Palau’s leader says the world needs to be working toward reducing emissions and “not dropping targets”, in response to New Zealand slashing its methane reduction goals.

Last month, the New Zealand government announced it would cut biogenic methane reduction targets to 14-24 percent below 2017 levels by 2050. The previous target was a reduction of 24-47 percent.

Palauan President Surangel Whipps Jr, who is in Brazil for the annual United Nations climate change conference, COP30, said more work needed to go into finding solutions.

• READ MORE: Climate change minister defends weakened methane emissions target ahead of COP30
• COP30: NZ must commit to buying offshore credits to meet Paris target, climate experts say
• Pacific leaders to push 100 percent renewable energy plan at COP30 in Belém
• Indigenous activists storm COP30 climate summit in Brazil, demanding action
• Other COP30 reports

“[It’s] unfortunate because we all need to be working toward reduction, not dropping targets,” Whipps said.

“Countries struggle because it’s about making sure that their people have their jobs and maintain their industry. I can see the reason why maybe those targets were dropped, but that means we just need to work harder.”

Whipps said it probably meant the government needed to “step up” and help farmers reduce emissions.

Tuvalu’s climate minister also told RNZ Pacific he was disheartened by the new goal.

New Zealand Climate Minister Simon Watts previously told RNZ Pacific in a statement that methane reduction was limited by technology and the only alternative would have been to cut agriculture production.

“New Zealand has some of the most emissions-efficient farmers in the world, and we export to meet global demand,” Watts said.

“If we cut production to meet targets, we risk shifting production to countries who are not as emissions-efficient, which would add to global warming and have a greater impact on the Pacific.”

NZ ‘doesn’t care about Pacific’ – campaigner
Pacific Islands Climate Action Network campaigner Sindra Sharma said she wanted to know what scientists Watts spoke with.

“I’d like to see what the data is behind New Zealand having the most emissions-efficient farmers. It blows my mind that that is something he would say.”

Sharma said it was especially disappointing given New Zealand was a member of the Pacific Islands Forum.

“I think the signal that sends is extremely harmful. It shows we don’t care about the Pacific.”

Speaking to RNZ Morning Report on Thursday, Watts said the country had not weakened its ambitions on climate change.

“We’ve actually delivered upon what has been asked of us. We’ve submitted our NDC (Nationally Determined Contributions) plan for 2035 on time,” he said.

“We’ve done what we believe is possible in the context of our unique circumstances.

“We’ve taken a position around ensuring that we are ambitious with balancing that with economic challenges.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Amnesty International is asking the New Zealand government to create a new humanitarian visa for Pacific people impacted by climate change.

Kiribati community leader Charles Kiata said life on Kiribati was becoming extremely hard as sea levels rose and the country was hit by more severe storms, higher temperatures and drought.

“Every part of life, food, shelter, health, is being affected and what hurts the most is that our people feel trapped. They love their home, but their home is slowly disappearing,” Kiata said.

• READ MORE: ‘Humanitarian’ visa must be created for Pacific Islanders

Crops are dying and fresh drinking water is becoming increasingly scarce for the island nation.

Kiata said in New Zealand, overstayers were anxious they would be sent back home.

“Deporting them back to flooded lands or places with no clean water like Kiribati is not only cruel but it also goes against our shared Pacific values.”

Amnesty International is also asking the government to stop deporting overstayers from Kiribati and Tuvalu, who would be returning to harsh conditions.

Duty of care
The organisation’s executive director, Jacqui Dillon said she wanted New Zealand to acknowledge its duty of care to Pacific communities.

“We are asking the New Zealand government to create a new humanitarian visa, specifically for those impacted by climate change and disasters. Enabling people to migrate on their terms with dignity.”

She said current Pacific visas New Zealand offered, such as the Recognised Seasonal Employers (RSE) and the Pacific Access Category (PAC), were insufficient.

“Those pathways are in effect nothing short of a discriminatory lottery, so they don’t offer dignity, nor do they offer self-agency.”

Dillon said current visa schemes were also discriminatory because people could only migrate if they had an acceptable standard of health.

The organisation interviewed Alieta — not her real name — who has a visual impairment. She decided to remove her name from the family’s PAC application to enable her husband and six-year-old daughter to migrate to New Zealand in 2016.

It has meant Alieta has only seen her daughter once in the past 11 years.

“I would urge all of us to think about that and say, if our feet were in those shoes, would we think that that was right? I don’t think we would,” Dillon said.

Tuvalu comparison
Tuvaluan community leader Fala Haulangi, based in Aotearoa, wants the country to adopt something like the Falepili Union Treaty which the leaders of Tuvalu and Australia signed in 2023.

It creates a pathway for up to 280 Tuvalu citizens to go to Australia each year to work, live, and study.

This year over 80 percent of the population applied to move under the treaty.

Haulangi said the PAC had too many restrictions.

“PAC (Pacific Access Category Visa) still comes with conditions that are very, very strict on my people, so if [New Zealand has] the same terms and conditions that Australia has for the Falepili Treaty, to me that is really good.”

In the past, Pacific governments have been worried about the Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme causing a brain drain.

Samoa paused scheme
In 2023, Samoa paused the scheme, partially because of the loss of skilled labour, including police officers leaving to go fruit picking.

Haulangi said it’s not up to her to tell people to stay if a new and more open visa is available to Pacific people.

“Who am I to tell my people back home ‘don’t come, stay there’ because we need people back home.”

Dillon said some people will stay.

“All we’re simply saying is give people the opportunity and the dignity to have self-agency and be able to choose.”

Charles Kiata from Kiribati said a visa established now would mean there would be a slow migration of people from the Pacific and not people being forced to leave as climate refugees.

He said people from Kiribati had strengths they could be proud of and could partner with New Zealand.

“It’s a win-win for both of us; our people come to New Zealand to contribute economically and to society.”

RNZ Pacific has approached New Zealand’s Minister of Immigration Erica Stanford for comment.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

In a fervent appeal to the global community, Prime Minister James Marape of Papua New Guinea has called on US President Donald Trump to “rethink” his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and current global climate initiatives.

Marape’s plea came during the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting held in Davos, Switzerland, on 23 January 2025.

Expressing deep concern for the impacts of climate change on Papua New Guinea and other vulnerable Pacific Island nations, Marape highlighted the dire consequences these nations face due to rising sea levels and increasingly severe weather patterns.

• READ MORE: Trump is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement (again), reversing US climate policy
• How are Trump’s deportation targets reacting to his threats?
• Fact check: Trump’s first-week immigration orders – what are the effects?

“The effects of climate change are not just theoretical for us; they have real, devastating impacts on our fragile economies and our way of life,” he said.

The Prime Minister emphasised that while it was within President Trump’s prerogative to prioritise American interests, withdrawing the United States — the second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide– from the Paris Agreement without implementing measures to curtail coal power production was “totally irresponsible”, Marape said.

“As a leader of a major forest and ocean nation in the Pacific region, I urge President Trump to reconsider his decision.”

He went on to point out the contradiction in the US stance.

US not closing coal plants
“The United States is not shutting down any of its coal power plants yet has chosen to withdraw from critical climate efforts. This is fundamentally irresponsible.

“The science regarding our warming planet is clear — it does not lie,” he said.

Marape further articulated that as the “Leader of the Free World,” Trump had a moral obligation to engage with global climate issues.

PNG Prime Minister James Marape’s plea to President Trump.  Video: PNGTV

“It is morally wrong for President Trump to disregard the pressing challenges of climate change.

He must articulate how he intends to address this critical issue,” he added, stressing that effective global leaders had a responsibility not only to their own nations but also to the planet as a whole.

In a bid to advocate for small island nations that are bearing the brunt of climate impacts, PM Marape announced plans to bring this issue to the upcoming Pacific Islands Forum (PIF).

He hopes to unify the voices of PIF member countries in a collective statement regarding the US withdrawal from climate negotiations.

US revived Pacific relations
“The United States has recently revitalised its relations with the Pacific. It is discouraging to see it retreating from climate discussions that significantly affect our region’s efforts to mitigate climate change,” he said.

Prime Minister Marape reminded the international community that while larger nations might have the capacity to withstand extreme weather events such as typhoons, wildfires, and tornadoes, smaller nations like Papua New Guinea could not endure such impacts.

“For us, every storm and rising tide represents a potential crisis. Big nations can afford to navigate these challenges, but for us, the stakes are incredibly high,” he said.

Marape’s appeal underscores the urgent need for collaborative and sustained global action to combat climate change, particularly for nations like Papua New Guinea, which are disproportionately affected by environmental change.

Republished with permission.

Vanuatu’s top lawyer has called out the United States for “bad behavior” after newly inaugurated President Donald Trump withdrew the world’s biggest historic emitter of greenhouse gasses from the Paris Agreement for a second time.

The Pacific nation’s Attorney-General Arnold Loughman, who led Vanuatu’s landmark International Court of Justice climate case at The Hague last month, said the withdrawal represented an “undeniable setback” for international action on global warming.

“The Paris Agreement remains key to the world’s efforts to combat climate change and respond to its effects, and the participation of major economies like the US is crucial,” he told BenarNews in a statement.

• READ MORE:  ‘We will drill, baby, drill’: Why Trump wants US out of Paris climate deal
• Other Pacific climate change reports

The withdrawal could also set a “troubling precedent” regarding the accountability of rich nations that are disproportionately responsible for global warming, said Loughman.

“At the same time, the US’ bad behavior could inspire resolve on behalf of developed countries to act more responsibly to try and safeguard the international rule of law,” he said.

“Ultimately, the whole world stands to lose if the international legal framework is allowed to erode.”

Trump’s announcement on Monday came less than two weeks after scientists confirmed that 2024 was the hottest year on record and the first in which average temperatures exceeded 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Agreed to ‘pursue efforts’
Under the Paris Agreement adopted in 2015, leaders agreed to “pursue efforts” to limit warming under the 1.5°C threshold or, failing that, keep rises “well below” 2°C  by the end of the century.

Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka said on Wednesday in a brief comment that Trump’s action would “force us to rethink our position” but the US president must do “what is in the best interest of the United States of America”.

Other Pacific leaders and the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) regional intergovernmental body have not responded to BenarNews requests for comment.

The forum — comprising 18 Pacific states and territories — in its 2018 Boe Declaration said: “Climate change remains the single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security and wellbeing of the peoples of the Pacific and [we reaffirm] our commitment to progress the implementation of the Paris Agreement.”

Trump’s executive order sparked dismay and criticism in the Pacific, where the impacts of a warming planet are already being felt in the form of more intense storms and rising seas.

Jacynta Fa’amau, regional Pacific campaigner with environmental group 350 Pacific, said the withdrawal would be a diplomatic setback for the US.

“The climate crisis has for a long time now been our greatest security threat, especially to the Pacific,” she told BenarNews.

A clear signal
“This withdrawal from the agreement is a clear signal about how much the US values the survival of Pacific nations and all communities on the front lines.”

New Zealand’s former Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio, said that if the US withdrew from its traditional leadership roles in multilateral organisations China would fill the gap.

“Some people may not like how China plays its role,” wrote the former Labour MP on Facebook. “But when the great USA withdraws from these global organisations . . . it just means China can now go about providing global leadership.”

Analysts and former White House advisers told BenarNews last year that climate change could be a potential “flashpoint” between Pacific nations and a second Trump administration at a time of heightened geopolitical competition with China.

Trump’s announcement was not unexpected. During his first term he withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement, only for former President Joe Biden to promptly rejoin in 2021.

The latest withdrawal puts the US, the world’s largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases, alongside only Iran, Libya and Yemen outside the climate pact.

In his executive order, Trump said the US would immediately begin withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and from any other commitments made under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

US also ending climate finance
The US would also end its international climate finance programme to developing countries — a blow to small Pacific island states that already struggle to obtain funding for resilience and mitigation.

A fact sheet published by the Biden administration on November 17, which has now been removed from the White House website, said that US international climate finance reached more than US$11 billion in 2024.

Loughman said the cessation of climate finance payments was particularly concerning for the Pacific region.

“These funds are essential for building resilience and supporting adaptation strategies,” he said. “Losing this support could severely hinder ongoing and future projects aimed at protecting our vulnerable ecosystems and communities.”

George Carter, deputy head of the Department of Pacific Affairs at the Australian National University and member of the COP29 Scientific Council, said at the centre of the Biden administration’s re-engagement with the South Pacific was a regional programme on climate adaptation.

“While the majority of climate finance that flows through the Pacific comes from Australia, Japan, European Union, New Zealand — then the United States — the climate networks and knowledge production from the US to the Pacific are substantial,” he said.

Climate actions plans
Pacific island states, like all other signatories to the Paris Agreement, will this year be submitting Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs, outlining their climate action plans for the next five years.

“All climate actions, policies and activities are conditional on international climate finance,” Carter said.

Pacific island nations are being disproportionately affected by climate change despite contributing just 0.02 percent of global emissions, according to a UN report released last year.

Low-lying islands are particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels and extreme weather events like cyclones, floods and marine heatwaves, which are projected to occur more frequently this century as a result of higher average global temperatures.

On January 10, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) confirmed that last year for the first time the global mean temperature tipped over 1.5°C above the 1850-1900 average.

WMO experts emphasised that a single year of more than 1.5°C does not mean that the world has failed to meet long-term temperature goals, which are measured over decades, but added that “leaders must act — now” to avert negative impacts.

Harry Pearl is a BenarNews journalist. This article was first published by BenarNews and is republished at Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Palau’s President Surangel Whipps Jr is inviting US President-elect Donald Trump to “visit the Pacific” to see firsthand the impacts of the climate crisis.

Palau is set to host the largest annual Pacific leaders meeting in 2026, and the country’s leader Whipps told RNZ Pacific he would “love” Trump to be there.

He said he might even take the American leader, who is often criticised as a climate change denier, snorkelling in Palau’s pristine waters.

• READ MORE: 10 reasons why US president-elect Donald Trump can’t derail global climate action
• Trump win, 1.5 C warming breach weigh on UN COP climate finance talks
• US elections: Climate finance negotiations could be harder after Trump’s victory
• Other Pacific climate crisis reports

Whipps said he had seen the damage to the marine ecosystem.

“I was out snorkelling on Sunday, and once again, it’s unfortunate, but we had another heat, very warm, warming of the oceans, so I saw a lot of bleached coral,” he said.

“It’s sad to see that it’s happening more frequently and these are just impacts of what is happening around the world because of our addiction to fossil fuel.”

“I would very much like to bring [Trump] to Palau if he can. That would be a fantastic opportunity to take him snorkelling and see the impacts. See the islands that are disappearing because of sea level rise, see the taro swamps that are being invaded.”

Americans experiencing the impacts
Whipps said Americans were experiencing the impacts in states such as Florida and North Carolina.

“I mean, that’s something that you need to experience. I mean, they’re experiencing [it] in Florida and North Carolina.

“They just had major disasters recently and I think that’s the rallying call that we all need to take responsibility.”

However, Trump is not necessarily known for his support of climate action. Instead, he has promised to “drill baby drill” to expand oil and gas production in the US.

Palau International Coral Reef Center researcher Christina Muller-Karanasos said surveying of corals in Palau was underway after multiple reports of bleaching.

She said the main cause of coral bleaching was climate change.

“It’s upsetting. There were areas where there were quite a lot of bleaching.

Most beautiful, pristine reef
“The most beautiful and pristine reef and amount of fish and species of fish that I’ve ever seen. It’s so important for the health of the reef. The healthy reef also supports healthy fish populations, and that’s really important for Palau.”

University of Hawai’i Manoa’s Dr Tarcisius Tara Kabutaulaka suspects Trump will focus on the Pacific, but for geopolitical gains.

“It will be about the militarisation of the climate change issue that you are using climate change to build relationships so that you can ensure you do the counter China issue as well.”

He believed Trump has made his position clear on the climate front.

“He said, and I quote, ‘that it is one of the great scams of all time’. And so he is a climate crisis denier.”

It is exactly the kind of comment President Whipps does not want to hear, especially from a leader of a country which Palau is close to — or from any nation.

“We need the United States, we need China, and we need India and Russia to be the leaders to make sure that we put things on track,” he said.

For the Pacific, the climate crisis is the biggest existential and security threat.

Leaders like Whipps are considering drastic measures, including the nuclear energy option.

“We’ve got to look at alternatives, and one of those is nuclear energy. It’s clean, it’s carbon free,” he told RNZ Pacific.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Vanuatu Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau says Pacific security is about the security of the Pacific peoples and their way of life as identified by Forum leaders in the Boe Declaration.

Kalsakau said this reaffirmed climate change as the single greatest threat to regional security.

The PM was speaking at the opening of the Pacific Fusion headquarters in Port Vila on Tuesday, alongside Australian Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific climate action reports

He said Vanuatu, with the world’s first climate change refugees with the relocation in 2005 of 100 villagers in Torba Province, “will always consider climate change its top priority”.

He said climate change is real, an existential threat, impinging on the security and stability of all nations.

“We do not have to look too far to see how the increased intensity of climate change-induced tropical cyclones wreak havoc on the daily lives and livelihoods of our people and set us back years in our development,” said Kalsakau.

He said Vanuatu’s Pacific brothers also faced human security challenges caused by the nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands (by the US), Mororoa Atoll (France) and Australia (United Kingdom).

‘Our reefs are dying’
“With the effects of global warming and nuclear testing, our ocean is getting warmer, our reefs are dying and fishes are now very scarce.

“Our children and grandchildren are bound to never experience what we’ve enjoyed in our childhood.

“The maintenance and sustenance of our marine resources must be the top priority of our Pacific leaders.”

Kalsakau said there were other pressing issues such as the Fukushima nuclear waste water discharge and AUKUS.

“I say again that Pacific security is about the security of our Pacific peoples and way of life.

“This is why Vanuatu stood alongside our Pacific brothers and sisters to produce the Rarotonga Treaty. Which brings me to today’s very special occasion.

“The Pacific Fusion Centre is guided by the regional security priorities identified by the Boe Declaration and supports regional decision-making on these shared security priorities,” he said.

The centre, which is funded by Australia and to be run in collaboration with Pacific Forum member states, will aim to provide training and analysis on regional security issues.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

The Pacific nation of Tuvalu is planning to create a version of itself in the metaverse, as a response to the existential threat of rising sea levels.

Tuvalu’s Minister for Justice, Communication and Foreign Affairs, Simon Kofe, made the announcement via a chilling digital address to leaders at COP27.

He said the plan, which accounts for the “worst case scenario”, involves creating a digital twin of Tuvalu in the metaverse in order to replicate its beautiful islands and preserve its rich culture:

The tragedy of this outcome cannot be overstated […] Tuvalu could be the first country in the world to exist solely in cyberspace – but if global warming continues unchecked, it won’t be the last.

Tuvalu’s “digital twin” message. Video: Reuters

The idea is that the metaverse might allow Tuvalu to “fully function as a sovereign state” as its people are forced to live somewhere else.

• READ MORE: What is the metaverse, and what can we do there?
• The internet consumes extraordinary amounts of energy. Here’s how we can make it more sustainable
• Ending the climate crisis has one simple solution: Stop using fossil fuels

There are two stories here. One is of a small island nation in the Pacific facing an existential threat and looking to preserve its nationhood through technology.

The other is that by far the preferred future for Tuvalu would be to avoid the worst effects of climate change and preserve itself as a terrestrial nation. In which case, this may be its way of getting the world’s attention.

What is a metaverse nation?
The metaverse represents a burgeoning future in which augmented and virtual reality become part of everyday living. There are many visions of what the metaverse might look like, with the most well-known coming from Meta (previously Facebook) CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

What most of these visions have in common is the idea that the metaverse is about interoperable and immersive 3D worlds. A persistent avatar moves from one virtual world to another, as easily as moving from one room to another in the physical world.

The aim is to obscure the human ability to distinguish between the real and the virtual, for better or for worse.

Kofe implies three aspects of Tuvalu’s nationhood could be recreated in the metaverse:

• territory — the recreation of the natural beauty of Tuvalu, which could be interacted with in different ways
• culture — the ability for Tuvaluan people to interact with one another in ways that preserve their shared language, norms and customs, wherever they may be
• sovereignty — if there were to be a loss of terrestrial land over which the government of Tuvalu has sovereignty (a tragedy beyond imagining, but which they have begun to imagine) then could they have sovereignty over virtual land instead?

Could it be done?
In the case that Tuvalu’s proposal is, in fact, a literal one and not just symbolic of the dangers of climate change, what might it look like?

Technologically, it’s already easy enough to create beautiful, immersive and richly rendered recreations of Tuvalu’s territory. Moreover, thousands of different online communities and 3D worlds (such as Second Life) demonstrate it’s possible to have entirely virtual interactive spaces that can maintain their own culture.

The idea of combining these technological capabilities with features of governance for a “digital twin” of Tuvalu is feasible.

There have been prior experiments of governments taking location-based functions and creating virtual analogues of them.

For example, Estonia’s e-residency is an online-only form of residency non-Estonians can obtain to access services such as company registration. Another example is countries setting up virtual embassies on the online platform Second Life.

Yet there are significant technological and social challenges in bringing together and digitising the elements that define an entire nation.

Tuvalu has only about 12,000 citizens, but having even this many people interact in real time in an immersive virtual world is a technical challenge. There are issues of bandwidth, computing power, and the fact that many users have an aversion to headsets or suffer nausea.

Nobody has yet demonstrated that nation-states can be successfully translated to the virtual world. Even if they could be, others argue the digital world makes nation-states redundant.

Tuvalu’s proposal to create its digital twin in the metaverse is a message in a bottle — a desperate response to a tragic situation. Yet there is a coded message here too, for others who might consider retreat to the virtual as a response to loss from climate change.

The metaverse is no refuge
The metaverse is built on the physical infrastructure of servers, data centres, network routers, devices and head-mounted displays. All of this tech has a hidden carbon footprint and requires physical maintenance and energy. Research published in Nature predicts the internet will consume about 20 percent of the world’s electricity by 2025.

