Climate change

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/65345/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The Earth’s last intact wilderness areas are shrinking dramatically. In a recently published paper we showed that the world has lost 3.3 million square kilometres of wilderness (around 10 percent of the total wilderness area) since 1993.
Hardest hit were South America, which has experienced a 30 percent wilderness loss, and Africa, which has lost 14 percent.
These areas are the final strongholds for endangered biodiversity. They are also essential for sustaining complex ecosystem processes at a regional and planetary scale. Finally, wilderness areas are home to, and provide livelihoods for, indigenous peoples, including many of the world’s most politically and economically marginalised communities.
But there’s another important service that many wilderness areas provide: they store vast amounts of carbon. If we’re to meet our international climate commitments, it is essential that we preserve these vital areas.
Climate consequences
Large, intact ecosystems store more terrestrial carbon than disturbed and degraded ones. They are also far more resilient to disturbances such as rapid climate change and fire.
For instance, the boreal forest remains the largest ecosystem undisturbed by humans. It stores roughly a third of the world’s terrestrial carbon.
Yet this globally significant wilderness area is increasingly threatened by forestry, oil and gas exploration, human-lit fires and climate change. These collectively threaten a biome-wide depletion of its carbon stocks, considerably worsening global warming. Our research shows that more than 320,000sqkm of boreal forest has been lost in the past two decades.
Similarly, in Borneo and Sumatra in 1997, human-lit fires razed recently logged forests that housed large carbon stores. This released billions of tonnes of carbon, which some estimate was equivalent to 40 percent of annual global emissions from fossil fuels. We found that more than 30 percent of tropical forest wilderness was lost since the early 1990s, with only 270,000sqkm left on the planet.
How do we stop the loss?
All nations need to step up and mobilise conservation investments that can help protect vanishing wilderness areas. These efforts will vary based on the specific circumstances of different nations. But there is a clear priority everywhere to focus on halting current threats – including road expansion, destructive mining, unsustainable forestry and large-scale agriculture – and enforcing existing legal frameworks.
For example, most of the world’s remaining tropical rainforests are under an onslaught of development pressures. Much of sub-Saharan Africa is being opened up by over 50,000km of planned “development corridors” that criss-cross the continent. These will slice deep into remaining wild places.
In the Amazon, plans are being made to construct more than 300 large hydroelectric dams across the basin. Each dam will require networks of new roads for dam and powerline construction and maintenance.
In northern Australia, schemes are afoot to transform the largest savannah on Earth into a food bowl, jeopardising its extensive carbon stores and biodiversity.
We need to enforce existing regulatory frameworks aimed at protecting imperilled species and ecosystems. We also need to develop new conservation policies that provide land stewards with incentives to protect intact ecosystems. These must be implemented at a large scale.
For example, conservation interventions in and around imperilled wilderness landscapes should include creating large protected areas, establishing mega-corridors between those protected areas, and enabling indigenous communities to establish community conservation reserves.
In Sabah, Borneo, scientists from the UK’s Royal Society have been working with local government to establish networks of interlinked reserves stretching from the coast to the interior mountains. This provides a haven for wildlife that migrate seasonally to find new food sources.
Funding could also be used to establish ecosystem projects that recognise the direct and indirect economic values that intact landscapes supply. These include providing a secure source of fresh water, reducing disaster risks and storing vast quantities of carbon.
For example, in Ecuador and Costa Rica, cloud forests are being protected to provide cities below with a year-round source of clean water. In Madagascar, carbon funding is saving one of the most biodiversity-rich tropical forests on the planet, the Makira forest.
We argue for immediate, proactive action to protect the world’s remaining wilderness areas, because the alarming loss of these lands results in significant and irreversible harm for nature and humans. Protecting the world’s last wild places is a cost-effective conservation investment and the only way to ensure that some semblance of intact nature survives for the benefit of future generations.
James Watson is associate professor, The University of Queensland and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/james-watson-104823" target="_blank">here</a>.
Bill Laurance is distinguished research professor and Australian Laureate, James Cook University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/bill-laurance-4358" target="_blank">here</a>.
Brendan Mackey is director of the Griffith Climate Change Response Program, Griffith University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-mackey-152282" target="_blank">here</a>.
James Allan is PhD candidate, School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/james-allan-296281" target="_blank">here</a>.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

