Feed aggregator

Scientists have accurately reconstructed images of human faces by monitoring the responses of monkey brain cells.

European leaders, businesses and the UN condemn President Trump's decision.

Labour leader says PM should have condemned decision to pull US out of climate agreement in stronger terms

Jeremy Corbyn has accused Theresa May of a “dereliction of duty to our country and our planet” for failing to give a stronger condemnation of Donald Trump’s decision to pull the US out of the Paris climate change agreement.

The Labour leader said the prime minister was showing herself to be subservient to the US president and claimed he would take a very different approach to relations with Washington.

Continue reading...

Politicians, governments and newspapers across the world react with dismay and frustration over US president’s decision to pull the world’s second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases out of the agreement

Continue reading...

Beijing and Brussels join leaders around world in show of solidarity after Trump’s announces US pullout from climate accord

European and Chinese leaders have pledged to continue in combatting global warming as widespread condemnation met Donald Trump’s announcement he was pulling the US out of the Paris climate accord.

The US president “can’t and won’t stop all those of us who feel obliged to protect the planet.” She said the move was “extremely regrettable and that’s putting it very mildly”, said Angela Merkel, the German chancellor

Continue reading...

Ideology and tribalism blind many people to the consequences of their climate denial and obstructionism

The science of climate change is clear. Scientists know that the Earth is warming and that humans are the reason. We also know that the Earth will continue to warm in the future; however, we can do something about it. We can dramatically change the trajectory.

If the science is so clear, why are there still so many people that don’t accept it? Why are there so many people who try to deny the evidence? Well, the why is something I will try handling in my next post. Here, I want to describe where things are, as I see them. Mind you, this is only my perspective, living in the USA, working on climate science and climate communication on a daily basis.

Continue reading...

In Trump’s darkest speech since the ‘American carnage’ inaugural address, the world was presented as something to fear rather than aspire to lead

Donald Trump’s rejection of the Paris climate change treaty is the most emphatic answer to date the question the rest of the world has been asking since January: What does “America First” mean?

“I am elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” the president declared in the Rose Garden, after a jazz group had entertained the invited audience.

Continue reading...

Liberal backbencher Craig Kelly and Labor MP Anne Aly join RN Drive to discuss the latest in politics.

Local government buildings in New York, Boston, Washington DC, Montreal and Paris lit up after US withdrawal from accord

Landmarks in cities across the world have been lit up green in support of the Paris climate accord after Donald Trump’s announcement on Thursday that the US would withdraw from the agreement.

In New York, the spire of the One World Trade Centre was illuminated. The New York state governor, Andrew Cuomo, tweeted:

Continue reading...

Prices of raw ivory in Vietnam have fallen, which traders are linking to China’s announcement of its domestic ivory ban, according to new research

The price of raw ivory in Asia has fallen dramatically since the Chinese government announced plans to ban its domestic legal ivory trade, according to new research seen by the Guardian. Poaching, however, is not dropping in parallel.

Undercover investigators from the Wildlife Justice Commission (WJC) have been visiting traders in Hanoi over the last three years. In 2015 they were being offered raw ivory for an average of US$1322/kg in 2015, but by October 2016 that price had dropped to $750/kg, and by February this year prices were as much as 50% lower overall, at $660/kg.

Continue reading...

The red squirrel is under threat of extinction across Britain. Their supporters believe the only way to save them is to exterminate their enemy: the greys. But are they just prejudiced against non-native species? By Patrick Barkham

One snowy dawn in March, I went hunting for squirrels in the Lake District. In the silent and empty woods beneath the Aira Force waterfall, the only thing moving was a solitary red squirrel, balanced on a nut-filled feeder hanging from a tree. If you grew up, as I did, with the grey squirrel, seeing a red squirrel is a shock. We’re used to the grey – a sleek, North American import, swaggering across parks, raiding bird tables, all fat haunches and bulbous black eyes. In contrast, the red squirrel, although native to Britain, looks exotic: so dainty and alertly pretty, with fine tufts of hair above its ears as extravagant as the eyebrows of Denis Healey. Here, in the snow, this forest sprite quivered with improbable, balletic grace and then – clang – slipped on the icy lid of the feeder and fell to the ground. It landed on its feet.