The idea of the metaverse nation as a response to climate change is exactly the kind of thinking that got us here. The language that gets adopted around new technologies — such as “cloud computing”, “virtual reality” and “metaverse” — comes across as both clean and green.

Such terms are laden with “technological solutionism” and “greenwashing”. They hide the fact that technological responses to climate change often exacerbate the problem due to how energy and resource intensive they are.

So where does that leave Tuvalu?
Kofe is well aware the metaverse is not an answer to Tuvalu’s problems. He explicitly states we need to focus on reducing the impacts of climate change through initiatives such as a fossil-fuel non-proliferation treaty.

His video about Tuvalu moving to the metaverse is hugely successful as a provocation. It got worldwide press — just like his moving plea during COP26 while standing knee-deep in rising water.

Yet Kofe suggests:

Without a global conscience and a global commitment to our shared wellbeing we may find the rest of the world joining us online as their lands disappear.

It is dangerous to believe, even implicitly, that moving to the metaverse is a viable response to climate change. The metaverse can certainly assist in keeping heritage and culture alive as a virtual museum and digital community. But it seems unlikely to work as an ersatz nation-state.

And, either way, it certainly won’t work without all of the land, infrastructure and energy that keeps the internet functioning.

It would be far better for us to direct international attention towards Tuvalu’s other initiatives described in the same report:

The project’s first initiative promotes diplomacy based on Tuvaluan values of olaga fakafenua (communal living systems), kaitasi (shared responsibility) and fale-pili (being a good neighbour), in the hope that these values will motivate other nations to understand their shared responsibility to address climate change and sea level rise to achieve global wellbeing.

The message in a bottle being sent out by Tuvalu is not really about the possibilities of metaverse nations at all. The message is clear: to support communal living systems, to take shared responsibility and to be a good neighbour.

The first of these can’t translate into the virtual world. The second requires us to consume less, and the third requires us to care.

Dr Nick Kelly, senior lecturer in interaction design, Queensland University of Technology and Dr Marcus Foth, professor of urban informatics, Queensland University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

The natural world is close to the heart of Britain’s new King Charles III. For decades, he has campaigned on environmental issues such as sustainability, climate change and conservation – often championing causes well before they were mainstream concerns.

In fact, Charles was this week hailed as “possibly most significant environmentalist in history”.

Upon his elevation to the throne, the new king is expected to be less outspoken on environmental issues. But his advocacy work have helped create a momentum that will continue regardless.

•  I READ MORE: I am a climate scientist – and this is my plea to our newly elected politicians
• The Southern Ocean absorbs more heat than any other ocean on Earth, and the impacts will be felt for generations
• Greening the greyfields: how to renew our suburbs for more liveable, net-zero cities

As Prince of Wales, Charles regularly met scientists and other experts to learn more about environmental research in Britain and abroad. Here, two Australian researchers recall encounters with the new monarch that left an indelible impression.

The Duke of Cornwall, Patron of the Soil Association, marked the 10th anniversary of the Innovative Farmers programme and learned more about how it’s helping farmers adopt more sustainable practices. pic.twitter.com/vvBrse5MRg

— Clarence House (@ClarenceHouse) July 19, 2022

Nerilie Abram, Australian National University
In 2008, I was a climate scientist working on ice cores at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge. On one memorable day, Prince Charles visited the facility — and I was tasked with giving him a tour.

At the time, I had just returned from James Ross Island, near the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. There, at one of the fastest warming regions on Earth, I had helped collect a 364-metre-long ice core.

Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. They’re an exceptional record of past climate. In particular, they contain small bubbles of air trapped in the ice over thousands of years, telling us the past concentration of atmospheric gases.

We started the tour by showing Prince Charles a video of how we collect ice cores. We then ventured into the -20℃ freezer and held a slice of ice core up to the lights to see the tiny, trapped bubbles of ancient atmosphere.

Outside the freezer, we listened to the popping noises as the ice melted and the bubbles of ancient air were released into the atmosphere of the lab.

Holding a piece of Antarctic ice is a profound experience. With a bit of imagination, you can cast your mind back to what was happening in human history when the air inside was last circulating.

Prince Charles embraced this idea during the tour, making a connection back to the British monarch that would have been on the throne at the time.

All this led into a discussion about climate change. Ice cores show us the natural rhythm of Earth’s climate, and the unprecedented magnitude and speed of the changes humans are now causing.

At the time of the 2008 visit, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere had reached 385 parts per million — around 100 parts per million higher than before the Industrial Revolution. Today we are at 417 parts per million, and still rising each year.

In 2017, Prince Charles co-authored a book on climate change. It includes a section on ice cores, featuring the same carbon dioxide data I showed him a decade earlier.

Last year, the royal urged Australia’s then Prime Minister Scott Morrison to attend the COP26 climate summit at Glasgow, warning of a “catastrophic” impact to the planet if the talks did not lead to rapid action.

And in March this year, the prince sent a message of support to people devastated by floods in Queensland and New South Wales, and said:

“Climate change is not just about rising temperatures. It is also about the increased frequency and intensity of dangerous weather events, once considered rare.”

As prince, Charles used his position to highlight the urgency of climate change action. His efforts have helped to bring those messages to many: from young children to business people and world leaders.

He may no longer speak as loudly on these issues as king. But his legacy will continue to drive the climate action our planet needs.

Peter Newman, Curtin University
In the 1970s, being an environmentalist was lonely work. It meant years of standing up for something that people thought was a bit marginal. But even back then Prince Charles — now King Charles III — was an environmental hero, advocating on what we needed to do.

I met the Prince of Wales in 2015. He and Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, visited Perth on the last leg of their Australia tour. I was among a group of Order of Australia recipients asked to meet the prince at Government House. I spoke to him about my lifelong passion – sustainability, including regenerative agriculture.

I knew earlier in their trip, Charles had toured the orchard at Oranje Tractor Wine, an organic and sustainable wine producer on Western Australia’s south coast. The vineyard is run by my friend Murray Gomm and his partner, Pam Lincoln, and I had encouraged them over the years. They had started winning awards, and it became even more special when the prince came down and blessed it!

The Oranje Tractor is now a net-zero-emissions venture: the carbon dioxide it sucks up from the atmosphere and into the soil is well above that emitted from its operations.

Charles’ eyes really lit up when I mentioned the Oranje Tractor. He was trying to do similar things in his gardening and at his farms – avoiding pesticides and sucking carbon from the atmosphere back into the soil.

Charles has that same knack the Queen had — an extraordinary ability to really listen and engage. To meet him, and see he’s been involved in sustainability as long as I have, it was validating and inspirational.

Now he is king, Charles will be a little more constrained in his comments about environment issues. But I don’t think you can change who you are. He will just be more subtle about how he goes about it.

Climate change is now at the forefront of the global agenda. But the world needs to accelerate its emissions reduction commitments. If we don’t move fast enough, King Charles will no doubt raise a royal eyebrow — and that’s enough.

Nicole Hasham, energy + environment editor, The Conversation. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Aotearoa New Zealand’s new NZ SeaRise website, designed to show how the country’s coastline will be affected by rising sea levels and land subsidence, has been hit by a cyber attack.

Project co-leader and Victoria University of Wellington earth sciences Professor Tim Naish said the website went live this morning at 5am, and since then it had been getting 10,000 hits per second which had ”just killed” the website.

”We’re trying to get it back up and running,” he said.

• READ MORE:  Climate change: sea levels rising twice as fast as thought in New Zealand
• Other climate change reports
• NZ SeaRise’s online tool — available here from 5am, today May 2.

”The guess is that these are anti-climate change people or the Russians — who knows.

”We don’t know for sure, but we think they’re using an autobot. They’re coming from an overseas IP address.

”It’s just hitting us with thousands of hits and our website can’t cope.”

It was frustrating because local government mayors were being asked to comment on the website, but were unable to because it was inaccessible at the moment, he said.

Frustrating for residents
It was also frustrating for residents interested in what was going to happen on their own land.

The NZ SeaRise website shows location-specific sea level rise projections to the year 2300, for every 2km of the coast of New Zealand.

Climate change and warming temperatures are causing sea levels to rise by 3.5mm a year on average, but until now, the levels did not take into account local vertical land movements.

Professor Naish said continuous small and large seismic events were adding up to cause subsidence in many parts of New Zealand, and the new projections showed the annual rate of sea level rise could double.

Project co-leader and GNS Science associate professor Richard Levy said the team had connected vertical land movement data with climate-driven sea level rise to provide locally-relevant sea level projections.

“Property owners, councils, infrastructure providers and others need to know how sea level will change in the coming decades so that they can consider how risks associated with flooding, erosion and rising groundwater will shift,” he said.

”We have estimated future sea levels for 7434 sites around our coastline. The largest increases in sea level will occur along the southeast North Island along the Wairarapa coast.

Land subsidence rates are high
”Here, land subsidence rates are high and sea level could rise by well over 1.5m by 2100 if we follow the least optimistic climate change scenario.

”In contrast, land is rising near Pikowai, in the Bay of Plenty, and uplift rates may keep pace with climate change-driven sea level rise, causing a small fall in sea level if we follow the most optimistic climate scenario.”

Dunedin and Invercargill were not likely to be any closer to inundation by the sea than had already been predicted, because ground movement in the South was ”quite stable”, he said.

Based on present international emissions reduction policies, global sea levels were expected to have risen about 0.6m by 2100, but for large parts of New Zealand that would double to about 1.2m because of ongoing land subsidence.

”We know that global sea-level rise of 25cm-30cm by 2060 is baked in and unavoidable regardless of our future emissions pathway, but what may be a real surprise to people is that for many of our most populated regions, such as Auckland and Wellington, this unavoidable rise is happening faster than we thought.”

Vertical land movements mean sea level changes might happen 20-30 years sooner than previously expected.

For many parts of New Zealand’s coast, 30cm of sea-level rise is a threshold for extreme flooding, above which the 100-year coastal storm becomes an annual event.

Climate change adaptation options
Joint Otago Regional and Dunedin City Councils’ South Dunedin Future group programme manager Jonathan Rowe welcomed the new information and said it would feed into many aspects of the councils’ work, particularly that relating to the South Dunedin programme which was considering climate change adaptation options.

ORC operations general manager Gavin Palmer said the information would also feed into flood protection planning to mitigate the impacts of sea level rise in other parts of coastal Otago, such as the Clutha Delta and the Taieri Plain.

Rowe said for South Dunedin, the new data confirmed previous guidance, that further sea level rise of 24cm-35cm was predicted by 2050-60, and up to 112cm by 2100, depending on global emissions.

A climate change adaptation plan would be presented to both councils in June, he said.

Climate Change Minister James Shaw said the findings were “sobering” and the government’s first plan to cut emissions in every part of New Zealand, would be published later this month.

• The website appeared to be accessed normally later today with an earlier notice saying “The NZ SeaRise maps are down temporarily for maintenance” having been dropped.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. It was first published on the Otago Daily Times website.

Explosive new data shows the sea level is rising twice as fast as previously thought in some parts of Aotearoa, massively reducing the amount of time authorities have to respond.

The major new projections show infrastructure and homes in Auckland and Wellington — as well as many other places — risk inundation decades earlier than expected.

For example, in just 18 years parts of the capital will see 30cm of sea level rise, causing once-in-a-century flood damage every year.

• READ MORE: Other climate change reports
• NZ SeaRise’s online tool — available here from 5am, today May 2.

Previously, councils and other authorities had not expected to reach this threshold until 2060 — halving the time to plan for mitigation or retreat.

The new information comes from a programme comprising dozens of local and international scientists called NZ SeaRise, which also includes GNS Science and Niwa.

It combines data about where land is sinking with the latest international sea-level rise projections.

The new information is a game changer, and will likely have serious consequences for climate adaptation planning, and could impact property prices.

Globally the sea level is expected to rise about half a metre by 2100 — but for large parts of New Zealand it could more than double that because of land subsidence.

Victoria University of Wellington professor and SeaRise programme co-leader Dr Tim Naish said: “We have less time to act than we thought.”

Wellington: Just 18 years or less before serious effects
Dr Naish said he was surprised how soon impacts would be felt in parts of Auckland and Wellington.

Some areas are sinking 3mm or 4mm a year — about the annual rate at which the sea is rising.

“[This] doubles the amount of sea level rise and it halves the time … you thought you had to deal with the sea-level rise that was in the original guidance documents that councils were using.”

Dr Naish described a case study of the road connecting Petone and Eastbourne in Lower Hutt, which would see 30cm of sea level rise by 2040.

This threshold is important because at that level a one-in-100 year storm which closes the roads and damages infrastructure could happen every year.

He said local and regional councils have been making plans for this threshold to be reached in 2060, giving 20 fewer years to plan and adapt accordingly.

Other places on Wellington’s south coast such as Ōwhiro Bay, Lyall Bay, Seatoun among others are also subsiding.

“You are going to see the impacts of quite damaging sea level rise much sooner than we thought …. roads and properties inundated.”

He said road and rail infrastructure on State Highway 2 at the Korokoro interchange in Petone is another highly vulnerable area.

The largest overall increases in the whole country are on the southeast North Island along the Wairarapa Coast.

Here, the sea level could be be up well over one and a half metres by 2100.

About 30cm of sea level rise is unavoidable because of the amount of climate gases already in the atmosphere.

Homes and crucial infrastructure in Auckland in the firing line
Dr Naish said vulnerable places in Auckland included the waterfront around the bays, Tamaki Drive, the Viaduct, areas around the Northwestern Motorway at Point Chevalier, St Heliers and Mission Bay.

He said many of these places already have issues during king tides, are close to sea level, and are sinking.

At the Viaduct the land is sinking about about 2.5mm a year.

“That almost doubles the rate of expected sea-level rise and halves the time you have.

“The city council, [and] the port authority are all going to have to start looking closely in terms of their future activities at this new information.”

He said in many parts of Auckland the sea-level would rise 30 to 50 percent faster than what was previously thought.

Meanwhile, he said parts of Thames township is also very vulnerable, and the sinking happening in the Hauraki plains means the stopbanks there have a shorter lifespan than previously thought.

Richmond in Nelson a hotspot
A major worry is the suburb of Richmond and nearby parts in the Nelson area which is subsiding at about 5mm a year.

“That whole area there has been a lot of development, new subdivisions, housing … the airport is very exposed, and that road around [the coast to Richmond] is vulnerable,” Naish said.

He said local and regional councils in the region have known for a long time there could be issues there with sea-level rise.

“There is going to be some really big challenges for that region.”

Online tool lets residents, authorities check
New Zealanders will soon be able to see for the first time how much and how fast sea-level will rise along their own stretch of coast.

The entire coastline has been mapped down to a 2km spacing.

The new advice combines data about where land is sinking with the latest international sea-level rise projections.

It will be an major new tool for councils, businesses and homeowners to assess risk from erosion and floods.

New data shows that sea levels are rising twice as fast as expected in New Zealand https://t.co/TUj5Vdr4nk

— RNZ News (@rnz_news) May 1, 2022

‘Information is power’
Dr Naish said the new data was important information and people should try not to be too overwhelmed.

“Information is power, so don’t be afraid of it.

“We still have time … but we don’t have time to sit on our hands anymore.

“If you’re a [council representative] or you’re a developer, or you’re a decisions maker in the coastal areas of New Zealand you need to start thinking right now what the plan is for adapting to that sea-level rise.

“Yes, it is a bit terrifying but there is still time and I think that is the way to look at it.”

The information is timely, coming hot on the heels of the climate change draft adaptation plan released last week.

It asks for public input on the plans, and on so-called ”managed retreat'” – abandoning areas where it is not possible or financially viable to live any longer.

Uncertainty about predictions laid out in tool
Dr Naish said uncertainty about the predictions were clearly laid out in the tool — but he said there was no question that there would be a response from property owners, the insurance and banking sectors to the new information.

GNS Science Environment and Climate Theme Leader Dr Richard Levy said until now, the risk from sea-level rise has been quite poorly defined for New Zealand.

“Current sea-level projections in the Ministry for the Environment coastal hazards guidance do not take into account local vertical land movements.”

Most of the information about sea-level rise was more or less extrapolated out from the global average.

NZ SeaRise is a five-year research programme comprising local and international experts from Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington, GNS Science, NIWA, University of Otago and the Antarctic Science Platform.

It is funded by the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment.

Climate change and warming temperatures are causing sea levels to rise, on average, by 3.5 mm per year.

This sea level rise is caused by thermal expansion of the ocean, by melting land based glaciers, and by melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Deeper and and more rapid cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are needed to limit the worst effects of global warming, a climate scientist has warned.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in a report that global emissions of CO2 would need to peak within three years to stave off the worst impacts.

Without shrinking energy demand, reducing emissions rapidly by the end of this decade to keep warming below 1.5C will be almost impossible, the key UN body’s report said.

• LISTEN TO RNZ MORNING REPORT: ‘If we don’t achieve deep and rapid reductions during this decade… then limiting warming to 1.5 degrees is out of reach’ – IPCC vice chair Dr Andy Reisinger
• ‘We are one of the highest emitting countries in the world – James Shaw
• ‘It’s a huge challenge and we’ve got to do it so quickly’ – Professor Ralph Sims
• ‘The window is almost closed … we need to take action immediately’- Professor James Renwick
• READ MORE: Climate change: IPCC scientists say it’s ‘now or never’ to limit warming

Even if all the policies to cut carbon that governments had put in place by the end of 2020 were fully implemented, the world will still warm by 3.2C this century.

At this point, only severe emissions cuts in this decade across all sectors, from agriculture and transport to energy and buildings, can turn things around, the report said.

IPCC vice-chair Dr Andy Reisinger told RNZ Morning Report the world was “pretty much out of time” to limit warming to 1.5C as agreed in Paris in 2015 and subsequently.

“What our report shows is that the emissions over the last decade were at the highest level ever in human history.

“But on the positive side, that level of emissions growth has slowed and globally we’ve seen a revolution in prices for some renewable energy technologies.” That had led to a rapid uptake of solar and wind energy technologies, he said.

“Also policies have grown. About half of global greenhouse gas emissions that we looked at in our report are now covered by some sort of laws that address climate change.”

The report said the world would need “carbon dioxide removal” (CDR) technologies – ranging from planting trees that soak up carbon to grow, to costly and energy-intensive technologies to suck carbon dioxide directly from the air.

Governments had historically seen these technologies as a “cop out” but they were needed alongside reducing emissions,” Reisinger said.

“The time has now run out. If we don’t achieve deep and rapid reductions during this decade, much more so than we’re currently planning to collectively, then limiting warming to 1.5 degrees is out of reach.

“And the world collectively has the tools to reduce emissions by about a half by 2030.”

NZ has ‘squandered 30 years’, says Shaw
Climate Change Minister James Shaw says Aotearoa New Zealand has the political will to tackle climate change but it would have been a lot easier if it had begun decades ago.

“We are one of the highest emitting countries in the world on a per-capita basis and what that means is we’re now in a situation where having essentially fluffed around for three decades the cuts that we need to make over are now far steeper than they would have been.”

“Our country has squandered the past 30 years,” Shaw told Morning Report.

He said the Emissions Reduction Plan to be published next month would set out how the country would reduce emissions across every sector of the economy.

“I think what’s different about the plan that we’re putting out in May is that it’s a statutory instrument”, he said, and was required under the Zero Carbon Act. It would have targets to reduce emissions to the year 2025, 2030 and 2035.

Shaw said measures like the clean car discount scheme were working.

New Zealand’s agricultural emissions had not reduced, he said. This was the year when final decisions would be made on whether agriculture was brought into the Emissions Trading Scheme, and the whole sector was involved in the process.

There were farms up and down the country doing a terrific job on emissions but like every sector there was a “noisy group” which was dragging the chain.

“I think the charge that Groundswell are laying that we are not listening to farmers is ‘total bollocks’, he said.

Shaw noted the IPCC report said 83 percent of net growth in greenhouse gases since 2010 had occurred in Asia and the Pacific — and that New Zealand, Australia and Japan, as a group, had some of the highest rates of greenhouse gas emissions per capita in 2019.

Cut consumer demand
While past IPCC reports on mitigating carbon emissions tended to focus on the promise of sustainable fuel alternatives, the new report highlights a need to cut consumer demand.

Massey University emeritus professor Ralph Sims, a review editor of the IPCC report, said one of the overarching messages is that people needed to change behaviours.

Despite New Zealanders having an attitude that our impact was small, in fact the country had some of the highest carbon emissions per capita, he said.

“We need people to look at their lifestyles, look at their carbon footprints and consider how they may reduce them.”

One of the easiest for the individual was to avoid food waste, he said.

Sims was involved in the transport chapter and said it was a key area for New Zealand.

“It’s the highest growing sector, and makes up for 20 percent of the country’s emissions.”

Faster electric vehicles change
He did not believe the country was transitioning fast enough to electric vehicles, and government assistance needed to be ramped up.

Electric vehicle prices would also reduce over time and a second hand market would make them more affordable, he said.

Sims said New Zealand needed to “get out of coal” and some companies were already reducing their coal demand.

Though New Zealand’s coal industry was small, exploration was still on the table and just last year the Southland District Council granted exploration at Ohai, he said.

Methane emissions need to reduce by a third by 2030, which Sims said is “a major challenge, and highly unlikely” to be achieved in New Zealand.

Victoria University of Wellington professor of physical geography James Renwick said curbing greenhouse gas emissions was still possible, with immediate action.

“The advice from the Climate Change Commission does show that we can peak emissions in the next few years and reduce and get down to zero carbon dioxide hopefully well in advance of 2050,” he said.

“It’s impossible to overstate the dangerous threat we face from climate change and yet politicians and policy makers and businesses still don’t act when everything’s at stake. I haven’t really seen the political will yet but we really need to see action.”

Technologies available at present to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere were not able to operate at the scale needed to make a difference to the climate system, he said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Police stopped a climate change march in Suva today and forced activists to remove their banners.