The world’s carbon stores are going up in smoke with vanishing wilderness

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
As natural disasters become more intense, it's time for insurance companies to help communities adapt to climate change.
As communities recover from the havoc wreaked by Cyclone Debbie, it’s time to accept that disasters will become more intense due to climate change and the cost of insurance will continue to rise.
Insurers have a unique insight into the risk and costs associated with climate change. If insurers better informed households about the terms and conditions of insurance and the potential costs of what’s not covered, consumers could help mitigate the risks themselves.
Insurers could also share data with government on how building and changes to infrastructure affects premiums. This would avoid surprises after a disaster hits.
Where insurance products are unaffordable, or cover unavailable, it’s often governments left to foot the bill. Since 2009, this has amounted to more than A$12 billion.
When governments can no longer afford the exorbitant clean up costs, the homeowner (or residents, in the case of renters) will be left with little recourse.
Rising premiums
The insurance industry is expecting premiums to be equal to 38% of annual income by the year 2100 for affected households. We are also starting to see a huge disparity in the cost of insurance between high and low risk areas.
Insurance premiums in Northern Queensland are already more than double that of Brisbane due to climate risk, for instance. Exorbitant costs of insurance may result in consumers being unable to afford cover.
To reduce these premiums, more adaptation and mitigation measures are critical.
One example of this is the partnership between insurer Suncorp and James Cook University to analyse data on insurance claims and to beef up cyclone protection by retrofitting homes. This partnership has reduced the cost of some insurance premiums.
The Productivity Commission inquiry into climate change adaption supported “market led adaptation”. This is in part premised on the insurance sector providing “price signals” - noting the costs via year to year for insurance premiums for various risks, so that consumers can adapt.
It would also be easier for consumers to adapt if the information about their coverage, beyond prices, was clearer. As noted in the Queensland Flood Inquiry report commissioned after the catastrophic flooding in 2011, insurers can help by using plain language in their insurance products. This includes in Product Disclosure Statements, particularly on what types of “flood” are covered.
Data to protect home owners
If there was a centralised, and freely available, source of climate risk data it would be easier to ensure consumers, government and insurers were all working on the same assumptions.
There is already some spatial data freely available, including by the CSIRO, via CoastAdapt, and even with local councils such as Lake Macquarie.
There is perhaps potential for the current Productivity Commission inquiry into data sharing to specifically consider data relating to climate risk. For example, the spatial data in the National Interest Dataset could be used to provide consistent, reliable and free data to consumers prior to their decision to live or to build in high risk locations.
This data is important for risk forecasting and planning by the public and private sector (including insurers) in order to avoid up to US$100billion of uninsured losses, due to natural disasters worldwide.
Land use and development
How we develop or build on land is critical for how insurers will price premiums.
Australians have a history of, and perhaps an affinity for, building in high risk locations, and then rebuilding there when disaster strikes. While some insurers are recognising the economic benefits of acting early by installing flood levies in some Queensland towns, relying on wall building might not produce the results the community expects.
It can result in communities feeling protected by a wall that may not withstand future climate risk. A better approach is to implement climate adaptation measures early.
Law courts have been tasked with considering the impact of climate risk into administrative decision making for close to a decade. Cases in New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland demonstrate the importance of a relevant decision maker properly factoring climate risk into development and land use planning decisions.
There are some instances where land use planning properly factors in climate risk. For example, in New South Wales previous land use decisions have allowed people to build close to at risk shorelines, or to place temporary works to protect homes during severe events. Now these are undergoing reform to include new laws which take into account expected future sea levels.
Getting reading for future events
As observed in the Productivity Commission inquiry into natural disaster mitigation, insurers can and need to do more to inform households on their policies, the natural hazards they face, and the indicative costs of rebuilding.
A wider availability of spatial data that quantifies risks to properties would assist home owners to be better prepared, but some of the responsibility lies with government as well.
It’s for local and state governments to determine whether, and where, rebuilding ought to occur.
Some of groundwork to improving all of these problems has already been set. The Federal Government setup a taskforce into insurance risks in Northern Australia, and the Productivity Commission has examined both barriers to climate change adaptation and mitigating the impact of natural disasters.
Governments need to play a central role. They must recognise the critical importance of a robust climate change mitigation and adaptation policy and then act on it. Only then will insurers get the signal for the need for change.
Tayanah O'Donnell is a Research Fellow with CURF at the University of Canberra and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tayanah-odonnell-122914" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

How insurers can get better at responding to natural disasters: Tayanah O'Donnell