Julie Bailey, a former gymnast with a cascade of red hair, had picked me up from the nearby town of Penrith and driven her black 4x4 along slushy roads to admire this natural acrobat. At Aira Force, she stepped out of the car and, leaning on a stick, walked carefully across the snow. She and her husband, Phil, used to enjoy watching red squirrels at their feeders in the garden; these animals were still a common sight across northern Cumbria a decade or so ago. Bailey worked in pharmaceuticals and coached boys in gymnastics, including her son. But in 2005, she broke her back. She couldn’t walk for four years. Seventeen spinal operations later, she only walks thanks to a spinal cord stimulator, powered by a battery in her stomach. When it malfunctions, she collapses. She doesn’t make a fuss, but she is in pain 24 hours a day and is intolerant to painkillers. “Because I was stuck at home,” she said, “I started taking more notice of my squirrels. They really gave me a purpose.”

Continue reading...

CSIRO report on low emissions technology outlines pathway to high renewables grid. Inexplicably, cost estimates assume no efficiency and productivity gains, and 50% more demand than high gas scenario, prompting Coalition to say it favours "technology neutral" approach.

Inverlael, Highlands The bog is dirt-black and soupy, threatening to mire us at every step. All we can do is give the horses free rein to seek a safe route

At the weir at Glenbeg, we abandon the path and head west, using the river as a guide. The bog is dirt-black and soupy, threatening to mire us at every step; all we can do is give the horses free rein to seek a safe route through the morass. They lower their heads, ears pricked as they inspect the ground, and veer off along sheep-trodden detours, leaping sloughs and streamlets. Highland ponies in their element.

Where the river branches, we follow the tributary high onto a plateau to the east of Eididh nan Clach Geala, a Munro whose Gaelic name suggests it to be “clothed” in white rock: gleaming, boulders of quartz that glimmer, unnervingly clean and sharp as bared teeth. On a good day, one can see the Summer Isles or the stark lines of Assynt, where lone mountains rear up from the flats. But, today, low clouds have closed around us, brushing past damply, and the steady, relentless rain hasn’t faltered since we woke.

Continue reading...

Endeavor Energy shift to local network ownership is the most sensible and exciting development we have seen for sometime in Australia’s energy market transition.

The economic study Trump uses to justify the US leaving the Paris climate accord fails to factor in one massive cost: human-caused climate change.

Disruptive technology, Ming Dynasty-style. Vmenkov/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

In the early 15th century the Ming Dynasty in China undertook a series of expensive oceangoing expeditions called the Treasure Voyages. Despite the voyages’ success, elements of the elite opposed them. “These voyages are bad, very bad,” we can imagine them tweeting. “They are a bad deal for China.” Eventually these inward-looking, isolationist leaders gained enough power to prevent future voyages.

But this was an own goal. The parochial elites who killed off the Treasure Voyages could stop Chinese maritime innovation, but they could do nothing to prevent it elsewhere. Decades later, European sailors mastered the art of sailing vast distances across the ocean, and created fortunes and empires on the back of that technology (for better or worse). It is hard to see how China’s strategic interests were served by abandoning a field in which they led.

There are some striking parallels in the Trump administration’s decision to renege on the Paris climate agreement. It has been cast as a move to protect America, but in the long run it won’t derail the world’s transition to a low-carbon economy, and instead the US will find itself lagging, not leading.

Trump’s repudiation of the Paris deal is regrettable for at least three reasons. First, because the US is a technological leader whose entrepreneurs are extremely well placed to lead the global low-carbon transition; second, because America’s abdication of climate leadership weakens the global order and sends a wink and a nod to other fossil-fuelled recalcitrants like Saudi Arabia and Russia; and finally because having the world’s second-highest emitter outside the agreement is a clear negative.

That said, US flip-flopping on climate is nothing new. The nation played a strong role in shaping the Kyoto Protocol, only to fail to ratify it. And while that did not help matters, it did not derail international efforts to combat climate change. In fact, the momentum behind climate-friendly initiatives has grown several-fold since the early 2000s.

Viewed in the long run, the latest US defection changes little. Any conceivable future Democrat administration will rejoin the Paris Agreement. But more importantly, the transition to a low-carbon future is not dependent on the actions of a single player.

