coal into factories and taking their products to British export markets across the globe.

Somewhat unexpectedly, the new forms of transport also generated exciting adventures for the British population – the mass seaside resort and the day return. Thus were Thomas Cook and the British tourism industry born.

Spoils of coal

Coal literally powered its way through the British economy of the 19th century – the so-called first industrial nation and workshop of the world.

Coal powered James Watt’s piston engine, whose reciprocating motion was converted into rotary motion by means of a crankshaft. Herman Pijpers/Flickr, CC BY

It even fuelled engines that drained water from deeper, less accessible coal mines to keep the supply coming. When steel superseded iron later in the century, coal remained a critical raw material.

Subsequent generations of locomotives and steamships improved transport productivity enormously, and gradually forced owners of stagecoaches, canal boats and sailing ships out of business. Then locomotives, rails, steamships and coal themselves joined the growing range of British exports as other countries sought to mimic the nation’s success.

Ironically, many ageing sailing ships were deployed to carry coal to refuel the growing network of coal bunkering stations around the oceans of the world, a trade that required low cost but no particular urgency.

Fast, reliable ocean liner services contributed to the first era of globalisation in the late 19th century, led by British steamship companies such as Cunard and P&O. They connected Britain across the Atlantic and eastwards, respectively.

Other countries followed suit, especially France, Belgium and Germany, which also had ample supplies of coal. While no one would deny the connection between coal and 19th-century industrialisation, why Britain was the first nation to modernise its economy by exploiting reserves remains highly contested.

Why Britain?

A long-held view is that the antecedents of British success can be traced back centuries during which the nation gradually built the preconditions for modern development. Growth-inducing institutions can take many forms, and include a stable political system and the development of commercial law.

The emphasis in Britain was on rising literacy levels and logical reasoning derived from movements that encouraged analytical thinking about the problems of the real world – the scientific revolution and the Age of Enlightenment.

These “gifts of Athena” (in the words of economic historian Joel Mokyr) facilitated critical and creative thinking about “useful knowledge” necessary to solve growth constraints. In modern parlance, here was the knowledge economy.

This “Eurocentric” view – so-called because it assumes that development in Britain (and Europe) was ahead of the rest of the world – has now been challenged.

In his epochal study, The Great Divergence, US historian Kenneth Pomeranz used China as a point of comparison to reject the long-term antecedents of the “great divergence” between the economic development of Europe and the rest of the world.

Pomeranz argues that Britain and China had arrived at similar stages of development by the 18th century (“a world of surprising resemblances”, as he calls it) and that they reflected different, but equivalent, measures of progress.

Railway locomotives, along with steamships, reduced the time and cost of bringing coal into factories and taking their products to British export markets across the globe. Colleen Galvin/Flickr, CC BY

The divergence was then born of differing abilities to confront an impending global ecological crisis: growing populations faced food and raw material shortages in a low-technology era.

Fortuitously, Britain had coal, conveniently located, and an empire in the New World with the space to produce primary commodities – timber, sugar, cotton and wheat – which, alongside coal, facilitated industrialisation.

Pomeranz concludes that Britain was a “fortunate freak” because its development was due to a short-term windfall from “coal and empire”, rather than to deeper determinants of long-term change.

Paths to growth

The publication of The Great Divergence led to a broad and thought-provoking debate in economic history for a decade and a half.

What we learnt from it – above all else – was that there have been different forms of economic development across the world. And some of these have been pathways less recognisable to Europeanists accustomed to coal and heavy industry as staples, and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the measure, of development.

Other historians have drawn attention to forms of industrialisation, especially in Asia, that have needed more human – and less non-renewable natural – resources.

Now that we are living in an era when coal’s environmental problems have come to the fore, it’s heartening to be reminded that there are other growth paths.

The other relevant insight from the Great Divergence debate is that human agency is vital; there are no immutable lessons of geography or ecology, and no development path is unchanging.

Coal and other resources have always been abundant in many parts of the world. It’s the human ingenuity found in particular societies – however derived – that has created high levels of wellbeing from these natural resources.

Let’s hope we will find a way of maintaining living standards into the future while mitigating the impact of our growth on the environment.

This is the second article in our series on the past, present and future of coal. Look out for other pieces over the coming days.

Simon Ville 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.