They also warned demonstrators against making social media posts about the event.

Priests, church workers and youth had gathered at My Suva Park to march as part of worldwide Day of Climate Action protests against governments failing to act more urgently at the global COP26 conference in Glasgow, Scotland.

• READ MORE: Youth activists protest against climate inaction at COP26
• Other COP26 climate reports

Organised by the Columban Society of the Roman Catholic church, the march also coincided with the church’s Season of Creation.

Marchers carried banners calling for reduced carbon emissions and an end to global warming.

The same message was delivered at COP26 by Fiji Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama.

Police allowed the crowd about 100 to walk to the nearby Pacific Regional Seminary, where an event was held.

However, they refused permission for a public gathering at My Suva Park and forced activists to remove their banners.

Social media criticism of police
Social media postings criticised the police action.

One poster from Auckland on the Pacific Conference of Churches Facebook page asked why the protest was stopped in Fiji, “a democratic country known for its democracy”.

“Every weekend [a] protest takes place here in Auckland by the anti-vaccine people, not in numbers but in thousands. Police are present there but [none] are arrested or told to stop and leave. It is their right and freedom to express and voice out.

“What is the danger in there. Why so much of dictatorship rule. It was a peaceful march. Marches were also staged in Glasgow during the summit, nobody were turned away.

It is [a] way for the people to express their views.”

Another poster said: “Fijian officials need to realise that Fiji will be one of the few countries in the world that will be swallowed up by the ocean due to climate change.

“Fiji needs to do these marches to show the large countries [which] are guilty of polluting our atmosphere that Fijian Lives Matter.”

As the Glasgow climate summits gets underway, New Zealand’s government has announced a revised pledge, with a headline figure of a 50 percent reduction on gross 2005 emissions by the end of this decade.

This looks good on the surface, but the substance of this new commitment, known as a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), is best assessed in emissions across decades.

New Zealand’s actual emissions in the 2010s were 701 million tonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent. The carbon budget for the 2020s is 675Mt. The old pledge for the 2020s was 623Mt.

• READ MORE: COP26: time for New Zealand to show regional leadership on climate change
  
• Electrifying transport: why New Zealand can’t rely on battery-powered cars alone
• Other COP26 climate reports

The Climate Change Commission’s advice was for “much less than” 593Mt, and the new NDC is 571Mt. So yes, the new pledge meets the commission’s advice and is a step up on the old, but it does not meet our fair share under the Paris Agreement.

It is also a stretch to call the new NDC consistent with the goal of keeping global temperature rise under 1.5℃.

True 1.5℃ compliance would require halving fossil fuel burning over the next decade, while the current plan is for cuts of a quarter.

Emissions need to halve this decade
Countries’ climate pledges are at the heart of the Paris Agreement. The initial round of pledges in 2016 added up to global warming of 3.5℃, but it was always intended they would be ratcheted up over time.

In the run-up to COP26, a flurry of new announcements brought that figure down to 2.7℃ — better, but still a significant miss on 1.5℃.

As this graph from the UN’s Emissions Gap Report 2021 shows, the world will need to halve emissions this decade to keep on track for 1.5℃.

New Zealand’s first NDC, for net 2030 emissions to be 30 percent below gross 2005 emissions, was widely seen as inadequate. An update, reflecting the ambition of the 2019 Zero Carbon Act to keep warming below 1.5℃, has been awaited eagerly.

But several factors have combined to make a truly ambitious NDC particularly difficult.

First, New Zealand’s old climate strategy was based on tree planting and the purchase of offshore carbon credits. The tree planting came to and end in the early 2010s and is only now resuming, while the Emissions Trading Scheme was closed to international markets in 2015. The Paris Agreement was intended to allow a restart of international carbon trading, but this has not yet been possible.

Second, New Zealand has a terrible record in cutting emissions so far. Burning of fossil fuels actually increased by 9 percent from 2016 to 2019. It’s a challenge to turn around our high-emissions economy.

Third, our new climate strategy, involving carbon budgets and pathways under advice from the Climate Change Commission, is only just kicking in. The government has made an in-principle agreement on carbon budgets out to 2030, and has begun consultation on how to meet them. The full emissions-reduction plan will not be ready until May 2022.

Regarding a revised NDC, the government passed the buck and asked the commission for advice. The commission declined to give specific recommendations, but advised:

We recommend that to make the NDC more likely to be compatible with contributing to global efforts under the Paris Agreement to limit warming to 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels, the contribution Aotearoa makes over the NDC period should reflect a reduction to net emissions of much more than 36 percent below 2005 gross levels by 2030, with the likelihood of compatibility increasing as the NDC is strengthened further.

The government then received advice on what would be a fair target for New Zealand. However, any consideration of historic or economic responsibility points to vastly increased cuts, essentially leading to net-zero emissions by 2030.

Announcing the new NDC, Climate Change Minister James Shaw admitted it wasn’t enough, saying:

I think we should be doing a whole lot more. But, the alternative is committing to something that we can’t deliver on.

What proper climate action could look like
Only about a third of New Zealand’s pledged emissions cuts will come from within the country. The rest will have to be purchased as carbon credits from offshore mitigation.

That’s the same amount (100Mt) that Japan, with an economy 25 times larger than New Zealand’s, is planning to include in its NDC. There is no system for doing this yet, or for ensuring these cuts are genuine. And there’s a price tag, possibly running into many billions of dollars.

New Zealand has an impressive climate framework in place. Unfortunately, just as its institutions are beginning to bite, they are starting to falter against the scale of the challenge.

The commission’s advice to the minister was disappointing. It’s being challenged in court by Lawyers For Climate Action New Zealand, whose judicial review in relation to both the NDC and the domestic emissions budgets will be heard in February 2022.

With only two months to go until 2022 and the official start of the carbon budgets, there is no plan how to meet them. The suggestions in the consultation document add up to only half the cuts needed for the first budget period.

Thinking in the transport area is the furthest advanced, with a solid approach to fuel efficiency already approved, and an acknowledgement total driving must decrease, active and public transport must increase, and new roads may not be compatible with climate targets.

But industry needs to step up massively. The proposed 2037 end date for coal burning is far too late, while the milk cooperative Fonterra — poised to announce a record payout to farmers — intends to begin phasing out natural gas for milk drying only after that date.

The potentially most far-reaching suggestion is to set a renewable energy target. A clear path to 100 percent renewable energy would provide a significant counterweight to the endless debates about trees and agricultural emissions, but it is still barely on the radar.

Perhaps one outcome of the new NDC will be that, faced with the prospect of a NZ$5 billion bill for offshore mitigation, we might decide to spend the money on emissions cuts in Aotearoa instead.

Dr Robert McLachlan is professor in applied mathematics at Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

As the UN climate summit in Glasgow kicks off tomorrow, it marks the deadline for countries to make more ambitious pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The meeting is the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and is being heralded as the last best chance to avoid devastating temperature rise that would endanger billions of people and disrupt the planet’s life-support systems.

New Zealand will be represented by the Climate Minister and Green Party co-leader, James Shaw, along with a slimmed-down team of diplomats.

• READ MORE: COP26: 4 ways rich nations can keep promises to curb emissions and fund climate adaptation
• A successful COP26 is essential for Earth’s future. Here’s what needs to go right
• Glasgow showdown: Pacific Islands demand global leaders bring action, not excuses, to UN summit
• ‘Serious risk’ that climate talks will fail, UN chief warns G20
• Other COP26 reports

Shaw, who described climate change as the “most significant threat that we face for decades to come”, will take part in negotiations aimed at achieving global net zero, protecting communities and natural habitats and mobilising finance to adequately respond to the climate crisis.

This is the time for New Zealand to commit to delivering on its fair share of what is necessary to avoid runaway global warming.

To understand why COP26 is so important we need to look back to a previous summit, COP21 in 2015, which resulted in the Paris Agreement. Countries agreed to work together to keep global warming well below 2℃ and to aim for no more than 1.5℃.

They also agreed to publish plans to show how much they would reduce emissions and to update these pledges every five years — which is what should be happening at the Glasgow summit. Collectively, current climate pledges (known as Nationally Determined Contributions or NDCs) continue to fall a long way short of limiting global warming to 1.5℃.

Many countries have failed to keep pace with what their climate pledges promised. The window to limit temperature rise to 1.5℃ is closing fast.

Time to raise climate ambition
On our current trajectory, global temperature is likely to increase well above the 2℃ upper limit of the Paris Agreement, according to a UN report released last week.

New Zealand has agreed to take ambitious action to meet the 1.5℃ target. But its current pledge (to bring emissions to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030) will not achieve this.

If all countries followed New Zealand’s present commitments, global warming would reach up to 3℃. The government has committed to increase New Zealand’s NDC — after receiving advice from the Climate Change Commission that its current pledge is not consistent with the 1.5℃ goal — but has not yet outlined a figure.

The effects of the growing climate crisis are already present in our corner of the world. Aotearoa is becoming more familiar with weather extremes, flooding and prolonged drought.

Many of our low-lying Pacific island neighbours are particularly vulnerable to climate change. Some are already looking to New Zealand to take stronger regional leadership on climate change.

A perception of New Zealand as a potential safe haven and “Pacific lifeboat” reminds us of the coming challenge of climate refugees, should global warming exceed a safe upper limit.

More work to do
New Zealand’s emissions have continued to rise since the Paris summit but our record on climate action has some positives. The Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act, enacted in 2019, requires greenhouse gas emissions (other than biogenic methane) to reach net zero by 2050.

Only a handful of other countries have enshrined such a goal in law.

The act also established the Climate Change Commission, which has already provided independent advice to the government on emissions budgets and an emissions reduction plan for 2022-2025. But much more needs to be done, and quickly, if we are to meet our international commitments and fulfil our domestic targets.

Climate Change Commission recommendations around the rapid adoption of electric vehicles, reduction in animal stocking rates and changing land use towards forestry and horticulture provide some key places to focus on.

As COP26 begins, New Zealand should announce a more ambitious climate pledge, one stringent enough to meet the 1.5℃ target. Announcing a sufficiently bold NDC at COP26 will provide much-needed leadership and encouragement for other countries to follow suit.

It will also act as a clear signpost for what our domestic emissions policies are aiming for, by when and why. But, no matter what New Zealand’s revised NDC says, much work will remain to ensure we make good on our commitments and give the climate crisis the attention it demands.

Dr Nathan Cooper is associate professor of law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

In September 2019, the editor of The Conversation, Misha Ketchell, declared The Conversation’s editorial team in Australia was henceforth taking what he called a “zero-tolerance” approach to climate change deniers and sceptics. Their comments would be blocked and their accounts locked.

His reasons were succinct:

Climate change deniers and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation are perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet.

READ MORE: Bushfires, bots and arson claims: Australia flung in the global disinformation spotlight

From the standpoint of conventional media ethics, it was a dramatic, even shocking, decision. It seemed to violate journalism’s principle of impartiality – that all sides of a story should be told so audiences could make up their own minds.

But in the era of climate change, this conventional approach is out of date. A more analytical approach is called for.

The ABC’s editorial policy on impartiality offers the best analytical approach so far developed in Australia. It states that impartiality requires:

• a balance that follows the weight of evidence
• fair treatment
• open-mindedness
• opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.

Weight of evidence
It stops short of saying material contradicting the weight of evidence should not be published, which is the position adopted explicitly by The Conversation and implicitly by Guardian Australia.

Guardian Australia’s position is to concentrate on presenting the evidence that human-induced climate change is real and is having a detrimental effect on global heating, wildlife extinction and pollution. It states that this is the defining issue of our times and fundamental societal change is needed in response.

The position of Australia’s other big media organisations is far less clear and rests on generalities applicable to all issues.

The former Fairfax (now Nine) newspapers, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, have separate codes. The Age code does not mention impartiality but requires its journalists to report in a way that is fair, accurate and balanced. The Herald’s does mention impartiality but confines it to an instruction to avoid promoting an individual staff member’s personal interests or preferences.

Both say, however, that comment should be kept separate from news.

News Corp Australia’s editorial professional conduct policy is quite different from all these. It states that comment, conjecture and opinion are acceptable in [news] reports to provide perspective on an issue, or explain the significance of an issue, or to allow readers to recognise what the publication’s standpoint is on the matter being reported.

Its journalists are told to try always to tell all sides of the story when reporting on disputes.

Misleading publication
However, the policy also states that none of this allows the publication of information known to be inaccurate or misleading.

Markedly different as these positions are, they have one element in common: freedom of the press does not mean freedom to publish false or misleading material.

From an ethical perspective, this is a bare minimum. The ABC requires that its journalists follow the weight of evidence, which is a substantially more exacting standard of truthfulness than anything required by the Fairfax or News Corp newspapers. The Guardian Australia and The Conversation have imposed what it is in effect a ban on climate-change denialism, on the ground that it is harmful.

Harm is a long-established criterion for abridging free speech. John Stuart Mill, in his seminal work, On Liberty, published in 1859, was a robust advocate for free speech but he drew the line at harm:

[…] the only purpose for which power can be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

It follows that editors may exercise the power of refusing to publish climate-denialist material if doing so prevents harm to others, without violating fundamental free-speech principles.

Other harms too provide established grounds for limiting free speech. Some of these are enforceable at law – defamation, contempt of court, national security – but speech about climate change falls outside the law and so becomes a question of ethics.

Climate change harm
The harms done by climate change, both at a planetary level and at the level of human health, are well-documented and supported by overwhelming scientific evidence.

At a planetary level, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a report last year on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.

It stated that human activities are estimated to have already caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, and that 1.5°C was likely to be reached between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate.

At the level of human health, in June 2019 the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners published its Position Statement on Climate Change and Human Health.

It stated that climate change resulting from human activity “presents an urgent, significant and growing threat to health worldwide”.

Projected changes in Australia’s climate would result in more frequent and widespread heatwaves and extreme heat. This would increase the risks of heat stress, heat stroke, dehydration and mortality, contribute to acute cerebrovascular accidents, and aggravate chronic respiratory, cardiac and kidney conditions and psychiatric illness.

At both the planetary and human-health levels, then, the harms are serious and grounded in credible scientific evidence. It follows that they provide a strong ethical justification for the stands taken by The Conversation and Guardian Australia in prioritising Mill’s harm principle over free speech.

Limited internal guidance
Aside from these two platforms and the ABC, journalists are offered very limited internal guidance about how to approach the balancing of free-speech interests with the harm principle in the context of climate change.

External guidance is nonexistent. The ethical codes promulgated by the media accountability bodies – the Australian Press Council and the Australian Communications and Media Authority – make no mention of how impartiality should be achieved in the context of climate change. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance’s code of ethics is similarly silent.

These bodies would serve the profession and the public interest by developing specific standards to deal with the issue of climate change, and guidance about how to meet them. It is not an issue like any other. It is existential on a scale surpassing even nuclear war.

As I write in my study at Central Tilba on the far south coast of New South Wales, the entire landscape of farmland, bush and coastline is shrouded in smoke. It has been like that since before Christmas.

Twice we have been evacuated from our home. Twice we have been among the lucky ones to return unhurt and find our home intact.

The front of the Badja Forest Road fire (292,630 ha) is 3.6 km to the north, creeping towards us in the leaf litter. A northerly wind would turn it into an immediate threat.

From this perspective, media acquiescence in climate change denial, failure to follow the weight of evidence, or continued adherence to an out-of-date standard of impartiality looks like culpable irresponsibility.

Dr Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

• Reporting on the Australian bushfires: It has been heartbreaking
• Bushfires won’t change climate policy overnight. But Morrison can shift the Coalition without losing face

Late on Monday night, the City of Sydney became the first state capital in Australia to officially declare a climate emergency. With climate change considered a threat to human life, Sydney councillors unanimously supported a motion put forward by Lord Mayor Clover Moore to mobilise city resources to reduce carbon emissions and minimise the impact of future change.

The decision sees Sydney join a variety of local and national governments around the world, in a movement that is increasingly gaining momentum.

In total, some 658 local governments around the world have made the same declaration, with the UK and Canada committing their national governments to the global movement in just the past two months.

An official declaration of climate emergency puts a government on a “wartime mobilisation” that places climate change at the centre of policy and planning decisions.

READ MORE: UK becomes first country to declare a ‘climate emergency’

While interpretations differ on what a “climate emergency” means in practice, governments have established a range of measures to help meet the targets set by the Paris climate agreement. Under this agreement, 197 countries have pledged to limit global temperature rise to less than 2℃ above pre-industrial levels, and ideally no more than 1.5℃.

With 2018 having brought all manner of record-breaking climate extremes, and global average temperatures projected to reach 3.2℃ above the pre-industrial average based on current national pledges and targets for greenhouse emissions, Sydney’s recognition of a national emergency is both highly appropriate and also a major turning-point for Australia.

Although a signatory to the Paris Agreement, Australia’s greenhouse emissions have risen over the past four years since the repeal of the carbon price. With Australian emissions most notably increasing around transport, the United Nations climate discussions currently being held in Bonn have raised concerns over the nation’s ability to meet its Paris commitments.

Economic impacts
With the global cost of inaction on climate change projected to reach a staggering US$23 trillion a year by the end of the century (equivalent to around five 2008 global financial crises every year), several nations are already ramping up their Paris Agreement commitments ahead of schedule. The UK recently announced its intention to be carbon-neutral by 2050.

Australia is particularly vulnerable to the future financial costs of climate change, with economic models suggesting losses of A$159 billion a year through the impact of sea level rise and drought-driven collapses in agricultural productivity. The cost for each household has been put at about A$14,000.

After Sydney’s declaration, 150 faith leaders on Tuesday signed an open letter endorsing the decision, and describing the climate issue as a moral challenge that transcends religious belief. They have called for an urgent mobilisation to reach 100 percent renewable energy by the year 2030, and for an end to the approval of any new coal and gas projects, including Adani’s controversial Carmichael coal mine in Queensland.

The recent court ruling against the proposed Rocky Hill coal mine in the New South Wales Hunter Valley – a decision made partly on climate grounds – could mark a crucial turning point in the fortunes of future mining projects.

As part of its emergency declaration, Sydney has also called on the federal government to establish a “just transition authority” to support Australians currently employed in fossil fuel industries. This is an urgent issue and a crucial part of the transition to a low-emissions economy.

A major nationwide training program will be needed to help re-skill the estimated 8,000 people who work in fossil-fuelled electricity production, and to help fill the tens of thousands of new jobs in renewable energy-related fields.

With the scale of change required to decarbonise the global economy and hopefully avoid a 2℃ warmer world, the need to support communities across Australia and overseas will likely become an increasing challenge for governments around the world. Putting ourselves on an emergency footing could help provide precisely the impetus we need.

• Dr Chris Turney is professor of earth science and climate change, ARC Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, University of New South Wales. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Older generations are failing to address climate change and they need the world’s youth to lead the way, says United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres.

Speaking at Auckland University of Technology’s southern campus in Manukau today as part of a two-day tour of New Zealand and the Pacific, Guterres said governments have not been showing the political will to address climate change.

He described this as the defining issue of our time – “It is the biggest threat to our lives and the life of the planet and we are not winning the battle.”

READ MORE: UK declares climate change emergency 

VIEW ON VIDEO: The UN WebTV report at AUT South

He added: “Things will start to change very quickly.

“It is absolutely crucial to have the leadership of the youth.”

The youth were well represented at the talk, with groups from three local high schools and many AUT students in attendance.

Introduced by the university’s Office for Pacific Advancement (OPA) strategic director Veronica Ng Lam, who welcomed him to South Auckland – “the centre of the universe”, Guterres also said fossil fuels were being subsidised by governments and that needed to stop.

Direct subsidies
“The IMF has calculated 7.2 trillion dollars spent in direct subsidies to fossil fuels or indirect negative consequences of those subsidies,” he said.

“It is totally unacceptable that taxpayer’s money is used to spread drought, to spread heat waves, to bleach corals and to make glaciers recede.

“Taxpayer’s money must be spent in what is good for humankind, not in what is threatening humankind.”

He also spoke about the role of the internet and its capacity to both help and harm society.

“It is essential to make sure that we transform the internet into an instrument for good and not an instrument to subvert the wellbeing of society.”

RNZ’s Indira Stewart then conducted an onstage interview in which she asked what needed to change for the voices of the Pacific to be heard in the climate change debate.

While Guterres could not provide a direct answer, he acknowledged that regions like the Pacific and Africa were experiencing the most adverse effects from climate change.

Common responsibility
He said there was a common responsibility, especially of wealthy countries to reverse the destructive trends and that achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 was top priority.

Students were then invited to come forward and ask questions.

A student from Papatoetoe High School cited a recent IPCC climate report, which found that millions of species could be facing extinction as a result of climate change.

The student said that it might be too late to simply wait for the younger generations to come into power in order address climate change and save threatened species.

Guterres replied: “I’m not waiting for you to be in power, I’m waiting for you to be as noisy as possible now. To mobilise your societies, your parents, your families, your friends and to put governments under pressure.”

AUT business student and Oceania Leadership Network member Christopher Tenisio then asked how the UN would deal with countries that were not fulfilling their commitment to the 2016 Paris Climate Change Accord.

“Name and shame. We don’t have instruments to punish, so name and shame.”

‘Rehearsed’ answers
After the session, Tenisio told Asia Pacific Report he was impressed with what the Secretary-General had said, but felt that the answers seemed rehearsed.

“It’s like he already knew the questions, like he’d practised the answers.”

Executive director of OPA and pro-vice chancellor of AUT South Walter Fraser said the Secretary-General had naturally come prepared with refined responses.

“He is a career politician after all. Just about every question was deflected back to the audience.”

However, he said it was a positive experience for the students to see how the United Nations operates.

“It’s good in a sense that they get to see how the system works.”

• Guterres attended a breakfast with Climate Change Minister James Shaw and youth and environmental leaders.
• Tomorrow he will travel with Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters to a Pacific Leaders’ Meeting in Fiji.