The criteria for successful climate change policy are hard to achieve but easy to describe: success will come when non-emitting technologies economically outcompete fossil fuels, pretty much everywhere in the world, in the main half-dozen or so sectors that matter.

Beating the ‘free-rider’ issue

A stable climate is what we call a “public good”, similar to fresh air or clean water. The US political scientist Scott Barrett has pointed out that climate change is an “aggregate efforts public good”, in the sense that everybody has to chip in to solve the problem of safeguarding the climate for everyone.

“Aggregate efforts” public goods are especially hard to preserve, because there is a strong incentive to free-ride on the efforts of others, as the US now seeks to do.

But technology can transform this situation, turning an aggregate efforts public good into a “best-shot public good”. This is a situation in which one player playing well can determine the whole outcome, and as such is a much easier problem to solve.

We have seen technology play this role before, in other global environmental issues. The ozone hole looked like a hard problem, but became an easy one once an inexpensive, effective technological fix became available in the form of other gases to use in place of ozone-harming CFCs (ironically, however, the solution exacerbated global warming).

Something similar happened with acid rain, caused by a handful of industrial pollutants. Dealing with carbon dioxide emissions is harder in view of the number of sources, but breakthroughs in five or six sectors could make a massive dent in emissions.

Technology trumps politics

This suggests that solving climate change relies far more heavily on technological innovation and successful entrepreneurship than it does on any single government. Policies in specific jurisdictions can speed climate policy up or slow it down, but as long as no single government can kill the spirit of entrepreneurship, then no country’s actions can alter the long-run outcome.

This is why German climatologist John Schellnhuber is right to say that “if the US really chooses to leave the Paris agreement, the world will move on with building a clean and secure future”.

The low-carbon race is still on, and the main effect of Trump’s decision is to put US innovators at a disadvantage relative to their international competitors.

We have seen these technological races before, and we have seen what recalcitrance and isolationism can do. Just ask the Ming Dynasty, who ceded their maritime leadership and in doing so let Europe reap the spoils of colonialism for half a millennium.

Similarly, the Trump administration can ignore basic physics if it likes, although this is electorally unsustainable – young Americans can see that it is in their own interest to support climate policy. Democracies are imperfect, but over time they have the ability to self-correct.

Developing polices that regulate the release of environmentally damaging gases is important. Pricing carbon is important. But government policy is not everything. Ultimately, this problem will be solved mainly by technology, because the way out of the jam is by finding new, inexpensive ways for humans to flourish without harming the planet.

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

In a televised address, French president Emmanuel Macron rules out any renegotiation after Donald Trump pulled out of the Paris agreement on Thursday, calling the move a mistake. Macron, speaking in French and English, urged scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs and anyone disappointed by the decision to see France as a ‘second homeland’, adding: ‘I call on them come and work here with us.’ The French president said: ‘The Paris agreement remain irreversible and will be implemented not just by France but by all the other nations. We will succeed because we are fully committed, because wherever we live, whoever we are, we all share the same responsibility: make our planet great again.’

Continue reading...

Melbourne company unveils ambitious plans for 2GW offshore wind farm off Gippsland coast, in what would be an Australian first.

Donald Trump made a range of claims in his speech. Here, environment reporter Oliver Milman sifts through his statements

• Paris climate agreement: world reacts as Trump pulls out of global accord – live
• The full text of Trump’s speech: Draconian accord dumped
• Full report: Donald Trump confirms US will quit Paris climate agreement

So we’re getting out. But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair. And if we can, that’s great. And if we can’t, that’s fine.

So that’s that. After months of fevered speculation and lobbying, Trump sticks to his campaign pledge to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord. He does so with a caveat that’s delivered rather casually – the US will renegotiate this pact, or maybe some other pact, aimed at ensuring the future liveability of the planet. But if it doesn’t work out, that’s OK.

Continue reading...

Despite our sometimes heated national debate about our energy future, Australia is well positioned to benefit from innovative low emission technologies. No matter which avenue we take to cleaner energy, our energy-rich resources means there are opportunities for Australian businesses – and cheaper energy for Australian consumers.