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82375/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
A lot of faith is vested in cities to tackle climate change, and with good reason. A day after the June 1 declaration that the US would exit the Paris Agreement, 82 American “climate mayors” committed to upholding the accord.
By August 4, when the US gave formal notice of its withdrawal, there were 372 “climate mayors” representing 67 million Americans. 
In Australia, too, national intransigence has led to greater expectations of local actions. The Climate Council’s July report declares that deep cuts in cities’ greenhouse gas emissions can achieve 70% of Australia’s Paris goals. 
The report notes that a majority of Australian cities have adopted climate policies. Many are committed to 100% renewable energy or zero emissions. One of the report’s authors argues that, even without national leadership, Australian cities can “just get on with the job of implementing climate policies”.
Many European cities have ambitious emission-reduction targets. Copenhagen plans to be the world’s first carbon-neutral capital by 2025. Stockholm aims to be fossil-fuel-free by 2040. 
So, at first glance, cities do appear to be leading the way. 
A word of caution
We support local decarbonisation and the desire for cities to be progressive actors. Yet there are ample grounds to be dubious about cities’ ability to deliver on their commitments. 
Sam Brooks, former director of the District of Columbia’s Energy Division, has laid out sobering evidence on the reality of climate action in US cities. 
Brooks supports stronger local action rather than “press releases” and “mindless cheerleading”. He shows that most emission cuts in US cities can be attributed to state and federal initiatives such as renewable portfolio standards or national fuel-efficiency rules. 
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/09/26/Screen%20Shot%202017-09-26%20at%2011.13.49%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/09/26/Screen%20Shot%202017-09-26%20at%2011.13.49%20AM.png" alt="">
America’s narrative of climate-friendly cities relies heavily on California’s leadership to make it credible.
By May 2015, California had built the Under2 Coalition of cities, states and countries committed to keeping the global temperature increase below 2°C. California Governor Jerry Brown was prepared for the June 1 White House announcement, quickly detailing why it was “insane”. Days later Brown signed a deal between China and his state to collaborate on cutting emissions. 
California’s activism sets a benchmark. But Brooks details how New York, Boston, Washington DC and other “frequently lauded cities” often do not use the powers they have. 
No US city reports its electricity consumption more than annually. Many do not report it at all. Poor monitoring is a key reason they have not cut consumption, in spite of enormous scope for efficiency. 
Cities have not added much to national trends
It isn’t just American cities falling short, as Benjamin Barber’s new book, Cool Cities makes clear. 
Like Brooks, Barber championed urban action against global warming (he died in April 2017). Yet he looked past the hype to point out shortcomings in the mitigation measures of such exemplary cities as London and Oslo.
London’s stated goal is to cut emissions by 60% by 2040. It seems likely to fail, with blame falling on rapid population growth and inadequate policies in the building sector. 
Oslo is committed to a 100% cut in emissions by 2050. But its emissions have risen from 1.2 million tonnes in 1991 to 1.4 million tonnes in 2014. One complication is that oil and gas production comprise 22% of the Norwegian economy. The nation’s emissions are up 4.2% since 1990.
Even the progress of climate superstar cities such as Copenhagen, Stockholm and Berlin is, on close examination, subject to important caveats.
Copenhagen makes much of having cut emissions 21% by 2011 from 2005 levels. Yet the city admits that 63% of its goal of becoming carbon-neutral relies on buying carbon offsets for its emissions. 
National policy is a crucial context for urban action. For instance, Copenhagen has benefited greatly from a 27% fall in Denmark’s emissions between 1990 and 2015. Unfortunately, Danish emissions are expected to increase after 2020 without new policies.
Stockholm has cut emissions by around 37% between 1990 and 2015. This is mainly a result of changes to building heating – transport emissions have barely changed. 
As in Copenhagen, Stockholm’s achievements rely greatly on a national target – net-zero emissions by 2045 – backed by a robust policy framework.
As for Berlin, its goal is an 85% cut in emissions by 2050, compared to 1990. By 2013 the city had cut emissions by about one-third. Yet most recent data indicate that emissions have begun to rise slightly. Berlin is at risk of achieving only half of its mid-term goal of a 40% cut by 2020. 
Berlin is not responsible for a national policy that remains lax on coal and unduly favours automobiles, the source of 18% of German emissions. But civic leaders in Berlin could do more to nudge a car-centred culture towards sustainability.
What must cities do?
The urgency of real action is clear from the IEA’s 2016 report on sustainable urban energy systems. It warns that business as usual in cities could mean emissions increase by 50% by 2050. 
The IEA notes that 90% of the growth in primary energy demand is in non-OECD countries. At the same time, climate science tells us deep emissions cuts must begin by 2020. We have to accelerate decarbonisation, which means demanding greater ambition and transparency from cities. The following steps need to be taken:
Every city should have accurate, timely and transparent data on their performance across a range of indicators. These include emissions, electricity consumption, energy efficiency and renewable energy availability.
We need more robust comparative frameworks to make sense of the data. The 2014 Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories was a valuable start, but has to be expanded.
Cities should be more global when calculating their emissions. At present, they tally up emissions from their own territory and production, leaving out emissions from consumption of traded goods and (often) aviation. The differences can be significant. Were Copenhagen’s emissions measured on a consumption basis, the total would be four to five times higher.
Cities need to differentiate between emission cuts resulting directly from their own actions and those derived from state or national programs. We need to see what cities themselves are doing.
Cities too often advocate climate neutrality rather than zero emissions. The more a city relies on credits for offsets elsewhere, the greater the risk of failing to cut actual emissions within the city. 
There should be less cheerleading all around. City mayors need to lobby their state and federal counterparts to ensure co-ordinated action at all levels. And citizens must throw out mayors - not to mention regional and national leaders - who don’t accept the urgency of climate mitigation.
Sadly, many cities are dangerously complacent about the need for speed in decarbonisation. No press release can obscure the fact that time is not on our side.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-f-d-barrett-179124" target="_blank">Brendan F.D. Barrett</a> is Senior Lecturer, Program Manager, Masters of International Urban and Environmental Management, RMIT University.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-dewit-112433" target="_blank">Andrew DeWit</a> is Professor, School of Policy Studies, Rikkyo University.
Both are authors for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