Amnesty International today warned that the failure of governments to tackle climate change could amount to the greatest inter-generational human rights violation in history. a

The London-based rights organisation welcomed a global day of school strikes against climate change planned for tomorrow by young people.

“Amnesty International stands with all children and young people who are organising and taking part in school strikes for climate action,” said Amnesty International’s secretary-general Kumi Naidoo.

READ MORE: Students striking from school for a safe climate future

This is an important social justice movement that is mobilising thousands of people to peacefully call on governments to stop climate change.

“It is unfortunate that children have to sacrifice days of learning in school to demand that adults do the right thing.

“However, they know the consequences of the current shameful inaction both for themselves and future generations. This should be a moment for stark self-reflection by our political class.

“Instead of criticising young people for taking part in these protests, like some misguided politicians have done, we should be asking why governments are getting away with playing truant on climate action.”

Devastating impacts
Amnesty International warned that climate change was having and would have even more devastating impacts on human rights unless governments acted now to change course.

Climate change especially affects people who are already vulnerable, disadvantaged or subject to discrimination, the organisation said.

“Children especially are more vulnerable to climate-related impacts, due to their specific metabolism, physiology and developmental needs,” Amnesty said in a statement.

“Climate change also poses a risk to their mental health; children exposed to traumatic events such as natural disasters, exacerbated by climate change, can suffer from post-traumatic stress disorders.”

Naidoo said: “Climate change is a human rights issue precisely because of the impact it is having on people. It compounds and magnifies existing inequalities, and it is children who will grow up to see its increasingly frightening effects.

“The fact that most governments have barely lifted a finger in response to our mutually assured destruction amounts to one of the greatest inter-generational human rights violations in history.”

Millions of people are already suffering from its catastrophic effects – from prolonged drought in sub-Saharan Africa to devastating tropical storms sweeping across South-east Asia and the Caribbean.

Devastating heatwaves
During the summer months for the northern hemisphere in 2018, communities from the Arctic Circle to Greece, Japan, Pakistan and the USA experienced devastating heatwaves and wildfires that killed and injured hundreds of people.

“Children are often told they are ‘tomorrow’s leaders’. But if they wait until ‘tomorrow’ there may not be a future in which to lead. Young people are putting their leaders to shame with the passion and determination they are showing to fight this crucial battle now,”  Naidoo said.

The latest pledges made by governments to mitigate climate change— which are yet to be implemented—are completely inadequate as they would lead to a catastrophic 3°C increase in average global temperatures over pre-industrial levels by 2100.

Amnesty International calls on states to scale up climate action substantially and to do so in a manner consistent with human rights.

One of the crucial ways this can happen is if people most affected by climate change, such as children and young people, are engaged in efforts to address and mitigate climate change, while being provided with the necessary information and education to participate meaningfully in such discussions, and included in decision-making that directly affects them.

“Every day that we allow climate change to get worse ultimately makes it harder to stop and reverse its catastrophic effects. There is nothing stopping governments from doing everything in their power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the shortest possible time-frame.

“There is nothing stopping them from finding ways to halve emissions from their 2010 levels by 2030, and to net-zero by 2050, as climate scientists have called for,” said Naidoo.

“The only thing standing in the way of protecting humanity from climate change is the fact that our leaders lack the political will and have barely tried. Politicians can keep making excuses for their inaction, but nature does not negotiate. They must listen to young people and take steps today to stop climate change, because the alternative is unthinkable.”

#Strike4Climate

The threat of rising global temperatures on Pacific ecosystems is not only a scientific analysis but a reality for many people in the region, with a Pacific climate change expert warning that the current aggregate emissions reductions by countries are inadequate.

Dr Morgan Wairiu, deputy director at USP’s Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development, said the Pacific would effectively lose its ecosystems and resources at current emission levels, which indicate the possibility of the global temperature rising beyond 1.5C to 3.7C.

“The world needs to take a moral stand, this is a humanity issue, more than science, the economy or anything else,” he said, highlighting the need for greater action and urgency on climate change.

READ MORE: Strongest climate solutions ‘developed together’

“The Pacific’s natural and human systems would face greater devastation if the global average temperature rises above 1.5C.”

He warned the Pacific that the parties in the Conference of Parties (COP) were not on track to keep global average temperatures below 1.5C

The Fiji-based Dr Wairiu knows all too well the dangers of climate change, spending more than 25 years championing change and assisting countries in keeping the global average temperature below 1.5 degrees Celsius.

This possibility cuts at the heart of Dr Wairui’s early formative years, growing up in his village and his boarding school supported by the lush and rich vegetation in Guadalcanal.

Pacific survival
“These ecosystems, which support the survival of Pacific people, are under threat. I remember spending long hours outdoors exploring and enjoying the village surrounding,” he said.

“In boarding school, we learnt resilience and self-sufficiency by tending to food gardens and fishing for seafood.”

Dr Wairiu, who hails from Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands, was recently one of the lead authors in the 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1.5C special report, which assessed what had been done so far and the feasibility of keeping the global average temperature below 1.5C.

This year he has been selected as the co-ordinating lead author for the “Small Islands” chapter in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (IPCC AR6). The IPCC releases the assessment reports every five years, with the most recent one (IPCC AR5) released in 2014.

Dr Wairiu will be co-ordinating and guiding a number of authors within the “Small Islands” chapter of the sixth assessment report.

Dr Wairiu graduated from the University of Papua New Guinea in agriculture and returned to the Solomon Islands to serve his people in the research division at the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

His work focused on soil and plant growth. This proved crucial for Dr Wairiu because of the Solomon Islands’ logging industry, which coincided with his cultivated plant growth work.

Completed studies
Later, he secured a scholarship to complete his postgraduate studies at the University of London in the UK. He also completed a Masters degree at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland before returning to his home country.

Dr Wairiu then moved to Ohio State University in the US to pursue his PhD and at that stage he was examining soil carbon dynamics. Completing his PhD, he returned to his village during the tensions of the early 2000s.

Shortly afterwards, he was called by the Solomon Islands government to take up the role of permanent secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

Dr Wairiu joined the Waikato University as a visiting research fellow before moving to the University of The South Pacific. His progression and years of experience has culminated in his current work on climate change.

Jope Tarai is an emerging indigenous Fijian scholar, based at the School of Government, Development and International Affairs, University of the South Pacific. His research interests include, Pacific regionalism, Pacific politics and digital ethnography. This article was first published by Wansolwara.

• More climate stories

In a moment of drama in Poland, countries have closed ranks against a push by oil producers to water down recognition of the UN’s report on the impacts of 1.5C warming.

Four big oil and gas producers blocked the UN climate talks from welcoming the most influential climate science report in years, as the meeting in Katowice descended into acrimony yesterday.

By failing to reach agreement after two and half hours of emotional negotiations, delegates in Katowice set the scene for a political fight next week over the importance of the UN’s landmark scientific report on the effects of a 1.5C rise in the global temperature.

READ MORE: 12 activists denied entry to Poland for UN climate summit

The battle, halfway through a fortnight of Cop24 negotiations, was over two words: “note” or “welcome”.

Saudi Arabia, the US, Kuwait and Russia said it was enough for the members of the UN climate convention (the UNFCCC) to “note” the findings.

But poor and undeveloped countries, small island states, Pacific nations, Europeans and many others called to change the wording to “welcome” the study – noting that they had commissioned it when they reached the Paris climate agreement in 2015.

“This is not a choice between one word and another,” Rueanna Haynes, a delegate for St Kitts and Nevis, told the plenary.

‘This is us’
“This is us, as the UNFCCC, being in a position to welcome a report that we requested, that we invited [scientists] to prepare. So it seems to me that if there is anything ludicrous about the discussion that is taking place, it is that we in this body are not in a position to welcome the report.”

The four opposing countries argued the change was not necessary. Saudi Arabia threatened to block the entire discussion if others pushed to change the single word – and warned that it would disrupt the last stretch of negotiations between ministers next week.

The aim of the Cop24 climate summit is to agree a dense set of technical rules to underpin the Paris Agreement’s goals for limiting global warming to well below 2C, and ideally 1.5C, by the end of the century.

The scientific report was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in October. It found that limiting global warming to 1.5C, rather than below 2C, could help avoid some of the worst effects of climate change, and potentially save vulnerable regions such as low-lying Pacific islands and coastal villages in the Arctic.

But it also made clear that the world would have to slash greenhouse gases by about 45 percent by 2030.

Before the plenary on Saturday, the UN’s climate chief Patricia Espinosa said she hoped to see countries “really welcoming and highlighting the importance of this report… Even if the IPCC is very clear in saying how difficult it will be to achieve that goal, it still says it is possible”.

The US, which raised doubts about the science behind the report before it was finalised, said on Saturday that it would accept wording that noted the IPCC’s findings – while stressing that that “does not imply endorsement” of its contents.

Russia said “it is enough just to note it”, rather than welcoming the report, while Kuwait said it was happy with the wording as it stood.

Plenary push
The push in the plenary to change the wording to “welcome” began with the Maldives, which chairs the alliance of small island states. It was quickly backed by a wide range of countries and groups, including the EU, the bloc of 47 least developed countries, the Independent Association of Latin America and the Caribbean, African countries, Norway (another large oil and gas producer), Argentina, Switzerland, Nepal, Bhutan, Marshall Islands, Belize and South Korea.

Negotiators huddled with the plenary meeting’s chair, Paul Watkinson, for nearly an hour to try and work out a compromise.

But Watkinson’s suggestion – welcoming the “efforts” of the IPCC experts and noting the “importance of the underlying research” – fell flat.

Delegates from Latin America, small islands, Europe, New Zealand, Canada, Africa and elsewhere argued it was not enough to highlight the work that went into the report, it needed to address the findings.

Watkinson said he was disappointed that they could not agree. But a negotiator said the talks would continue: “This is a prelude to a huge fight next week,” when ministers arrive in Poland. It will be up to the Polish hosts to find a place for the report’s findings in the final outcome of the talks.

Wording that welcomes, rather than notes, the 1.5C report should be the bare minimum, Belize negotiator Carlos Fuller told Climate Home News. However, “the oil producing countries recognise that if the international community takes it on board, it means a massive change in the use of fossil fuels”, he said. “From the US point of view, this is the Trump administration saying ‘we do not believe the climate science’.”

‘Won the fight’
Fuller added: “In my opinion we have won the fight, because the headline tomorrow will be: the UNFCCC cannot agree the IPCC report’, and people will say ‘Why, what’s in the report?’ and go and look.”

The 1.5C science wasn’t the only divisive issue after a week of Cop24 talks, with countries still mostly holding their ground on the Paris Agreement’s rulebook.

Contentious decisions related to the transparency of reporting emissions and the make up of national climate plans have all been refined, but ultimately kicked to the higher ministerial level. Several observers raised the concern that some unresolved issues may be too technical for ministers to debate with adequate expertise.

Financial aid is still contentious issue. The rules on how and what developed countries must report on their past and planned funding, and the extent to which emerging economies are urged to do the same, remains largely up for debate.

In a further moment of drama on Saturday afternoon, Africa stood firm as UN officials tried to finalise a draft of the rules that will govern the deal. Africa’s representative Mohamed Nasr said the continent could not accept the deal as it was presented, forcing the text to be redrafted on the plenary floor.

“You can’t bully Africa, it’s 54 countries,” said one negotiator, watching from the plenary floor.

The change will mean new proposals to be made to the text next week. That would allow African ministers to attempt to strengthen a major climate fund dedicated to helping countries adapt to climate change and push for less strict measures for developing countries.

‘Voicing our concerns’
“We have been voicing our concerns, maybe the co-chairs in their attempt to seek a balanced outcome they overlooked some of the stuff. So we are saying that we are not going to stop the process but we need to make sure that our views are included,” Nasr told CHN.

Mohamed Adow, a campaigner with Christian Aid, said the African intervention had “saved the process” by ensuring that dissatisfied countries could still have their issues heard.

“It’s actually much better than it’s ever been in this process at this stage,” he said. “Because this is the end of the first week and ministers have been provided with clear options. Of course nothing is closed but the options are actually narrower.”

This article is republished with permission from Climate Home News.

• Other climate change stories
• SPREP Pacific climate change stories

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s challenge to United Nations members last month to reflect on the impact climate change is having on the Pacific has been welcomed by social justice advocates.

But they would like to see the rhetoric matched by even stronger action to give the world its best chance of coping with climate change.

The Prime Minister spoke of Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands as the Pacific’s most at risk nations which have contributed least to global emissions but are facing the full force of their consequences.

“Our actions in the wake of this global challenge remains optional, But the impact of inaction does not,” she told the UN.

“If my Pacific neighbours do not have the option of opting out of the effects of climate change, why should we be able to opt out of taking action to stop it?”

Ardern said that in the South Pacific there was a reality of rising sea levels, increases in extreme weather events and negative impacts on water supply and agriculture.

“For those who live in the South Pacific, the impacts of climate change are not academic, or even arguable.

‘Grinding reality’
“We can talk all we like about the science and what it means … but there is a grinding reality in hearing someone from a Pacific island talk about where the sea was when they were a child, and potential loss of their entire village as an adult.”

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s speech at the United Nations. Video: UN

Although New Zealand represents less than 0.2 percent of global emissions, the Prime Minister then vowed to “play our part” in continuing to decrease in emissions and support the global climate change battle.

Goals have been set of:

• 100 percent renewable energy generation by 2035;
• zero emissions by 2050;
• a halt on offshore oil and gas exploration permits;
• a green infrastructure fund to encourage innovation, and
• a 10-year plan to plan one billion trees.

“These plans are unashamedly ambitious [but] the threat climate change poses demands it.”

Real commitment
A few days before her address to the UN in New York, the Prime Minister announced a $100 million increase to its global climate finance – an increase from $200 million, which will be spread in $25 million blocks over four years.

The Prime Minister said the additional funding would focus on practical action, helping Pacific states to build resilience and adapt to climate change.

“The focus of this financial support is on creating new areas of growth and opportunity for Pacific communities. We want to support our Pacific neighbours to make transition to a low carbon economy without hurting their existing economic base.”

The Prime Minister said she planned to bring greater attention to the impact of climate change alongside Pacific leaders and ensure global awareness of the cost of inaction.

“We recognise our neighbours in the Pacific region are uniquely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

“We have a responsibility to care for the environment in which we live, but the challenge of climate change requires us to look beyond our domestic boarders.”

Communications accounts manager for the Ministry for the Environment, Karen Goldsworthy, says two thirds of the global climate funding would be going towards Pacific nations to help adapt to their warming climate.

“We recognise that New Zealand alone cannot fix the challenge climate change poses to our region: it is a global problem that requires a global solution.

“New Zealand will continue to work actively to contribute to an effective global response to climate change through which Pacific resilience improves … and lose work more widely to encourage ambition through our leadership.”

A global model
Renewable energy and climate change consultant Dr Bob Lloyd, a former director of energy studies at Otago University, says New Zealand’s commitment to climate change is a show of leadership to the rest of the world of what is achievable.

Lloyd called New Zealand a small-scale model of what can be achieved on a global scale, however this issue is one which cannot be resolved by one small nation.

“It’s up to countries like Australia, New Zealand, Europe and unfortunately the US to bring their emissions down.

“The big dilemma at the moment is that a lot of the poor countries want to increase their emissions and they’re not going to consider bringing their emissions down unless the big countries bring their emissions down first.

“The other onus is on the rich countries to actually help the poor countries come down, which means they need to transfer money to them to achieve their goals.”

Lloyd said the extra $100 million from New Zealand towards the global climate change fund was a good effort but would not have a huge impact. To achieve emissions reductions, developing countries would need trillions of dollars.

“The amounts of money which are needed just for the Pacific region – which are tiny compared to the rest of the world – are enormous,” he said.

Putting over ideas
Although Lloyd, a self-proclaimed pessimist, thinks the world would not be able to outrun climate change he does not want to “hamper people from trying”.

“Without some countries trying, then the poorer countries and other countries will give up completely, so I think it’s extremely good that Jacinda is putting these ideas over and they’re trying to help as much as possible.

“She’s doing a remarkable effort. It’s also enthusing government. I was pleasantly surprised at how much influence Jacinda and the Labour Party is having on both New Zealand and internationally.”

Dr Kevin Clements, the foundation professor of Otago University’s National Centre for Peace  and Conflict Studies (NCPACS) and current director of the Japan-based Toda Peace Institute, says the Prime Minister’s plea for climate change awareness has powerful emotional and normative appeal, but at the end of the day it is a numbers game.

“Every little bit helps. New Zealand’s voice on its own isn’t going to change Donald Trump or the behaviours of the major US multinational companies, but on the other hand it’s all part of creating a normative order which acknowledges the centrality of climate change and what it’s doing to us.”

Dr Clements says the Pacific is feeling the brunt of global emissions and has little capacity to do anything about it. However, the moral weight of New Zealand and the South Pacific can help larger nations become more proactive.

The Prime Minister advocating for climate change issues humanises her, says Dr Clements, but she needs to be stronger to be seen as a serious political leader on these issues.

“She really needs to make sure she’s coupling her soft power appeal and her own personal charisma with some hard-headed arguments and evidence based research so she is seen both as a wonderful human being but equally as a hard-headed negotiator on the issues that matter.”

Maxine Jacobs is a postgraduate student journalist on the Asia Pacific Journalism Studies course at AUT University.

Two significant events happened at the 49th Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) earlier this month – climate change and ratification of the Boe agreement (a regional security pact that succeeded the 2000 Biketawa agreement), says Barbara Dreaver, a veteran journalist with 20 years’ experience covering the Pacific.

Dreaver made headlines herself by being detained and questioned for four hours after interviewing an asylum seeker from a detention centre on Nauru.

The centres were declared a forbidden area when Nauru approved journalists’ accreditation for the forum on September 3-6.

READ MORE: Climate change, at the frontlines

Initially, Nauru revoked Dreaver’s accreditation but reinstated it, so she could cover the forum proper, and she did not allow it to detract from doing her job.

Climate change is a growing burden for the Pacific and was the key discussion point at the forum.

Central to this is the demand by the Pacific Island countries that the United States return to the Paris climate agreement of 2015.

In short, the Paris Agreement is an ambition to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 °C – and to limit the increase to 1.5 °C – as called for by the smaller island states at the forum.

Plea to the US
“Pacific leaders have also called on the US to return to the Paris agreement,” says Barbara Dreaver.

The call comes on the back of US President Donald Trump announcing his intention in June 2017 to withdraw. Under the agreement, the earliest possible withdrawal date for the US is November 2020, although moves have been afoot for the US administration to withdraw from the agreement.

Climate change has become such an important problem for Pacific Island nations that it had to take centre stage at the forum.

“Yes, this was the main thrust of the forum. The leaders have formally requested the United Nations appoint a special adviser on climate change and security and they have also called on the UN Security Council to appoint a special rapporteur to produce a regular review of global, regional and national security threats caused by climate change,” Dreaver told Asia Pacific Report.

Most of the controversy at the forum centred around Nauru, which was once a phosphate-mining mecca now virtually stripped dry and reduced to playing an off-shore role as a detention centre for asylum seekers to Australia.

Nauru is set to receive nearly A$26 million from Australia in Official Development Assistance  in 2018-19, which is almost a quarter of its gross domestic product.

“The money Nauru receives from Australia is valuable to this cash-strapped nation. It’s not only in cash terms – buildings have been improved etc. For Nauru, while it’s a headache, it’s also a godsend,” says Dreaver.

Sensitive refugee discussions
Sensitive discussions around the detainees did take place under muted conditions and away from the media, she noted.

“The discussion around the detainees on Nauru took place in the bilaterals and only at a general level.

“There was some sensitivity given it’s a domestic issue for the most part and Nauru had made it clear it did not consider it part of the forum – even if others did.

“It should be noted that the bigger non-government organisations like World Vision or Amnesty, which would have brought up the issue at side events [civil society discussions)] were refused visas to Nauru.”

Incarcerated children on the island, kept in conditions widely considered inhumane, hardly rated a mention at the forum.

“The children on Nauru are staying put – I understand there are now approximately 109 of them,” says Dreaver.

An Australian decision
New Zealand did discuss the potential resettlement of some of the asylum seekers but were told it was an Australian decision.

“Jacinda Ardern (Prime Minister) discussed it with Nauru at the bilateral discussions but at the end of the day, if Australia doesn’t agree with the transferral of refugees to NZ it won’t happen. The decision is not the Nauru governments’ to make,” says Dreaver.

That was not to say New Zealand did not have a contribution to make at the PIF, even though one commentator in New Zealand likened Pacific countries to “leeches”.

“Most of New Zealand’s contribution was behind the scenes. For example, like some of the other member countries it had input on the Biketawa Plus or Boe Declaration,” she said.

“New Zealand’s presence must not be underestimated… the only times a New Zealand Prime Minister has not attended a forum has been when it has been close to an election.

“While fellow leaders have always publicly expressed their understanding, they have also made it clear New Zealand is missed and it doesn’t go down well.

“New Zealand is strong on fisheries in the region and its input in this area is strong,” she says on a food source that is dear to the heart of all Pacific Islanders.

Climate change priority
Again, there was no getting away from climate change and the security of the region, as Dreaver points out.

“Yes, the Boe declaration was ratified (named Boe as this is name of the President of Nauru’s [Baron Waqa] village where it was signed).

“The leaders had to go back to the table in the evening as Australia had some concerns over the language about climate change which other leaders describe as the single greatest threat to the region.

“There is a strong agreement for resources for cash-strapped nations, particularly in the area of cybercrime – it’s expected New Zealand and Australia will provide specialist and technical knowledge to help small island nations combat this,’’ Dreaver says.

Progress was made at the 49th sitting of the Pacific Islands Forum despite it being held in the controversial venue of Nauru.

Sri Krishnamurthi is a journalist and Postgraduate Diploma in Communication Studies student at Auckland University of Technology. He is attached to the University of the South Pacific’s Journalism Programme, filing for USP’s Wansolwara News and the AUT Pacific Media Centre’s Asia Pacific Report.