That’s the conclusion reached by CSIRO in our Low Emissions Technology Roadmap, which outlines potential pathways for the energy sector to contribute to Australia’s emissions reduction target.

Our target under the Paris climate agreement calls for a 26-28% reduction of emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels. Our analysis also considers how the energy sector could meet the more ambitious aspiration of avoiding 1.5-2℃ global warming.

Looking past the political wrangling

Perhaps one of the reasons the energy debate in Australia is so vehement is that, with the exception of oil, we are rich in energy resources. While we cannot wait indefinitely, the lack of resource constraints means we can monitor and test what options emerge as the most cost effective. Technology neutrality is often called upon as a key policy design principle.

Another reason for caution is that technological change is inherently unpredictable. For example, at the start of this century, few would have expected solar photovoltaics to be one of the lowest cost sources of electricity. Current expectations of sourcing cost-effective bulk electricity storage would have seemed even less likely at the time.

However, there are two key choices that will determine how we reduce greenhouse gases, and the shape of our energy future.

First, we must decide how much weight we give to improving energy productivity, versus decarbonising our energy supply. This is essentially a policy decision: should we use our existing energy more intelligently and efficiently in our buildings, industries and transport, or aggressively pursue new technology?

Whatever strategy we pick, we also need to choose what technology we emphasise: dispatchable power, from flexible and responsive energy generation, or variable renewable energy (from sources like solar, wind and wave), supported with storage.

From these choices four pathways are derived: Energy productivity plus, Variable renewable energy, Dispatchable power and Unconstrained.

There are four broad pathways to cheaper, cleaner energy. (Click to view larger image.) CSIRO

Our electricity market modelling found the different pathways lead to comparable household electricity bills. High energy productivity scenarios tend to delay generation investment and reduce energy use, leading to slightly lower bills in 2030 (including the cost of high efficiency equipment).

Weighing risk

The main attribute that separates the pathways is the mix of risks they face. We’ve grouped risks into three categories: technology, commercial and market risk, social licence risk and stakeholder coordination risk.

Risks identified with each pathway to cheaper renewable energy. (Click to view larger image.) CSIRO

Energy productivity plus combines mature existing low emissions technology with gas, so there’s no significant market risk. However there is a social license risk, as many will protest a stronger reliance on expanding gas supplies.

Gas-fired generation is high in this scenario. If improved energy productivity reduces emissions elsewhere, the electricity sector will have less pressure to phase out highly polluting generators.

This scenario would also require a high degree of cooperation between government, companies and customers. We would need to coordinate, to make sure incentives and programs work together to bring down household and business energy use.

Variable renewable energy invites more technical and commercial risk, as our electricity grid will need to be transformed to accept a high level of energy from fluctuating sources like wind. There’s also considerable community concern around the reliability of variable renewables.

While the evolution towards a secure system with very high variable renewable generation has been modelled in detail for the Roadmap, its final costs will remain uncertain until demonstrated at scale. Whether stakeholders will have the appetite to demonstrate such a system (with some risk to supply security and electricity prices) represents a coordination risk for this pathway.

Dispatchable power is perhaps the most risky option. Solar thermal, geothermal, carbon capture and storage and nuclear power are all relatively new to Australia (although other countries have explored them further). Developing them here will mean taking some technological and commercial gambles.

Carbon capture and storage and nuclear power are also deeply unpopular, and there’s a risk of dividing community consensus even further.

While solar thermal – and potentially nuclear power – could be deployed as small modules, in general the technologies in this category require high up-front capital investment. These projects may need strong government guarantees to achieve financing.

Unconstrained would mean both improving energy productivity and investing in a wide range of generation options: solar, efficient fossil fuels and carbon capture and storage.

Unfortunately there is no objective way of weighing the risks of one pathway against another. However, we can narrow risks over time through research, development and demonstration.

Between now and 2030 we are likely to rely on a narrow set of mature technologies to reduce greenhouse gases: solar photovoltaics, wind, natural gas and storage.

As the world, and Australia’s, greenhouse gas reduction targets ramp up after 2030, we’ll be well positioned to adapt, with the capacity to incorporate a broader range of options.

Paul Graham has received funding throughout his career from electricity generators, electricity networks, federal and state government departments, non-government non-profit organisations and energy consulting and engineering companies.