The content of the Boe Declaration, signed at the Pacific Islands Forum in Nauru earlier this month, is not widely known. However, a statement from NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern suggests that it declares climate change as a security issue.

“The Boe Declaration acknowledges additional collective actions are required to address new and non-traditional challenges. Modern-day regional security challenges include climate change,” she said in a statement.

Both the leaders communique and the declaration itself affirm the fact that climate change is a real issue. However, it is discussion of gender in light of that is lacking.

READ MORE: Nauru 2018 and the new Boe on the block

According to a report by Oxfam, men survived women 3 to 1 in the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) suggests that this was because women were trapped in their homes at the time of the disaster “while men were out in the open”.

The agency also suggest that a cultural or religious custom can restrict a woman’s ability to survive a natural disaster.

“. . . the clothes they wear and/or their responsibilities in caring for children could hamper their mobility in times of emergency,” a UNDP report says.

Caregivers and providers
Figures from the United Nations show that 80 percent of those displaced by climate change were women. This, they argue, is caused primarily by their roles as caregivers and providers of food.

London School of Economics research indicates that women and girls are definitively more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than their male counterparts.

In societies where women are considered to be lower on the metaphorical food chain, “natural disasters will kill . . . more women than men,” the report says.

The two researchers could find no biological reason why women would be at more risk than men.

Based on this research, and other research like it, many public figures have called for attention to be paid to the issue.

“More extreme weather events. . . will all result in less food. Less food will mean that women and children get less,” dystopian author Margaret Atwood told a London conference in June.

The author of books like The Handmaid’s Tale and Oryx and Crake said that climate change “. . . will also mean social unrest, which can lead to wars and civil wars . . . Women do badly in wars”.

Primarily burdened
When asked about the issue at an event at Georgetown University in February, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that “. . . women. . . will be . . . primarily burdened with the problems of climate change”.

Earlier this month, former NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark told a crowd of about 200 people at the National Council of Women (NCW) conference that the world was close to missing the opportunity to tend to the issue of climate change and women were most likely to be affected by it.

“Everything we know tells us that women are the most vulnerable in this,” she said. “If you look at the natural disasters caused by weather. . . more women die”.

According to Marshall Islands President Hilda Heine, President of the Marshall Islands, women are more affected by climate change than their male counterparts but are also “less likely to be empowered to cope”.

“Women aren’t making enough of the decisions, and the decisions aren’t yet doing enough for women,” she wrote in The Guardian.

The UNDP argues it is because of a woman’s place in the household that she is in prime position to affect change when it comes to this issue.

“. . . knowledge and capabilities [regarding reproduction, household and community roles] can and should be deployed for/in climate change mitigation, disaster relief and adaptation strategies,” the report says..

Feminist solution
“A feminist solution” is what former Irish President and UN Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson argued for in June.

She explained that “feminism doesn’t mean excluding men, it’s about being more inclusive of women and – in this case – acknowledging the role they can play in tackling climate change”.

She’s not the only, nor the first, to make such a suggestion.

A whole feminist environmental movement, known as ecofeminism, has sprung up over the decades since the 1970s.

At its most basic level, ecofeminism is exactly what it sounds like: It argues that there is a relationship between environmental damage – such as that done by climate change – and the oppression of women and their rights.

For example, in her 2014 book This Changes Everything, journalist Naomi Klein argues that it is hypocritical that the self-same lawmakers who claim to be “pro-life” are also the ones who push for whole industries surrounding drilling, fracking and mining to not only survive but thrive.

Business confidence
“If the Earth is indeed our mother, then far from the bountiful goddess of mythology, she is a mother facing many great fertility challenges,” she writes.

In New Zealand, leader of the opposition National Party Simon Bridges, who is opposed to the idea of removing abortion from the Crimes Act, is also vehemently opposed to the idea of stopping oil and gas exploration in the Taranaki region.

His concern is that “It will have an effect on business confidence,” he said back in April.

The truth of climate change, as with most global issues, is that there can be no one-size fits all solution.

For some, like Helen Clark, it requires long-term mass movements. For others, it requires being invited to the conversation.

Time will tell as to which one wins out.

• Pacific leaders endorse new security deal
• NZ must help Solomon Islands tackle unemployment ‘time bomb’, says Clark
• The ‘unscrubbed’ version of the new Boe Agreement on Pacific security

Pacific Media Centre Newsdesk

Pacific Islanders across the Pacific and within Pacific Island diaspora communities in Australia, New Zealand and the United States are joining more than 800 actions in 90 countries under the banner of Rise for Climate to demonstrate the urgency of the climate crisis.

From the September 8-10, these Pacific communities will shine a spotlight on the increasing impacts they are experiencing and demand stronger action to keep fossil fuels in the ground, reports the advocacy group 350 Pacific.

As part of these global mobilisations, the Pacific is leading the charge with creative events and actions that call for a swift and just transition to 100 percent renewable energy for all.

READ MORE: World has three years left to stop dangerous climate change, warn experts

Globally, people are rising to support urgent action before 2020 to accelerate to the rapid phase out of fossil fuels and a just transition to clean and fair energy systems for all.

“There is no time to lose. Climate change is a threat that is already here and now in the Pacific: inundation by sea level rise, the strongest cyclones ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere, massive flooding, and droughts are some of the recent impacts of climate change being felt across the region,” says 350 Pacific.

Already this year the world has experienced:

• Catastrophic heatwaves in North Africa, Europe, Japan, Pakistan, Australia and Argentina;
• Deadly wildfires in Greece, Sweden, the USA and Russia;
• Drought in Kenya and Somalia;
• Major water shortages in Afghanistan and South Africa;
• Extreme storms and flooding in Hawaii, India, Oman and Yemen;
• Record melting of the Bering Sea ice; and
• the 400th month in a row of above-average global temperatures.

This weekend’s Rise for Climate will demonstrate the growing strength and diversity of the climate movement and the people who will not wait for governments to act, but will lead by example and hold them to account.

Climate change affects the whole of the Pacific, including West Papua. 350 Pacific says:

“On top of dealing with the Indonesian occupation, our brothers and sisters in West Papua are also living with the impacts of climate change.”

Three hundred schoolchildren from the greater Jakarta area sat on a red carpet covering the cavernous Soedjarwo auditorium—named to honour the country’s first forestry minister—at the Ministry of the Environment and Forestry in January this year.

They were there to participate in the government-led Climate Festival; the theme was “Three Years of Climate Change Achievements”.

Dr Nur Masripatin, the then Director General of Climate Change (she stepped down in February 2018), tossed the kids a question on climate change: what will become of Indonesia if nothing is done about climate change by 2030?

An elementary schoolboy said the country would become hotter and drier. Another two students added to his answer, talking about global warming and the greenhouse gases that lead to climate change.

The director-general beamed broadly. Dr Nur Masripatin, who has a PhD in forest biometrics from Canterbury University in New Zealand, has been a veteran negotiator for Indonesia at the annual United Nations climate conference since 2005.

Indonesia is a country of islands, with a majority of the population living along coasts vulnerable to climate change, she explained to the assembled pupils. The government hopes that such an event will equip children with information on climate change that they’ll carry into adulthood.

Reaching Indonesia’s targets
The event also sought to inform the public on the progress made in implementing international agreements and national policies, such as the Paris Agreement and the Nationally Determined Contribution, related to climate change. Government projects such as this one are only deemed successful if the people meant to benefit from the project feel that they have a stake in the issue, and commit to seeing it through.

The Paris Agreement, reached at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015, is a legally binding international contract to limit global warming “well below” 2˚C, through lowering carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and the degrading of forests. The ultimate aim is zero carbon emissions worldwide by 2050.

In undertaking to realise the Paris Agreement, Indonesia’s Nationally Determined Contribution, or NDC, sets a target of cutting emissions by 29 percent against a “business as usual” scenario (in which no planned action is taken) and by 41 percent with international cooperation. This climate action plan is due to be implemented from 2020 to 2030.

One of the many documents handed out to participants of the Climate Festival was the country’s NDC Implementation Strategy, listing nine programmes with assigned activities spanning from ownership and commitment development to implementation and review. Also included was an academic paper on the draft government regulation for climate change.

The festival, and its accompanying books, talks, and handout material produced by the director general and her team, outlines an ambitious climate agenda. Yet what’s not covered is interesting, too.

While the NDC Implementation Strategy cites projected greenhouse gas emission levels, it does not provide details on whether, or how much, emissions have already been reduced since 2011, when the government issued its national action plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent by 2020. Nor does the NDC explain the formula it uses to reduce emissions in the five slated sectors: land-use, energy, IPPU (industrial processes and product use), agriculture and waste. The first two sectors alone produced 82 percent of the country’s carbon emissions in 2010–2012.

Despite its absence in the Climate Festival’s documents, information on emission reduction is provided by the National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas). From 2010–2017, Indonesia has cut greenhouse gas emission by only 13.46 percent. It’s a figure the Indonesian government aren’t eager to publicise—it’s a long way from their target. The government doesn’t officially state how much carbon emissions has been reduced because the NDC does not start until 2020, a government official explained.

“The government shall regularly provide emission reduction achievements in line with the NDC target it has committed to after Indonesia ratified the Paris Agreement. This is in line with our commitment to the NDC up to 2030. The information can be accessed in SIGN SMART prepared by the Environment and Forestry Ministry,” says Dr Agus Justianto, Head of the Ministry’s Agency for Research, Development and Innovation.

A major emitter of greenhouse gases
According to the World Resources Institute (WRI), Indonesia is the world’s sixth largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and the largest contributor of forest-based emissions—an unsurprising fact if one thinks back to the devastating forest and peat fires in 2014 and 2015. Images from the United States’ National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) released in 2014 and 2015 show dense smoke blanketing parts of the country and its neighbours. Those two years were exceptionally bad, but such burning takes place annually.

In September 2017, WRI Indonesia published a 36-page working paper on how Indonesia can achieve its climate change mitigation goal. The organisation found that existing policies in the land-use and energy sectors, even if fully implemented, are inadequate if the country is really serious about reaching the 29% target by 2030. Using its own methodology, WRI Indonesia estimated that the existing policies would only result in a 19% reduction.

A failure to achieve its mitigation target means that Indonesia won’t be able to contribute its declared share in global fulfillment of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Rethinking policies
Reaching the NDC goal would require revisiting existing policies, particularly in agriculture and energy.

In agriculture, the government wants to double the output of the highly lucrative oil palm by 2020. This would require the clearing of more forest and peatland to add to the 14 million hectares of oil palm plantations already present in the country—a move that would surely lead to more carbon emissions. The policy also undermines a forest moratorium, in place since 2011, on the issuing of permits to convert primary forest and peatland to oil palm plantations, pulp and paper estates and other land-use change activities.

Dr Agus denies any planned clearing of peatland, insisting that the moratorium is still in place. What the government wants to increase, he stresses, is productivity per hectare on existing oil palm plantations.

President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo also has a plan to boost the country’s energy capacity by 35,000 megawatts during his current term, which comes to an end in 2019. Only 2000 megawatts of that energy will come from renewable energy; 20,000 megawatts will come from coal-fired plants, another major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Oil and gas, as well as hydropower, will provide the rest.

This matter of generating 20,000 megawatts of energy from coal-fired plants was put to Bambang Brodjonegoro, Indonesia’s Minister for National Development Planning and Head of Bappenas, at the Southeast Asia Symposium jointly organised by Oxford University and the University of Indonesia’s School of Environmental Science.

The “best solution”, advocated by environmentalists, would be to phase coal-fired plants out completely and embrace renewable energy sources. It’s in line with the call of the “Powering Past Coal” alliance, a partnership of over 20 governments who intend to move away from coal. No Southeast Asian government has joined the alliance thus far.

Brodjonegoro, a former dean of the University of Indonesia’s School of Economics, replied that Indonesia’s plan relies on the “second-best solution”: new coal-fired power plants will use clean coal technology, and that renewable energy, such as solar, wind or biomass, will be developed for isolated areas that are not yet part of the country’s power grid. Energy is required for economic growth, he argued, and Indonesia has abundant coal deposits to meet that energy need.

But Indonesia might not need as much energy as policymakers initially thought. According to the Electricity Supply Business Plan 2018-2027 drafted by the Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry, a projection in Indonesia’s additional power needs dropped from 78 gigawatts under the 2017–2026 plan to 56 gigawatts in the 2018–2027 plan. The decrease was due to overestimating the growth in demand; if the government had followed through with the initial plan, it would end up overspending by building unused power plants.

Plans are also underway to increase the portion of renewable energy—while renewable energy only provided 12.52 percent of Indonesia’s energy in 2017, it’s expected to rise to 23 percent in 2025. Coal is expected to decline as a source of energy from 58.3 percent in 2017 to 54.4 percent in 2025. But environmental groups say it’s still not good enough.

“Many nations like India, China and even Saudi Arabia have altered their investment direction to renewable energy, whereas Indonesia still depends on coal for more than 50 percent of its power source,” said Hindun Mulaika, Greenpeace Indonesia’s climate and energy campaigner, in a recent press release.

Other organisations have called for more ambitious action from the Indonesian government. Germanwatch and Climate Action Network pointed out in their 2018 Climate Change Performance Index that Indonesia has the potential to further develop renewable energy, particularly since it has relatively large amounts of hydropower. WRI Indonesia recommended other mitigation actions, such as strengthening and extending the forest moratorium, restoring degraded forest and peatland, and implementing energy conservation efforts.

According to WRI Indonesia, increasing renewable sources in the energy mix will require implementing multiple policies, such as a carbon tax on fossil fuel power plants, the replacement of coal-fired plants with wind or solar sources, and the provision of subsidies for the promotion of renewable energy.

Indonesia already has bilateral and multilateral agreements for cooperation in climate change, such as an accord with Norway signed in 2010, where the Scandinavian country pledged up to USD1 billion for “significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation, forest degradation and peatland conversion”. The financial contribution is made based on a verified emissions reduction mechanism. However, an influential coal lobby makes it difficult for the country to take bolder steps away from coal power plants.

A target that cannot be achieved
As it stands, Indonesia’s 29 percent NDC target is not achievable, says a government technocrat.

“It is not based on what sectors knew, what the energy sector knew, what the road transport sector knew. No one has reliable data. Everyone has some sense of statistics,” says the technocrat, who has asked to remain anonymous as he’s not authorised to speak to the press.

The distinction between data and statistics is an important one—while statistics present a snapshot of one aspect of an issue, data is a real mapping of what exists, providing a more holistic picture. A good NDC should have reliable data from every sector, disaggregated to show the reality in each of Indonesia’s 465 sub-national districts and town governments. While there might be a political aspect to this process, politics should not be dominant, the official added.

“No one has reliable data. Everyone has some sense of statistics”

The lack of data is a big problem with a major impact on the way targets have been set. The government arrived at the 29% target via inter-sectoral meetings where each of the five mitigation sectors (energy, land-use, industry, agriculture, waste) stated how far they were willing to go in terms of reductions. But if the various groups only have “some sense of statistics” without actual reliable data, the targets set could easily be off the mark.

Hopes for a future generation
Indonesia’s climate future is not bleak; there’s still hope for significant progress moving forward. Beyond government policy and programmes, numerous civil society organisations are actively working on the issue.

One example is Climate Reality Indonesia, which had a booth at the Climate Festival. Its members, who have participated in Al Gore’s climate course, are from all walks of life: students, academics, public officials, business people, homemakers, journalists, artists, clerics. They’re committed to spreading climate awareness among their own circles to encourage a ripple effect that will increase public knowledge across the country.

“Climate change can be viewed from different angles: water, air, marine resources, forests, agriculture, energy, education, laws. Hence it’s important to break down the issue of interest to understand the ground sentiment,” says Amanda Katili Niode, manager of Climate Reality Indonesia.

There are signs that the public are interested. In 2015, a survey by the Pew Research Centre found that 63 percent of the country supported limiting greenhouse gas emissions as part of an international agreement. Climate Reality Indonesia is thus working on creating visual materials on specific climate change impacts and solutions to use in their outreach programmes.

Following Climate Change Director General Nur Masripatin’s session, Hidayatun Nisa, a 24-year-old university graduate, delivered a rousing speech before the assembled schoolchildren. She told them about her work as a facilitator in the Care of Peat Village project run by the Peat Restoration Agency in a village in Jambi province on the east coast of central Sumatra, calling on students to study how to protect the environment for a better future.

“I do hope the children can learn to be sensitive to living things and protect the environment where they live. This also applies to their parents as the educational process that has the greatest effect is the education at home,” says Nisa.

Without a change in gear for a more ambitious and robust emphasis on renewable energy and the safeguarding of the environment, Indonesia’s climate change ambitions could end up amounting to little more than a can’t-do plan. As it is, the current generation is already not on track to meet its own stipulated goals. If the country does not undertake a course correction soon, today’s Indonesian children will find themselves having to pick up the slack in the future.

Warief Djajanto Basorie is a contributor to New Naratif, an independent research and journalism publication. He has reported for the domestic KNI News Service in Jakarta 1971-1991 and concurrently was Indonesia correspondent for the Manila-based DEPTHnews Asia (DNA, 1974-1991). DNA is a feature service reporting on development in Asia for Asian media in English and the vernacular. This article is republished under a Creative Commons licence.

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

A controversial climate change documentary showing at the Sundance Film Festival has been blamed for the Kiribati government blocking journalists from entering the country to report on the fatal sinking of a passenger ferry.

The MV Butiraoi broke in half and sank three weeks ago, with more than 90 people missing and presumed dead.

Newshub Pacific affairs correspondent Michael Morrah said his passport was confiscated when he and other Newshub staff landed in the country on Monday.

LISTEN:  NZ TV crew banned from reporting Kiribati ferry disaster – RNZ

They were told they were no longer to report on the sinking, because their reporting could impact on the country’s own investigation into the tragedy.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalists were also reportedly barred from travelling to Kiribati to report on the disaster.

According to Morrah, “the government’s recent hostility towards international press coverage appears to be rooted in the screening of a documentary at the Sundance Film Festival, Anote’s Ark.

“The country’s previous President, Anote Tong, was the subject of the film, which focused on climate change in Kiribati.

“In the doco, he spoke about why he had purchased land in Fiji and the serious and imminent threat of rising seas to the future of his people.  

“But his views don’t gel with the current President Taneti Mamau. In November Mamau said the idea of Kiribati sinking and becoming a deserted nation was ‘misleading and pessimistic’.” 

• Michael Morrah’s report from Kiribati on Pacific Media Watch
• ‘We prayed with them until they were dead’
• Anote’s Ark documentary trailer

DOCUMENTARY: By Markus Henssler

Climate change and rising sea levels mean the island nation of Kiribati in the South Pacific is at risk of disappearing into the sea.

But the island’s inhabitants aren’t giving up. They are doing what they can to save their island from inundation.

Their survival story was featured this month at COP23 in Bonn, Germany.

UN estimates indicate that Kiribati could disappear in just 30 or 40 years.

This is because the average elevation is less than 2m above sea level.

And some of the knock-on effects of climate change have made the situation more difficult.

Kiribati can hardly be surpassed in terms of charm and natural beauty.

There are 33 atolls and one reef island – spread out over an area of 3.5 million sq km.

All have white, sandy beaches and blue lagoons.

Largest atoll nation
Kiribati is the world’s largest state that consists exclusively of atolls.

A local resident named Kaboua points to the empty, barren land around him and says, “There used to be a large village here with 70 families.”

But these days, this land is only accessible at low tide. At high tide, it’s all under water.

Kaboua says that sea levels are rising all the time, and swallowing up the land. This is why many people here build walls made of stone and driftwood, or sand or rubbish.

But these barriers won’t stand up to the increasing number of storm surges.

Others are trying to protect against coastal erosion by planting mangrove shrubs or small trees.

But another local resident, Vasiti Tebamare, remains optimistic. She works for KiriCAN, an environmental organisation.

She says: “The industrialised countries — the United States, China, and Europe — use fossil fuels for their own ends. But what about us?”

Kiribati’s government has even bought land on an island in Fiji, so it can evacuate its people in an emergency.

But Vasiti and most of the other residents don’t want to leave.

• More COP23 stories

It is important that women and girls remain in the centre of climate solutions.

These were the words of Fiji’s Minister of Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation Mereseini Vuniwaqa during the Gender Day event at COP23 in Bonn, Germany, this week.

She said it was important to have specific objectives for women in any economic or investment programme responding to climate change whether it involved mitigation, adaptation or resilience.

“If we understand the special place women have in our communities and act accordingly we would create strong programmes, have more effective responses, build better and resilient communities”, she said.

She added that climate change was harsh for women largely because women were over-represented among the world and were exposed to these dangers.

“Women typically are critical to keeping communities together, they care for the children, and they maintain traditions and give stability to villages”, she said

Vuniwaqa said talanoa dialogue on the topic of economic case for gender responsive climate action would highlight the compelling economic reasons why governments were seeking and investors were funding climate policy.

Highlighting gender
It would also highlight actions that had gender as a core element.

Vuniwaqa reminded delegates that they needed to put women and girls at the centre of all climate efforts in order to succeed.

The Fijian Presidency at COP23 has emphasised the importance of equitable involvement of women in sustainable development and the implementation of climate policy, including the Gender Action Plan.

The Gender Action Plan had been finalised to recognise the role of women in climate action.

Deputy Prime Minister of Samoa, Flame Mata’fa, said that full participation and mainstreaming of gender issues was important and it was a step the Samoa government had taken.

“It is important to emphasise the traditional roles and functions women in the Pacific play so that people come to a common understanding and objectives,” she said.

Mereoni Mili is a student journalist on Wansolwara newspaper at the University of the South Pacific. She won a scholarship to attend COP23.

• More COP23 stories

The problem with climate change – like any wicked problem – is that its story can be told in many different ways. The same goes for migration. The facts, as far as they go, can be conjured into a multitude of understandings.

Still, some stories are less credible than others. Michael Reddell’s recent analysis of migration and climate change in Newsroom is one.

That these vastly complex issues cross over at times is obvious: climate change leaves nothing untouched. But Reddell goes further by arguing that the Productivity Commission’s low emissions inquiry ought to treat immigration as a contributing factor to New Zealand’s rising greenhouse gas emissions; and that our national emissions targets should justify reduced inward migration.

His first argument is one of scale: “more people need more transport, more heating, more energy in their workplaces” – and hence more emissions.

Notably, though, he presumes current technologies and current prices. Not only does this misrepresent all likely futures, but also our actual past. The Ministry for the Environment’s most recent Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2015 notes that energy emissions decreased in 2008–2011 and remained stable since, which is the same period that net migration rose steeply.

The Ministry attributes these reductions to decreased manufacturing emissions and increased renewable energy generation. We have more people, sure, but more people relying on our low-emissions energy. And what matters from the perspective of Earth’s atmosphere is what people emit, not where they emit it.

Emissions from transport, by contrast, have risen. Indeed, road transport emissions increased by 78 percent since 1990, offsetting those other reductions in fuel use.

Over-reliance on vehicles
But the fault here lies with New Zealand’s over-reliance on private vehicles. Migrants (and citizens) contribute to road traffic by necessity, because alternative means of transport are less available, indeed far less so than many migrants are used to, coming from places where travel by trains, trams, cycles and footpaths is not unusual.

If low-carbon alternatives in places like Auckland were more serviceable, migrants would doubtlessly use them, as indeed would citizens. And if the excuse for under-investment is the lack of markets of sufficient scale, then population increase and cultural change will drive progress.

Reddell’s second argument links migration to agricultural emissions. As I understand him, he argues that New Zealand’s high living standards depend upon dairy exports, which makes it politically infeasible to impose costs for environmental damages. The greater the population, the greater this reliance upon the dairy sector, and so the greater the reluctance to make polluters pay.

But it is bizarre to suggest that new and old New Zealanders – including those not employed in agriculture – rely so heavily on dairy for their standard of living. Sure, dairy is our largest export sector, but only 3.5 percent of total GDP.

Actually, many New Zealanders, including many farmers, rely on healthy environments for their standard of living, both in the non-economic sense of quality of life, and in the economic sense that tourism and exports benefit from New Zealand’s clean, green reputation. (Tourism, incidentally, accounts for 5.6 percent of total GDP.)

This is likely why – contra Reddell – a strong majority of New Zealanders (77 percent) do support water charges for agriculture and horticulture, despite the fiscal burden.

It is also misleading to treat economics and environment as a zero-sum game, as if one must lose out in order for the other to gain. It simply isn’t the case that internalising the environmental costs of agriculture necessarily undermines profitability.

Innovation proves point
Innovation within the dairy sector proves the point. Recently, Lincoln University’s demonstration farm reduced nitrate leaching by 30 percent without undermining affecting profitability.

This contradicts Reddell’s claim that “all informed observers recognise that the marginal abatement costs in New Zealand, through conventional means, are high”. I’ve written for Pure Advantage about the potential of forests – both production and permanent forests – to offset agricultural emissions in a way that isn’t only cost-effective but potentially profitable.

This is corroborated by other “informed observers”, such as the Royal Society of New Zealand, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and Vivid Economics. The latter’s Net Zero in New Zealand report highlights other low-cost opportunities in energy efficiency, heating technologies, agricultural efficiency, and technological advances in methane vaccines and cheaper electric vehicles.

What’s striking about all this is not only Reddell’s argument is from the perspective of climate change, but also economics. He resists the orthodox view that migration has a modest positive impact on national GDP.

I’m no enemy of disciplinary iconoclasm, but it does beg for robust positive arguments. Reddell’s appeals to uncertainty (economists cannot prove definitively that migration increases GDP, therefore it might not be true) do not count. Climate scientists are all too familiar with this kind of denial.

So if economic evidence cannot always carry his arguments, one can only conclude that non-economic reasons are doing some of the work. To Reddell’s credit, he is explicit about his concerns for cultural cohesion, or that “Islam is a threat to the West, and a threat to the church wherever it is found”.

These are real reasons for wanting to reduce immigration, but should be debated on their ethical and sociological merits, not couched in an idiosyncratic take on climate policy.

When it comes to global warming, it’s the carbon intensive economy, stupid. The only genuine solution is to transform the world’s high-emissions economies into low-emissions economies, so that anyone entering them by way of birth or migration can lead a prosperous low-carbon life.

Our national emissions targets are a means to this global end. Focusing on peripheral issues like migration only distracts from the work that needs to be done. But that’s what happens when you tell the story of a global problem through a nationalist lens.

David Hall is senior researcher at The Policy Observatory, AUT, where he researches migration and climate policy. He is also editor of the BWB Text, Fair Borders?: Migration Policy in the Twenty-First Century. This article is republished with the author’s permission.

There is no doubt about it. The leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum in Apia this week have had their work cut out. Or so we hope.

As they do at these meetings, it has everything to do with trying to save our people and our part of the planet from eternal damnation.

Time will fly and with climate change taking most of the focus, this meeting is as good as finished already with the communiqué probably being written as we speak.

Keep in mind that climate change is not an issue that can be fixed overnight, you know. Truth be told, regardless of how many accords, frameworks and promises our leaders make, the fact is our islands are sinking and there is little we can do about it.

That shouldn’t stop us from pretending we are doing something about it.

And when you have a well-travelled group of officials who claim to be doing it for the sake of those poor folks in the village, we can at least rest well knowing they will have a jolly good time doing well … who knows.

Of course, there is a lot of noise being made about the issues.

Pretend to look busy
That’s about the best part of gatherings such as the one we are having in Apia this week. We can come together, wear our finest clothes, move from one meeting to the next and pretend to look busy.

But what does that mean for the person who is struggling to make ends meet in the village?

Does it change the prospects for the subsistence farmer who is toiling day and night to make ten tala to feed his family of 12?

Does it really empower the average woman who has to overcome so much to look after herself and family?

Let’s not forget, someone is picking up the bill for all this. What about taxpayers who are forking out for the bill, what do they get in return?

And how do we measure the return on investment?

Questions for a simple reason
We ask these questions for a very simple reason.

At the beginning of this meeting, the Secretary-General Dame Meg Taylor made the point that “Pacific people must be the recipients of the common good delivered by the policies and initiatives” discussed at such meetings.

She couldn’t have said it better.

But lets pause here for a second.

How many Forum meetings have we had now and where exactly are we today?

Looking at some of the recent developments, has the Forum become a stronger regional body to represent the voices of the Pacific? What are we to make of the emergence and strengthening of sub groups like the Polynesian Leaders Group and others? Is it possible that the emergence of these groups could spell the beginning of the end for the Forum?

Nobody wants to be the person asking these questions. But if we are serious, they have got to be asked and our leaders must respond.

Fancy closing ceremony
The fact is before you know it, this meeting will wrap up with a fancy closing ceremony and dinner at an exotic five star place where delegates and leaders will have fine wine and be merry.

That’s okay. They’ve got to have a bit of fun too, don’t you think?

You see, today in those meetings, we guarantee you that they will already be preparing for the next meeting. It’s just the way these things work. And it’s not confined to the Pacific.

The talkfests have become a way of life and you really have to wonder when it will end. If saving the planet is the goal, can you imagine the amount of carbon footprint these guys are burning in the process?

But then who cares?

The point is that somewhere somehow somebody is going to have to justify the need for one meeting after another meeting to prepare for another meeting to analyse the last meeting.

Please don’t get me wrong; we support the cause and we should never deride the value of talking about these issues. Talking about them is a lot better than not acknowledging them at all.

A line should be drawn
But we should also be mindful that a line should be drawn where talking stops and actions begin.

From our standpoint, actions are lacking. And when it comes to the Pacific islands, the reality is that a lot of so-called problems discussed during these meetings are deteriorating while our leaders are still talking.

You can pick any one of them issues whether it’s health, education, environment, governance, justice, gender and you will find that progress has been very slow, if any at all, and yet the poor taxpayers are still forking out for those beers and fine meals dished out in the name of officialdom and the pursuit for progress.

Let’s make the Apia experience a meaningful one, shall we? And tell me please that there is method in thy madness with all these meetings. Have productive Thursday Samoa, God bless!

Mata’afa Keni Lesa is editor of the Samoa Observer. This editorial coinciding with the 48th Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting has been republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

• Other Pacific Islands Forum stories

As much of the world watched the G20 last week, another leaders’ summit was on in Fiji.

Fiji will chair the next UN climate conference in November. Pacific leaders gathered in Suva to discuss how they can use this opportunity to call for serious climate action.

This meeting did not attract Australia or New Zealand’s big name journalists or even many Australians at all.

Had they been there at the COP23 Climate Action Pacific Partnership (CAPP) talks, Australians might have been surprised at what was and wasn’t talked about in Suva.

There was much discussion on how the Pacific can reduce its own (globally miniscule) emissions. Plenty was also said about how islanders can prepare for climate change with better farming techniques.

On the other hand, almost nothing was said about how the Pacific can get the rest of the world to do something meaningful on climate.

This is not an accident.

Emissions ‘declining rapidly’
Australia sent our Minister for International Development and the Pacific, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells. She boasted to Pacific leaders that our emissions are declining rapidly on a per capita basis and emphasised that Australia had put up $6 million to fund these talks.

She omitted to say that Australia’s overall emissions are actually increasing and those per capita reductions just reflect that our population is increasing faster than our emissions.

She also didn’t mention that the $6 million for the talks represents nearly 1/10th of the annual budget for climate aid to the Pacific. Or that much of our climate aid isn’t new money, but comes at the expense of other aid programmes.

Another Australian speaker was from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), there to tell the Pacific how to increase investment in renewable energy. Surprisingly, he didn’t say that renewable investment in Australia has stalled due to policy uncertainty such as the government’s repeated attempts to abolish his own organisation.

When I asked what lessons the Pacific could take from the toxic politics around renewable energy in Australia, the moderator, an official from the Asian Development Bank, refused to let the panel answer the question. He said the session was about looking forward, not backward.

Maybe he just didn’t realise that the Australian government is currently changing legislation to let the CEFC invest in coal, or that in August it will appoint goodness-knows-who to the CEFC board in a near complete turnover.

Or maybe he did know this and just didn’t care. Because it was very clear at these talks that no one is supposed to say anything that might upset Australia and risk a cut to the 2 percent of our record-low aid budget that goes to Pacific climate aid.

Uncomfortable truths
The only people who can point out these uncomfortable truths in the Pacific are either very brave, or are Australians with no links to the Federal government. That’s how I found myself on a panel in Suva to talk about fossil fuels with a prominent civil society advocate, Emele Duituturaga, and a diplomat from the Marshall Islands, whose President has called on Australia to end new coal approvals.

It was up to us to discuss the elephants in the room – like Australia’s plans to double coal exports and the $1 billion subsidised loan to Adani that will contribute to this.

Another elephant in the room was the opportunity that Fiji and the Pacific have in chairing the COP23 talks. Putting a moratorium on new coal mines on the agenda will send a powerful message to fossil fuel exporters like Australia.

In addition to Pacific Island countries, a call for no new coal mines could find support from countries that have already restricted new coal development, such as China and Myanmar.

France has gone further with restrictions on all new fossil fuel exploration.

These countries realise that by allowing existing mines to produce, but not replacing them at the end of their economic lives, disruption to the industry is minimised. A moratorium on new mines also keeps coal prices higher, helping the transition to cleaner energy sources.

Putting a moratorium on the agenda for November’s talks could give the Pacific a powerful diplomatic tool to force real climate progress and reduce the influence of the fossil fuel industry.

Helping the Pacific
It’s important to remember that some Pacific countries have populations smaller than Australian suburbs. Imagine a group of under-resourced Australian councils taking on the coal industry on behalf of the rest of the world. They shouldn’t have to.

Public support from Australian local and state governments, unions and other organisations would go a long way to helping the Pacific tackle our coal industry and its supporters in the Federal government.

Australia and our coal has a big influence on people’s lives in the Pacific. It’s about time

Australians started giving not just aid, but giving help. Make a start via the petition at www.nonewcoalmines.org.au

Rod Campbell is the research director at The Australia Institute. Republished with the permission of TAI.

@R_o_d_C

A New Zealand law student is battling the country’s government in court today over an alleged “failure” to properly address climate change, reports Greenpeace.

A win could potentially mean the government would be forced to go back to the drawing board and come up with more ambitious climate targets.

Along with similar lawsuits, it will set a bar for the type of action that developed countries must take to prevent dangerous climate change.

Sarah Thomson, 26, claims that as a developed country, New Zealand has an obligation under the Paris Agreement to set a target in line with the scientific consensus.

“So far the New Zealand government has shirked its responsibilities, set unambitious and irrational targets, and justified it all by saying we’re too small to make a difference,” she says.

“Climate change is a global issue affecting us here and now, and we all have a responsibility to act. Every year we’re experiencing more extreme weather events, including cyclones, droughts and floods, which are leaving entire communities devastated.

“I’m young and I’m terrified of a time when I might have to look my kids in the eye and explain to them how we let this happen.”

Inspired by global litigation
Thomson decided to launch the lawsuit after being inspired by global climate change litigation, including the 900 Dutch citizens who filed a case against the Dutch government, and a US case where 21 kids are taking on the Federal government and fossil fuel companies.

The litigation is the first of its kind in New Zealand and will be heard over the course of three days, starting from today, in the Wellington High Court. The outcome of the case is not likely to be known for several months.

Greenpeace New Zealand has helped organise a public mobilisation in support of Thomson, which is taking place this morning on the steps of the court.

The case has the backing of several world-renowned climate change experts, including the “father of climate change awareness”, former NASA researcher, James Hansen, who is a witness for the case.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) author Dr James Renwick will also be giving evidence.

One of the targets under review is New Zealand’s Paris Agreement commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 11 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The lawsuit will ask the Minister for Climate Change Issues, currently Paula Bennett, to justify the way in which this target was set.

In her preliminary statement of defence, Bennett has denied that the New Zealand government needs to set a target that strengthens the global response to climate change to hold warming to “well below” 2C, with an aim of 1.5C, as stipulated by the Paris Agreement.

Lawyer Dennis van Berkel, who successfully argued the Dutch climate litigation case in 2015 setting a global precedent, said he would be watching what happens in New Zealand with keen interest.

“The Dutch case proves that all governments have a legal duty to protect their citizens against climate change by doing their part to lower emissions,” he said.

“Given the notoriously inadequate climate policies of New Zealand, this case may lead to the same conclusion. Global climate change litigation is growing, and all eyes are now on this hearing in this very important case.”

New Zealand has the second-highest level of emissions per GDP unit in the OECD and the fifth-highest emissions per capita.

A recent Greenhouse Gas Inventory report confirmed that as of 2015, net emissions have increased by 63.6 percent since 1990.

The New Zealand climate case is one of the many people-powered legal actions taking place around the world related to climate change.

These include actions initiated by frontline communities in the Philippines, senior women in Switzerland, indigenous peoples in Canada, farmers from Peru and Pakistan, youth in Norway, Pakistan, Uganda, and the United States, and individuals and NGOs in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

In each of these cases, people are using the power of the law because governments and fossil fuel companies are failing to protect and to respect human rights to a safe, stable climate and healthy environment.

• Sarah Thomson’s twitter updates

Greenpeace Indonesia has staged a protest in front of the US embassy in Jakarta over the decision of President Donald Trump withdrawing from the Paris Agreement on climate change.

“President Trump looks likely to turn away from the impact of climate change with millions of people falling victim of natural disasters such as flooding, drought and extreme weather which have hit many countries including Indonesia,” climate and energy spokesman of Greenpeace Indonesia Didit Haryo said.

The protest was carried out on Wednesday.

Didit said the United States was the second largest contributor to gas emissions after China, adding industries in United States were even the largest emitters from the 1850s or the era of Industrial Revolution until 2010.

The United States would play a serious role hampering the global efforts to check rising global heat, he said, adding the policy of Trump reflected not what happened in US cities.

“The steps taken by Trump would not halt serious commitments by world leaders. Now it is important to implement the commitments especially in energy sector,” he said.

Indonesia also has pledged to maintain its commitment.

However, expansion had continued in coal mining and use that would make it difficult for the Indonesia government to fully implement its commitment to Paris agreement, he said.

China has proved its transitional commitment by building solar power plants with a capacity of 43,000 megawatt (MW) until 2016 and cancelled plan to build 104 coal fired power plants with a total capacity of 120,000 MW.

“There should be no debate over the capability of renewable energy to meet our requirement. What is important is political will of the government,” he added.

Today is a special day. On June 5 every year there is a concerted effort to promote awareness on the importance of our environment, issues that affect it and hopefully things we can identify to help us tackle major concerns.

It is a day when we acknowledge our biodiversity and how we can live and maintain our environment.

This day was first celebrated in 1973 and has become a very important day in the calendar of many countries around the world.

For Fiji, this year is extra special considering our presidency of COP23.

Today is about appreciating and tackling many environmental challenges ranging from climate change, global warming, and related issues like disasters, harmful substances, ecosystem management and resource efficiency.

It includes environmental governance.

Ideally World Environment Day should be every day.

Awareness campaigns
It should include awareness campaigns, organised clean-ups and many other community events that promote this special day.

It would be good to see the message of protection of our environment spread as widely as possible to every corner of the globe.

At home, we hope there is acknowledgement that we can all do with an improvement in the quality of our lives, and at the same time being mindful of the need to protect nature.

But as much as we will want to promote a good life for ourselves and our future generations, it is important that we each accept the need to embrace the campaign as individuals first. The onus is on each one of us to make a change in many aspects of our lives.

We do take a lot of things for granted and forget there are things that we do that negatively affect our environment.

The theme for this year’s World Environment Day is ‘Connecting People to Nature’.

United Nations secretary general Antonio Guterres urged people of the world to understand the role we have to play to protect our only home.

‘Oceans. Lands. Forests …’
In his message for the special day, he said, “Oceans. Land. Forests. Water. The air that we breathe. This is our environment.”

“It is the keystone of a sustainable future,” he said.

“Without a healthy environment we cannot end poverty or build prosperity.

“We can use less plastics.

“Drive less. Waste less food. And teach each other to care.

He urged people to reconnect with nature.

“Let us cherish the planet that protects us.”

The Fiji Times will endeavour to play its part in the dissemination of relevant news for people to make well-informed decisions in their lives.

Today, let us understand that we can make or break our environment. It is important that we take ownership of our country and make important changes in our lives today.

Fred Wesley is The Fiji Times editor-in-chief. His editorial today marking World Environment Day looks ahead to Fiji co-hosting COP23 in Bonn, Germany, in November.

The social aspects of climate change must be considered in efforts to protect the environment, says Guam’s coadjutor archbishop.

Archbishop Michael Byrnes was on a climate change panel for the University of Guam’s eighth Island Sustainability Conference.

Aside from his position with the church, Byrnes has a science background, with a bachelor’s degree in microbiology.

He was joined by Kate Brown, executive director of Global Islands Partnership; David Helweg, director of Pacific Islands Climate Science Center and Xavier Matsutaro, national climate change coordinator of Palau.

“Climate not only changes the community. The community changes climate,” Byrnes said. He referenced Pope Francis’ letter on “integral ecology,” which is the idea of preserving the nature of the world to protect those most vulnerable.

Byrnes said that for people who followed the Bible’s teachings, there was a moral responsibility to treat the Earth well.

Disregarding the nature of the Earth was a misunderstanding of God’s intentions, he said.

Efforts of many
It took the effort of many to make aware the impact of climate change, Brown said.

Brown was the keynote speaker for last Thursday’s conference. In her speech, she shared how sustainable actions were being implemented in the Pacific islands.

UOG President Robert Underwood asked the panel how they responded to people who did not believe in climate change, despite years of scientific research.

Helweg said one reason climate change was not being accepted was because of poor translation of the scientific research. A deeper connection needed to be made with those people to help them understand, he said.

“We need to go out into the community, in the villages and work with them to find out what they value highly,” Helweg said.

That way, information about climate change could be transformed to relate to their needs, he said.

Matsutaro said an economic factor sometimes played a role in people oblivious to the impact of climate change. The coal industry, for example, could harm the environment but it was also a necessary industry for revenue in some areas.

“If you know that you are extracting resources and you know that that resource is causing environmental problems, at some point you’re going to have to shift that behavior,” Matsutaro said.

Everybody wants to live in a clean environment. Parents would want their children to be in a healthy environment, he said.

John I. Borja is a Pacific Daily News reporter.  

Report by Kendall Hutt and video by Julie Cleaver in Suva

The commitment of more than 190 nations to reducing global emissions will continue to be addressed following a special climate change report which seeks to advise how countries can further cut emissions.

Dr Morgan Wairiu, an expert in food security and climate change with the University of the South Pacific’s Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development (PaCE-SD), says the report will enable countries to further their efforts in keeping the global average temperature below 1.5°C.

“This is an assessment report, looking at all the work that has been done, research into the global average temperature 1.5°C, and see whether this is feasible, whether we can achieve that as agreed under the Paris Agreement.”

Dr Wairiu, a Solomon Islander who is one of only two Pacific Islanders working on the report, said that if current aggregate emissions reductions by countries under their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) would see the global average temperature on track for 2.7°C, which would have real-world effects on Pacific Island countries that were on the frontline of climate change.

“For Pacific Island countries, because of our vulnerable ecosystems, we can manage up to 1.5°C, but beyond that we’re going to start losing our ecosystems and livelihood, our resources, and then the survival of our people.”

Commissioned by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) following the Paris Agreement in late December 2015, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 1.5°C report seeks to avoid such negative outcomes.

Dr Wairiu said this was because data collected by the 86 authors of the IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C would allow countries to “take stock” of their current emissions targets.

When this report is released in 2018, it will help countries decide on how to cut back emissions.

Reduction pledges
By 2025, the US has pledged to reduce emissions from 26 percent to 28 percent relative to 2005 levels.

China, on the other hand, says it will lower its emissions by 60 to 65 percent, but only after reaching maximum carbon emissions by 2030.

The European Union, meanwhile, aims to cut back emissions by at least 40 percent relative to 1990 levels.

The issue noted by many observers is that these intended targets put forward by nations prior to the Paris Agreement are up to each individual country to implement and force.

If these are not honoured or increased, scientists have warned the world will surpass the threshold in which global warming is reversible. The results of which will be catastrophic, observers believe.

Heat waves are predicted to last a third longer, rain storms would be about a third more intense, sea level will continue to rise, and tropical reefs would continue to degrade, a study by the European Geosciences Union revealed in 2016.

Loss of more atolls
The implications for human life of a warmer planet mean already vulnerable communities who live close to sources of water will face more flooding and drought.

For the Pacific, this means the loss of more atolls to sea level rise, salt water intrusion to fresh water supplies and staple crops, and the forced migration of Pacific Islanders.

“Some countries will disappear from the face of the world,” Dr Wairiu said.

He said a 1.5°C global average temperature was the threshold in which Pacific Islands would be able to survive, therefore. Beyond that, the future was relatively unknown.

The report is important for the Pacific, Dr Wairiu acknowledges.

“It’s very important because this is a call from Pacific Island countries. You know, they formed this coalition around the legal setting of 1.5°C during the Paris COP meeting, which is part of the Paris Agreement.

“This particular report will inform Pacific Island countries whether achieving 1.5°C is feasible or not. We’ll still be making very important decisions based on this report.”

Julie Cleaver and Kendall Hutt are in Fiji for the Bearing Witness project. A collaborative venture between the University of the South Pacific’s journalism programme, the Pacific Centre for the Environment and Sustainable Development (PaCE-SD), the Auckland University of Technology’s Pacific Media Centre and documentary collective Te Ara Motuhenga, Bearing Witness seeks to provide an alternative framing of climate change, focusing on resilience and human rights.

• UNFCCC climate newsroom

Getting climate change under control is a formidable, multifaceted challenge. Analysis by my colleagues and me suggests that staying within safe warming levels now requires removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The technology to do this is in its infancy and will take years, even decades, to develop, but our analysis suggests that this must be a priority. If pushed, operational large-scale systems should be available by 2050.

We created a simple climate model and looked at the implications of different levels of carbon in the ocean and the atmosphere. This lets us make projections about greenhouse warming, and see what we need to do to limit global warming to within 1.5℃ of pre-industrial temperatures – one of the ambitions of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

To put the problem in perspective, here are some of the key numbers.

Humans have emitted 1,540 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide gas since the industrial revolution. To put it another way, that’s equivalent to burning enough coal to form a square tower 22 metres wide that reaches from Earth to the Moon.

Half of these emissions have remained in the atmosphere, causing a rise of CO₂ levels that is at least 10 times faster than any known natural increase during Earth’s long history. Most of the other half has dissolved into the ocean, causing acidification with its own detrimental impacts.

Although nature does remove CO₂, for example through growth and burial of plants and algae, we emit it at least 100 times faster than it’s eliminated. We can’t rely on natural mechanisms to handle this problem: people will need to help as well.

What’s the goal?
The Paris climate agreement aims to limit global warming to well below 2℃, and ideally no higher than 1.5℃. (Others say that 1℃ is what we should be really aiming for, although the world is already reaching and breaching this milestone.)

In our research, we considered 1℃ a better safe warming limit because any more would take us into the territory of the Eemian period, 125,000 years ago. For natural reasons, during this era the Earth warmed by a little more than 1℃.

Looking back, we can see the catastrophic consequences of global temperatures staying this high over an extended period.

Sea levels during the Eemian period were up to 10m higher than present levels. Today, the zone within 10m of sea level is home to 10 percent of the world’s population, and even a 2m sea-level rise today would displace almost 200 million people.

Clearly, pushing towards an Eemian-like climate is not safe. In fact, with 2016 having been 1.2℃ warmer than the pre-industrial average, and extra warming locked in thanks to heat storage in the oceans, we may already have crossed the 1℃ average threshold.

To keep warming below the 1.5℃ goal of the Paris agreement, it’s vital that we remove CO₂ from the atmosphere as well as limiting the amount we put in.

So how much CO₂ do we need to remove to prevent global disaster?
Are you a pessimist or an optimist?

Two rough scenarios
Currently, humanity’s net emissions amount to roughly 37 gigatonnes of CO₂ per year, which represents 10 gigatonnes of carbon burned (a gigatonne is a billion tonnes). We need to reduce this drastically. But even with strong emissions reductions, enough carbon will remain in the atmosphere to cause unsafe warming.

Using these facts, we identified two rough scenarios for the future.

The first scenario is pessimistic. It has CO₂ emissions remaining stable after 2020. To keep warming within safe limits, we then need to remove almost 700 gigatonnes of carbon from the atmosphere and ocean, which freely exchange CO₂. To start, reforestation and improved land use can lock up to 100 gigatonnes away into trees and soils. This leaves a further 600 gigatonnes to be extracted via technological means by 2100.

Technological extraction currently costs at least US$150 per tonne. At this price, over the rest of the century, the cost would add up to US$90 trillion. This is similar in scale to current global military spending, which – if it holds steady at around US$1.6 trillion a year – will add up to roughly US$132 trillion over the same period.

The second scenario is optimistic. It assumes that we reduce emissions by 6 percent each year starting in 2020. We then still need to remove about 150 gigatonnes of carbon.

As before, reforestation and improved land use can account for 100 gigatonnes, leaving 50 gigatonnes to be technologically extracted by 2100. The cost for that would be US$7.5 trillion by 2100 – only 6 percent of the global military spend.

Of course, these numbers are a rough guide. But they do illustrate the crossroads at which we find ourselves.

The job to be done
Right now is the time to choose: without action, we’ll be locked into the pessimistic scenario within a decade. Nothing can justify burdening future generations with this enormous cost.

For success in either scenario, we need to do more than develop new technology. We also need new international legal, policy, and ethical frameworks to deal with its widespread use, including the inevitable environmental impacts.

Releasing large amounts of iron or mineral dust into the oceans could remove CO₂ by changing environmental chemistry and ecology. But doing so requires revision of international legal structures that currently forbid such activities.

Similarly, certain minerals can help remove CO₂ by increasing the weathering of rocks and enriching soils. But large-scale mining for such minerals will impact on landscapes and communities, which also requires legal and regulatory revisions.

And finally, direct CO₂ capture from the air relies on industrial-scale installations, with their own environmental and social repercussions.

Without new legal, policy, and ethical frameworks, no significant advances will be possible, no matter how great the technological developments. Progressive nations may forge ahead toward delivering the combined package.

The costs of this are high. But countries that take the lead stand to gain technology, jobs, energy independence, better health, and international gravitas.

Dr Eelco Rohling is Professor of Ocean and Climate Change at the Australian National University. Disclosure statement: He receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the UK Natural Environment Research Council. He is also affiliated with the University of Southampton, UK. This article was first published by The Conversation and is republished by Asia Pacific Report under a Creative Commons licence.

Donald Trump is so spectacularly horrible that it’s hard to look away – especially now that he’s discovered bombs. But precisely because everyone’s staring gape-mouthed in his direction, other world leaders are able to get away with almost anything.

Don’t believe me? Look one country north, at Justin Trudeau.

Look all you want, in fact – he sure is cute, the planet’s only sovereign leader who appears to have recently quit a boy band. And he’s mastered so beautifully the politics of inclusion: compassionate to immigrants, insistent on including women at every level of government. Give him great credit where it’s deserved: in lots of ways he’s the anti-Trump, and it’s no wonder Canadians swooned when he took over.

But when it comes to the defining issue of our day, climate change, he’s a brother to the old orange guy in Washington.

Not rhetorically: Trudeau says all the right things, over and over. He’s got no Scott Pruitts in his cabinet: everyone who works for him says the right things. Indeed, they specialise in getting others to say them too – it was Canadian diplomats, and the country’s environment minister, Catherine McKenna, who pushed at the Paris climate talks for a tougher-than-expected goal: holding the planet’s rise in temperature to 1.5C (2.7F).

But those words are meaningless if you keep digging up more carbon and selling it to people to burn, and that’s exactly what Trudeau is doing. He’s hard at work pushing for new pipelines through Canada and the US to carry yet more oil out of Alberta’s tar sands, which is one of the greatest climate disasters on the planet.

Last month, speaking at a Houston petroleum industry gathering, he got a standing ovation from the oilmen for saying: “No country would find 173bn barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there.”

Recoverable oil estimate
Yes, 173bn barrels is indeed the estimate for recoverable oil in the tar sands. So let’s do some math. If Canada digs up that oil and sells it to people to burn, it will produce, according to the math whizzes at Oil Change International, 30 percent of the carbon necessary to take us past the 1.5C target that Canada helped set in Paris.

That is to say, Canada, which represents one half of 1 percent of the planet’s population, is claiming the right to sell the oil that will use up a third of the earth’s remaining carbon budget. Trump is a creep and a danger and unpleasant to look at, but at least he’s not a stunning hypocrite.

This having-your-cake-and-burning-it-too is central to Canada’s self-image/energy policy. McKenna, confronted by Canada’s veteran environmentalist David Suzuki, said tartly: “We have an incredible climate change plan that includes putting a price on carbon pollution, also investing in clean innovation.

“But we also know we need to get our natural resources to market and we’re doing both.” Right.

But doing the second negates the first – in fact, it completely overwhelms it. If Canada is busy shipping carbon all over the world, it wouldn’t matter all that much if every Tim Horton’s stopped selling doughnuts and started peddling solar panels instead.

Canada’s got company in this scam. Australia’s Malcolm Turnbull is supposed to be more sensitive than his predecessor, a Trump-like blowhard.

When he signed on his nation to the Paris climate accords, he said: “It is clear the agreement was a watershed, a turning point and the adoption of a comprehensive strategy has galvanised the international community and spurred on global action.”

Which is a fine thing to say – or would be, if your government wasn’t backing plans for the largest coal mine on Earth.

Mathematically and morally absurd
That single mine, in a country of 24 million people, will produce 362 percent of the annual carbon emissions that everyone in the Philippines produces in the course of a year.

It is obviously, mathematically and morally absurd.

Trump, of course, is working just as eagerly to please the fossil fuel industry – he’s instructed the Bureau of Land Management to make permitting even easier for new oil and gas projects, for instance. And frackers won’t even have to keep track of how much methane they’re spewing under his new guidelines.

And why should they? If you believe, as Trump apparently does, that global warming is a delusion, a hoax, a mirage, you might as well get out of the way.

Trump’s insulting the planet, in other words. But at least he’s not pretending otherwise.

The University of Auckland, Unitec and Auckland University of Technology were closed by late morning because of the predicted extreme weather.

Media said the University of Auckland had made the decision “to ensure the safety of our staff and students in light of current information”.

But the worst of the storm is expected to be over by Good Friday morning tomorrow.

Two of AUT’s Pacific Media Centre students, Pacific Media Watch editor Kendall Hutt and Debate acting editor Julie Cleaver, will leave on Easter Sunday for the second year of the Bearing Witness project.

The graduate student journalists will be based at the University of the South Pacific.

“This is a tremendous experiential opportunity for our students to explore stories related to climate change and Pacific islands resilience,” said centre director Professor David Robie.

“It is a critically important year too for the Pacific with Fiji and Germany co-hosting COP23 talks on climate change in November.”

Partners on the project include Te Ara Motuhenga (documentary collective at AUT), the Pacific Centre for the Environment and Sustainable Development (PaCE-SD) and the Regional Pacific Journalism Programme – both at the University of the South Pacific.

• Bearing Witness stories
• Bearing Witness project profile
• ‘Bula Spirit’ for COP23

United Nations Conference of Parties 23 (COP 23) climate change talks take place in Bonn, Germany, in November, but this will not prevent Fiji from bringing the plight of the Pacific to the world stage.

Elenoa Turagaiviu of FBC TV reports Germany’s assistance ahead of the talks “has been great” and is further “enhanced” following a series of meetings in Fiji.

The assistance means COP23 will also have a Pacific flavour.

“The German government has said that it wants this to be a Fijian COP and has offered to pay for the branding of the event, the Fijian performers and the cultural items and artefacts that we will take to Bonn to infuse COP23 with the ‘Bula Spirit’,” said Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama in Suva this week.

German State Secretary for the Environment Jochen Flasbarth said Germany would continue to support Fiji as it prepared to chair the climate change talks.

“The German Prime Minister will always stand by those affected by climate change as a partner and we are really delighted to be cooperating with Fiji on the upcoming COP23. We can already see now that Fiji will be a very strong leader for the world.”

Germany and Fiji’s investment in raising awareness of climate change in the Pacific also takes on a symbolic representation.

The Fiji Times’ Nasik Swami reports part of Flasbarth and Bainimarama’s talks included the launch of the COP23 logo.

The logo, selected following a competition in February, was designed by former Filipino national and now Fijian citizen Maria Sekiguchi of Suva’s Greenhouse Studios. It features a partly-submerged island with a huge wave bearing down on it.

Bainimarama said the wave represented a cyclone with an eye in the middle, symbolising the wrath of Tropical Cyclone Winston and the devastation it caused throughout Fiji in early 2016.

Sekiguchi said the widespread damage caused by Winston was the inspiration that led her to design the winning logo.

The logo also captured the vulnerability to climate change of small island developing states such as Fiji, Bainimarama said.

Set to be seen by billions of people around the world in November, Bainimarama added that the logo was something every Fijian should be proud of.

Since 2012, more than half a million square kilometers of land and sea have been proposed for release, imposing on people’s properties.

It will also encroach on the Marine Mammal Sanctuary for the critically endangered Maui’s dolphin.

“Today’s blockade intends to disrupt the Petroleum Summit by using non-violent direct action,”  says “People’s Climate Rally” spokesperson Emily Tuhi-Ao Bailey

“Not a single new oil well, gas field or coal mine can operate if we are going to avoid a climate catastrophe, yet year after year the government and oil industry keep meeting to find ways to expand the industry.”

The People’s Climate Rally was organised by a coalition of groups from Taranaki and around New Zealand in order to disrupt the conference and discuss clean and fair alternatives to the fossil fuel industry.

It is the first time the government and international oil delegates have held the oil conference in Taranaki.

Escalating protests
This move comes after years of escalating protests in Wellington and Auckland, which have seen thousands take to the streets and hundreds blockade the Sky City conference venue in Auckland.

“We demand a stop to all new oil and gas exploration, drilling and fracking,” said Bailey.

“The extraction and burning of fossil fuels is radically changing our climate, wreaking havoc on our critical infrastructure, agriculture, tourism, human health and food security. It is time to stop.

“Non violent direct action has a long and revered history. Social justice change has always involved people coming together, organising and put their bodies on the line to stand in the way of injustice.

“It is especially important that this is happening in Taranaki. Taranaki has long, bitter experience with the environmental, health and personal impacts from oil and gas activities including drilling, flaring and fracking.

“For many Māori this is seen as a continuation of colonisation.”

• Climate change protest in Auckland
• Pacific nations on carbon collision course

By Abishek Chand in Suva

Student journalists of the University of the South Pacific have been reminded about the threat of climate change and the need to report the issue accurately and consistently.

The comments were made by communications officer for the university’s Pacific Centre for the Environment and Sustainable Development (PaCE-SD) Sarika Chand at the latest Wansolwara Toks on environment reporting.

Chand said scientific research had established beyond any reasonable doubt that climate change was real.

Chand, a USP journalism graduate, said that in general Pacific Island journalists were more accepting of the facts regarding climate change — unlike some of their Western counterparts who were more sceptical in the past.

She said this was possibly because the effects of climate change were felt more acutely in the Pacific region.

The regional media was more advanced in its reportage in this area, especially when reporting on the impacts of climate change in the Pacific, she said.

Countries like the United States had a long history of denying climate change and elements of this were reflected in how the US media framed the issue, she said.

Many impacts
Chand outlined that climate change impacted on the region in many ways, such as food security, health, ecosystem, water, culture, language and identity, together with extreme weather events.

She stressed the need to keep up to date with news sources as research on climate change was frequently updated.

She said that not enough reporting was being done on the health sector.

Culture, language and identity were other aspects that should be covered more often by the media, she stated.

PaCE-SD was actively researching climate change and offering postgraduate studies on the subject. With the courses that the centre had on offer, a pool of local scientists with a deeper understanding of the region was growing.

Many students who had graduated from the PaCE-SD programmes were well placed in the climate change sector in the region, and had already started making contributions to research and scholarship in the Pacific.

A final year USP journalism student from Tonga, Linda Filiai, said the forum was very interesting and educational.

“The media should  highlight the impacts to ensure Pacific islanders are more aware and also to get the attention of leading countries to address the problem,” she said.

Abishek Chand is a Wansolwara student journalist.

• Wansolwara Toks is a public forum organised by USP Journalism to broaden student exposure to experts, deepen their knowledge on major public interest issues at stake, and build their contacts.
  
• AUT’s Pacific Media Centre Bearing Witness climate change project

Uniquely vulnerable to the impacts of a warming world, Pacific island countries have long been considered the front-line of climate change, so it’s not surprising that they are also leading the fight to tackle the problem.

These tiny nations have vowed to challenge major polluters to cut emissions and, this year, they have coal exports from their biggest neighbour firmly in their sights.

For the first time, a Pacific island country is head of global negotiations aiming to limit “dangerous interference” with the Earth’s climate system. Fiji, which last week marked the first anniversary of the devastation caused by the strongest cyclone ever recorded in the southern hemisphere, has vowed to use its presidency of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to make the world sit up and take notice.

This must be a matter of concern in Australia’s capital, Canberra; Fiji’s Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama is an outspoken critic of his neighbour’s climate policy.

He has labelled Australia a prominent member of the “coalition of the selfish” – a group of industrialised nations that put the welfare of their carbon-polluting industries before the environment, and even the survival of Pacific island countries.

It’s difficult to deny that Bainimarama has a point. Australia is one of the wealthiest nations on earth, and the world’s largest coal exporter. The country has doubled exports of coal – the dirtiest of fossil fuels – over the past decade.

Far from scaling back on coal as part of global efforts to reduce emissions, Australia is currently planning public subsidies for new coal mines and considering financing new coal-fired power plants.

A diplomatic challenge
Abroad, Australian diplomats are tasked with improving coal’s reputation. Late last year, for example, they lobbied the newly established Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to ensure multilateral finance would be directed toward so-called “clean coal” power plants in the region.

Australia’s aggressive promotion of coal has angered Pacific island governments, which have repeatedly called for a global moratorium on the development of new coal mines.

In October 2015, Bainimarama issued a special plea for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to “impose a moratorium on the development of further reserves of Australian coal.”

Australia’s continued promotion of coal is also firmly at odds with the 2015 Paris Agreement, which aims to limit global warming to well below 2°C above the pre-industrial average. To have a reasonable chance of achieving that goal, there is little doubt the vast majority of the world’s coal reserves must stay in the ground.

Wary that Fiji and other Pacific island countries will again target Australia at the COP23 climate negotiations in December 2017, Australian Ambassador for the Environment Patrick Suckling was dispatched to island capitals in February 2017 to promote Australia’s climate change “credentials”.

Having been set the task of promoting carbon emissions to people on low-lying atolls – surely the 21st century equivalent of selling ice to Eskimos – Ambassador Suckling visited Tuvalu, Samoa and Fiji to explain that “clean coal” would be part of the world’s energy mix for decades.

Perhaps it is not surprising that he was happy to promote the benefits of coal; in his previous role as ambassador to India, Suckling encouraged the Indian firm Adani to invest in a new coal mine in the Australian state of Queensland.

In July 2014, he described the proposed Carmichael mine — which, if completed, will be the largest coal mine in the southern hemisphere — as an “outstanding project”.

Suckling’s island tour, and his support for coal, sparked outrage from Pacific island civil society and church groups, who penned an open letter to the ambassador calling on the Australian government to do more to reduce emissions.

Wolves and sheep
While in Fiji, Ambassador Suckling suggested Australia would work closely with the country to ensure the 2017 global climate negotiations would be a success. He also made much of Australia’s role as co-chair of the UN’s Green Climate Fund, suggesting new finance would help Pacific communities build resilience to a changing climate.

This year, Australia co-chairs the Green Climate Fund with another nation that has the dubious honour of being a leading exporter of carbon: Saudi Arabia. By 2020, Australia is expected become the world’s largest exporter of both coal and natural gas.

When that happens, Australia’s total carbon exports look set to exceed that of Saudi Arabia – the world’s largest oil exporter.

Pacific island states are no doubt wary of wolves in sheep’s clothing. They are well aware that both Australia and Saudi Arabia have a history of dragging their feet on global efforts to reduce carbon emissions. In the lead up to negotiations for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, for example, Australia was isolated with Saudi Arabia (and other OPEC members) and Russia as the minority of laggard states.

The ‘Australia clause’
At the climate negotiations that followed, the country insisted on special exemptions – subsequently known as “the Australia clause” – that allowed it to meet international commitments even while domestic emissions from burning fossil fuels increased. Concerned with safeguarding its oil exports, Saudi Arabia has long been accused of outright obstruction in climate negotiations.

Pacific island governments are familiar with Australia’s repeated attempts to weaken their position at UN climate negotiations. Indeed, at each major milestone in the global talks, Australia has exercised an effective veto power at the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) – the region’s premier annual political meeting – to water down positions put forward by its small, impoverished neighbours.

In 1997, for example, island leaders wanted to issue a declaration calling for a global agreement that included legally binding commitments to reduce emissions. But they were “bullied into submission” by then Australian prime minister John Howard, who secured a toned-down declaration.

In the lead-up to negotiations for the 2015 Paris Agreement, Australian officials again worked hard to ensure the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ statement accommodated Australia’s position in the global talks.

Most pointedly, the 2015 Forum leaders’ declaration on Climate Change Action failed to repeat earlier calls by Pacific island leaders for a global agreement to limit warming to below 1.5°C above the pre-industrial average.

Pacific island states insist that warming beyond this 1.5 degrees threshold would threaten the very survival of low-lying states in the region, such as Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands.

A vital role
Fiji has vowed to use its UNFCCC presidency to maintain the momentum that was established by the 2015 Paris Agreement. Widely seen as a diplomatic breakthrough, that agreement represents a shared political commitment to reducing carbon emissions.

But global climate talks now stand at an important crossroads. Officials are still finalising the rule book to accompany the agreement, even as the first global stocktake of pledges made under it is planned for next year.

It is crucial that ambitious and transparent pledges are made. Polluting nations must reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly, before catastrophic rates of warming are locked in.

Pacific island countries have a special role to play in convincing the international community to start the needed shift to a zero emissions global economy. With the world’s eyes on them at COP23, which is already being labelled the “Pacific COP”, island leaders have the opportunity to highlight what must be done to give low-lying Pacific countries a fighting chance at a future.

But first they must continue to shine the spotlight on their recalcitrant neighbour, and take care to avoid being muzzled by Australia’s “climate diplomacy”.

Dr Wesley Morgan is a lecturer in politics and international affairs at the University of the South Pacific. This article is republished from The Conversation with the author’s permission and under a Creative Commons 4.0 licence.

By Pasifik/Pacnews

Fijian Prime Minister and incoming COP23 president Voreqe Bainimarama says he intends to use his position to reach out to US President Donald Trump to find common ground and move the global agenda forward on Climate Change.

“It is no secret that the United States federal administration under President Trump appears to be less enthusiastic about the Paris Agreement,” Bainimarama told the Fiji Parliament this week.

He said during their meeting with United Nations top climate change administrator Patricia Espinosa last week in Suva, both agreed that the world cannot afford to drop the ball at this critical stage.

“More than 120 countries have so far ratified the Paris Agreement, pledging their commitment to address the issues of climate change and to also reduce their carbon emissions so that we can keep the global temperature as close as possible to one-point-five degrees above that of the pre-industrial age,” Bainimarama said.

“But as you all know, there are worrying signs that the momentum for decisive action may be slowing.”

“As incoming COP president, I also intend to work closely with some of the big players such as China, India, the European Union, Japan, Canada, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Australia, New Zealand and others to keep the momentum rolling.

“And, of course, to work closely with our Pacific Island neighbours, international NGOs, civil society and the private sector.

‘Representing the world’
“My brief as incoming COP president is to represent the interests of the entire world. To be impartial and achieve consensus between all parties on the best way forward.

“But it is only natural that as Fijians we have a special interest in the needs of Small Island Developing States in our own region and beyond.”

Bainimarama said in the lead-up to the main COP gathering in Bonn in November, Fiji intends to hold a “Climate Champions” meeting in Suva.

“And bring Pacific leaders, NGOs, civil societies and representatives of the private sector together to discuss a common agenda for COP.

“And then in October, a month before Bonn, we will host a pre-COP gathering in Denarau of many of the major players to hone our approach to the main event itself.

“As the year progresses, we will be making a special effort to engage the Fijian people – and especially our young people and our artists – in the COP process. And that engagement has already begun, with the advertisement on Saturday calling for ideas for the COP logo.

“We are putting together a dedicated Fiji Secretariat to make preparations here in Fiji and to liaise with the UN Climate Change Secretariat in Bonn.

Team effort
“Our UN friends have stressed that this is a team effort in which Fiji will work closely with them and the German Government to make COP 23 an unqualified success. And we have hired the same expert team of consultants that assisted Morocco with its successful hosting of COP22.

“As to meeting the cost of our commitment, we have already begun the task of raising the necessary funds in the form of donations from an array of nations and foundations.

“These funds will be deposited into a trust fund here in Fiji that we are establishing with an Act of Parliament. The Bill setting up the fund will be tabled this week,” Bainimarama told Parliament.

• COP23 climate action

The chair of the PIF and President of the Federated States of Micronesia, Peter Christian, said limiting the temperature goal is critical to safeguard the wellbeing and existence of people in the Pacific.

“This is something the Forum is pushing very hard for because together the current, intended nationally determined contributions still fall considerably short of even reaching the ‘well below 2 degrees’ goal that was agreed to in Paris.”

‘Rapid response’

However, Christian praised the political will of the countries that prioritised their ratification of the Paris Agreement last week. This has enabled the Agreement to come into force from November 4, 2016.

“The Pacific called for a rapid response from the world to address the issues stemming from climate change, and we are very happy to see these first important steps being completed.

“While there is still a lot of work to be done, to see the global community rise to this challenge in this way gives us great hope.”

Next steps

President Christian said that from here the next steps were to ensure that the first meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement and the 22nd Conference of the Parties (COP22) in Marrakech in November, produces increased commitment for climate change action and resilience.

• Oxfam New Zealand has released two petitions this month demanding the New Zealand Government to improve its climate funds to better support the Pacific adapt to climate change and to ensure effective strategies are put into place to reduce emissions:
• Demand real climate action from our government 
• Cash to Adapt: Support our Pacific neighbors adapt to the impacts of climate change

The Solar Nation of Tokelau, directed by Ulli Weissbach, puts the idyllic New Zealand dependency of Tokelau in the Pacific in the spotlight as the first territory to be free of CO2 emissions.

Through the documentary, locals on the dependency, comprising three remote atolls, are able to share with the world how solar-powered energy has provided power to every household, making life easier and creating better education opportunities.

Above all, Tokelau shows how some of the smallest countries are effectively fighting against the global threat of climate change.

Positive praise
The documentary received positive praise from members of the Tokelau community living in New Zealand.

Lotu Foua, who moved from Tokelau to New Zealand in 1994, said she attended the premiere because she did not know much about the solar panels on the island.

“I’m proud of Tokelau, for a tiny island like that to be first in the world [to be CO2 emission free] it makes me think about going back and starting another life there,” she said.

Although it has been 22 years since she has been back home to Tokelau, Foua said the solar panels have made it easier for her to connect with family back home.

“Communication is a lot easier now but it was bit hard in those days. I remember wanting to talk to mum and dad and I couldn’t get through but now I can just reach them easily.”

Staying in touch with family is vital when considering it takes a plane ride to Samoa and then a 20-plus hour boat journey to reach Tokelau’s three atolls.

Tokelau community member, Takua Iona, who was also at the premiere, said seeing the effects of climate change on her home atolls was “saddening” and it hurt to see how it affected the “old ways and life of Tokelau”.

“I just wish all of the Tokelauans that are here [New Zealand] can see the changes.

“I had no idea what the solar panels were like, but now seeing this documentary I understand how it is helping the Tokelauan people.”

Way of life
Director Ulli Weissbach referred to the documentary as a “mixed bag of issues” saying it grew from being just about a “solar revolution” to weaving in the challenges and beauty of “the way of life in the Pacific”.

The spirit of Pacific people as ocean navigators, their value of community and culture are all captured through personal stories and experiences in this documentary.

“It’s a way of life that you don’t see in the touristy parts of the Pacific Islands. [I wanted to] show people how it was and also how hospitable people are in the islands and how joyful they are, seeing all their sunny faces.

“I would like to thank the Tokelau people for their hospitality. They really made us feel at home and actually shared their homes with us.

“They really supported us a lot and made a lot of things possible.”

The premiere was organised by Devonport Rotary Club and supported by the New Zealand German Business Association (German Trade Office), the German Embassy and the Goethe Institute in Wellington.

The documentary has been made available for viewing online.

Pacific Islands Development Forum Secretary-General Francois Martel says he is extremely concerned at the low level of ratification of the Paris Agreement to date, with only 22 countries and 1.0 percent of emissions.

“The report confirms our worst fears that time is not on our side and that projections on climate impacts were very much underestimated,” he said.

“This is why Pacific leaders need to remain vigilant and champion the ratification and implementation of the Paris Agreement globally.”

The State of the Climate 2015 report released online by the American Meteorological Society also disclosed how important it is for Pacific leaders to continue their advocacy for climate action at COP22 and beyond.

Martel added that Pacific nations together represented nearly one-fifth of the planet and this would send a strong message to the rest of the world if such a treaty could be agreed upon and ratified by the most vulnerable nations on Earth.

“Pacific leaders did it before to pledge allegiance against nuclear arms so we should now look at fossil fuels in the same light.

“This report for the Pacific reminds us of the urgency and confirms that climate induced impacts will destroy our nations. The Pacific Islands should continue to be at the forefront of that battle,” he said.

‘Broke records’
The report also confirmed that 2015 surpassed 2014 as the warmest year since the mid-to-late 19th century.

Climate indicators in the report show patterns, changes, and trends of the global climate system, several markers such as land and ocean temperatures, sea levels and greenhouse gases broke records set just one year prior.

Last year’s record heat resulted from the combined influence of long-term global warming and one of the strongest El Niño events the globe has experienced since at least 1950.

Furthermore a Guardian article published this month has stated that limiting global temperatures to below the 1.5 degree target, negotiated in Paris last year, and measured in relation to pre-industrial temperatures, would be extremely difficult.

The article published figures based on Met Office data by meteorologist Ed Hawkins of Reading University that showed the average global temperatures have been more than one degree above pre-industrial levels for every month except one this year.

The world seems particularly chaotic this winter. The climate news is diabolical, with fears about melting of the Arctic permafrost and the ancient ice stores of the Himalayas. There is a Royal Commission into the brutal treatment of children in prison in the Northern Territory.

And that is before we get to ISIL terrorism and other mass shootings in Europe and America.

There is Britain’s brain-snap exit from Europe and the punchline that Boris Johnston and the other Tory geniuses have no clear plan for it. And there is The Donald – the Republican Party’s candidate for President of the United States of America, Donald Trump.

All these problems require sane collective action, which means democratic use of the power of the state. The good news – and don’t we need some – is that after three decades, our handcuffs are coming off.

Since the 1980s (or even the mid-1970s, according to Michael Pusey) the West has slowly strangled itself and the rest of the world with a political obsession that goes under the name of “neoliberalism” (or “the Washington Consensus”, the Australian version of which Pusey called “economic rationalism”).

During the recent Federal election, Australia took a step away from the naïve adoration of markets and lower taxes. The Coalition had to accept that generous superannuation tax breaks for the super wealthy are not good policy.

Both sides of the aisle heard the message that wealthy property investors are less deserving of tax breaks than first home buyers.

The Coalition may be set on giving a $51 billion hand out to corporate Australia but it is unpopular and may be resisted in the Senate.

It is against this background that we want to put forward a new idea, framed in response to a recently published essay titled Balancing Act, by George Megalogenis, the Australian author and economics graduate. Our idea is that renewable energy provides the perfect act of renewal for the democratic state at this time.

Balancing act
In Balancing Act, an issue of the Quarterly Essay series, Megalogenis pinpoints the driver of much of the malaise in Australian policy making; neoliberalism, or the “open model” as he calls it. He says that it is time to accept that the open model which both sides of politics have implemented over the last 30 years gives us no path to future prosperity and the voters, yearning for long-term vision, want “a return to some form of government intervention in the economy”.

In our response to his Quarterly Essay, we want to briefly explore how Megalogenis’s arguments about the need for state intervention could be used to;

• slash greenhouse gas emissions
• build a reliable consensus in climate politics
• help fix the economic model.

Our argument is that the new conversation about government intervention in the economy provides a way to solve the climate riddle, by moving beyond the “market fetish”.

Megalogenis writes:

The Coalition can’t lay claim to the future until it adjusts to the two big shocks of our age. The first shock is that the version of capitalism favoured by the conservatives is broken… The second shock is that the international community may finally be ready to tackle climate change.

Policy solutions that match the global warming threat require transformation, not tinkering. As Megalogenis rightly points out, these processes of restructuring require governments to stop simply devolving agency to the invisible hand of the market.

The return to regulation in the economy could revitalise the environmental agenda, cutting through the impasse of carbon politics with a healthy dose of nation building in the area of renewable energy. It would replace fifteen years of neoliberal environmental orthodoxy with a new agenda that is both more rigorous and more popular.

Neoliberal environmentalism
Environmentalism from the 1960s until the 1980s was a diverse movement. There were public transport and urban design activists calling for more rational, convivial cities. Conservationists campaigned to protect biodiverse forests from destruction. Greenpeace put its ships in the way of nuclear testing and toxic waste dumping. Deep greens proposed new cultural paradigms to replace consumerism and economic growth.

Then, at some point in the late 1990s, the climate threat became so great that it rightly dominated the environmental agenda in Australia and around the world. This occurred at the same time in history that free market ideology was ascendant. The timing was tragic.

Until this point, environmentalists responded to global warming with tools that had already worked in achieving environmental and other policy progress. These were forms of government regulation: bans on some chemicals and practices, standards on imported and locally manufactured products, incentives for clean production, plans for rational design of cities around mass transit.

Unfortunately, however, greens became convinced that the best and perhaps only way to save the climate was to monetise it. (Or more accurately, to monetise tradeable rights to pollute the climate.) We reduced the complexity of a global system out of control into the mere absence of a price signal.

Rather than build a social movement for transformation, we operated like technocrats. We learned to speak in what the Australia Institute’s Richard Denniss calls “econobabble”. Too tentative to pick winners – solar and wind over coal and gas – we hid behind economic talk of carbon prices and market architectures. It is no wonder the public cooled to global warming.

The emerging criticism of the open economy doctrine now allows us to return to a more rational and constructive conversation. Megalogenis says, “The debate we have to have is on the role of government in the economy”. The practical program he prescribes starts with public investment in infrastructure.

Our view is that the first candidate for this infrastructure development should be the switch to clean energy for electricity and transport. Australia’s economic opportunity here is vast as we have prodigious renewable energy resources which are tragically underdeveloped. We also have the opportunity to create goods for export.

Green industries
Recent announcements in electric vehicles indicate just how rapidly the world will move towards green industries. The Netherlands and Norway are looking to have only electric vehicles sold by 2025 and India has an astonishing goal to replace all of its petrol and diesel cars with electric vehicles by 2030.

If the Paris climate agreement COP21 succeeds, this would require wealthy countries such as ours to decarbonise our energy sector by about mid-century. For long-term assets such as energy infrastructure, achieving a complete rebuild before 2050 means starting immediately with a concerted program of investment.

This is a massive economic undertaking and requires strong government intervention. According to the International Energy Agency, rebuilding a clean energy system by 2050 would cost US$44 trillion globally. (Crucially, it would save US$115 trillion, because fuels such as the sun and the wind are free as well as renewable.)

Giles Parkinson, the editor of RenewEconomy, estimates that Australia will end up spending $130 billion on electricity networks over 20 years from 2000 to 2020. He calls this “pure folly”, propping up last century’s old, dirty, one-way electricity model, when our competitors are investing in renewable energy, battery storage and smart grids that will deliver cheaper, cleaner, more secure energy.

Our mal-investment will be of little use when energy companies like AGL eventually retire their coal-burning plants. Australia cannot afford waste on this scale. Nor can our climate bear the consequences of further delay.

What is needed to transform the energy system is for government to set a clear goal to decarbonise by mid-century and take firm hold of economic levers to make it happen. The National Energy Objective – the foundation of all energy policy in the country – needs to be modernised to include decarbonisation as a goal, alongside secure and efficient delivery of energy.

This greening of the energy and transport sectors would create real investment in long-term, productive assets. It will generate jobs and new industries. It is a perfect example of the kind of government action that Megalogenis recommends.

Upbeat about renewables
The reason that we are both so upbeat about the renewables boom is that it offers everything that carbon politics failed to deliver. Where carbon markets are abstract, renewables are tangible; solar panels and wind turbines you can touch.

Carbon markets created a small number of direct jobs within the banking sector – which is hardly the world’s most loved profession – but building renewables and a smart grid will generate millions of mostly blue collar jobs around the world, according to a recent report from the intergovernmental International Renewable Energy Agency.

Where carbon price schemes are ultimately just another globalised market – like currencies or commodity futures – renewables can be owned and operated by local communities. For example, most of the wind farms in Denmark are local co-operatives. Shareholding or direct ownership of clean energy – especially rooftop solar – gives it an unassailable social license, with electoral support across the political spectrum.

With the rise of smart grid technologies, even urban communities can own their own ‘virtual’ power stations; roof-top solar and household battery power, traded and optimised in real time, providing reliable energy to replace baseload coal.

Energy as innovation
Prime Minister Turnbull has called for innovation. Smart energy is innovation on steroids. Australia already has start-ups making hardware and software that we should export to a world hungry for clean energy. Reposit is building solar and battery storage systems that sell their aggregated energy into the grid, like a virtual power plant. Redflow is developing consumer and utility-scale batteries on the ‘flow’ design, which can provide very high durability energy storage and safety and sustainability improvements over conventional lithium-ion batteries.

A combination of ‘push’ policies that stimulate innovation and ‘pull’ policies that provide stable demand for renewables (and storage and smart grids) would liberate a wave of entrepreneurship for the Prime Minister. These products, services and new business models are more responsible exports than coal and they are becoming more competitive. Even if no top-down mandate for clean energy emerges from the Paris climate agreements, the natural growth of unsubsidised renewables will be worth US$7,800 billion by 2040 according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

The most important reason to rebuild climate politics around renewables (as distinct from carbon markets) is the politics itself. Renewable energy has a super-majority of support (70 per cent plus of the electorate), in major markets all around the world. Polling commissioned by the Australia Institute found that three quarters of Australians would support a party that boosted solar and battery storage and 63 per cent are prepared to endorse a national switch from fossil fuels to renewables by 2030.

Even in Australian wind districts, where a vocal minority of opportunistic politicians have whipped up anti-wind farm panic, an amazing majority prefer wind and solar to coal or gas. Detailed polling in ten wind districts in 2011 found 83 per cent of people support wind power. Carbon markets are nowhere near as popular.

Tony Abbott’s ‘great big new tax’ scare campaign killed carbon markets in the popular imagination (assuming they were ever truly popular to start with). Similarly, toxic misinformation makes it impossible to conceive of a bipartisan national carbon market policy in the US. Strange, extreme ideas are also percolating up in the Tory party in England, including paranoid notions that wind turbines cause ‘infrasound’ sickness and death.

Prime Minister Turnbull’s post-election cabinet reshuffle has created a perfect political setup to take a renewable energy leap forwards. Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg has taken on the Environment portfolio. It is a high risk situation for Frydenberg, because the ‘jobs versus environment’ frame through which these issues are seen means he appears to have to choose either energy or the climate. Encouragingly, he recently told a clean energy conference that his job was to “move energy into the environment [portfolio]”.

Conflict or harmony?
As one of us has written in The Guardian:

It depends entirely on whether the two sides of the portfolio – energy and the environment – are set in conflict or in harmony with each other.

… If Frydenberg does not move quickly to capitalise on this innovation, then he is caught between coal and a hard place. He either fails one half of his portfolio or fails the other half.

… Unleashing the renewables revolution is the only way that the new minister can do something significant for the environment and at the same time, build Australia’s energy resources and energy security. This is an opportunity that Greg Hunt never had when he was environment minister.

Renewables are the best and perhaps the only way to save the debate about saving the climate. If Megalogenis is right, then Australia has a narrow window of opportunity to use government intervention to reinvent our economy and rebuild crumbling infrastructure.

The stakes are cultural as well as economic. Dark forces and racist politicians are on the march around the world. Restoring public faith in a collective, democratic space is a protection against the demagoguery that Trump is bringing to the gates of the White House, if not to the Oval Office itself. Clean energy infrastructure is the first and best candidate for a new approach to nation building on a planet in peril.

This article is republished with permission from New Matilda.

Many Pacific Islands are facing the loss of their homes as climate change drives rising sea levels ever higher. Despite Australia signing the Paris Agreement to limit dangerous global warming, the Turnbull government has made no steps to combat the causes of climate change.

“Rising sea levels caused by the mining and burning of fossil fuels are threatening the very existence of many Pacific Islands,” Joseph Sikulu said.

“By refusing to take serious action, Australia is abdicating its responsibility as good neighbours to stop the Pacific Islands from facing more severe impacts of climate change.”

Fifty kayakers will set off from Blues Beach Reserve, North Sydney, past Kirribilli House, and across the harbour to Lady Martin Beach Point Piper, where they will deliver their protest message to Turnbull’s house.

“By traveling down Sydney Harbour  to Lady Martin Beach outside Malcolm Turnbull’s house, we want to show the Pacific that we are standing in this fight alongside them, and we wanted to show Turnbull that that as a community we are fighting for this issue to stay at the top of his agenda,” Sikulu said.

“Climate change poses a serious threat to the Island homes of many Pacific communities. If we want to protect these islands into the future, the Australian government must act now to keep fossil fuels in the ground.

“This election is the perfect time for Prime Minister Turnbull to show he understands the dangers posed by climate change and take real action to protect our Island homes.”

Despite climate action repteadly receiving high levels of support from voters, the Coalition has consistently refused to act.

The government gave no mention of climate change in the Federal Budget, lobbied the United Nations to censor a report on the damage caused by climate change to the Great Barrier Reef, and approved coal mines even after signing the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to under 2 degrees and slashed funding for renewable energy.

• Mana Moana
• 350Pacific.org
• PMC ‘Bearing witness’ climate change project

#pollutionfreepolitics

“Warm Waters’” a photoessay on climate change by Russian photojournalist Vlad Sokhin, is the best piece of reporting on climate change in the Pacific. It is a must-see collection!

Sokhin’s images and text capture the grave threat climate change poses to the Pacific islands from sea level rise, hotter weather, changes to rainfall and stronger cyclones.

Browse the photoessay here, and encourage your colleagues and friends to see it too!

• Vlad Sokhin’s Warm Waters photoessay on climate change
• Vlad Sokhin’s website
• Vlad Sokhin at Panos Pictures
• Pacific Media Centre’s Bearing Witness reports, videos and images