This is why we cannot rely on cities alone to tackle climate change

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/77701/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The global tropical climate zone is expanding. At the current rate, by 2100 its edge will stretch from Sydney to Perth.
The Tropics are defined as the area of Earth where the Sun is directly overhead at least once a year — the zone between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.
However, tropical climates occur within a larger area about 30 degrees either side of the Equator. Earth’s dry subtropical zones lie adjacent to this broad region. It is here that we find the great warm deserts of the world.
Earth’s bulging waistline
Earth’s tropical atmosphere is growing in all directions, leading one commentator to cleverly call this Earth’s “bulging waistline”.
Since 1979, the planet’s waistline been expanding poleward by 56km to 111km per decade in both hemispheres. Future climate projections suggest this expansion is likely to continue, driven largely by human activities – most notably emissions of greenhouse gases and black carbon, as well as warming in the lower atmosphere and the oceans.
If the current rate continues, by 2100 the edge of the new dry subtropical zone would extend from roughly Sydney to Perth.
As these dry subtropical zones shift, droughts will worsen and overall less rain will fall in most warm temperate regions.
Poleward shifts in the average tracks of tropical and extratropicalcyclones are already happening. This is likely to continue as the tropics expand further. As extratropical cyclones move, they shift rain away from temperate regions that historically rely upon winter rainfalls for their agriculture and water security.
Researchers have observed that, as climate zones change, animals and plants migrate to keep up. But as biodiversity and ecosystem services are threatened, species that can’t adjust to rapidly changing conditions face extinction.
In some biodiversity hotspots – such as the far southwest of Australia – there are no suitable land areas (only oceans) for ecosystems and species to move into to keep pace with warming and drying trends.
We are already witnessing an expansion of pests and diseases into regions that were previously climatically unsuitable. This suggests that they will attempt to follow any future poleward shifts in climate zones.
I recently drew attention to the anticipated impacts of an expanding tropics for Africa. So what might this might mean for Australia?
Australia is vulnerable
Australia’s geographical location makes it highly vulnerable to an expanding tropics. About 60% of the continent lies north of 30°S.
As the edge of the dry subtropical zone continues to creep south, more of southern Australia will be subject to its drying effects.
Meanwhile, the fringes of the north of the continent may experience rainfall and temperature conditions that are more typical of our northern neighbours.
The effects of the expanding tropics are already being felt in southern Australia in the form of declining winter rainfall. This is especially the case in the southwest and — to a lesser extent — the continental southeast.
Future climate change projections for Australia include increasing air and ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, more hot days (over 35℃), declining rainfall in the southern continental areas, and more extreme fire weather events.
For northern Australia, changes in annual rainfall remain uncertain. However, there is a high expectation of more extreme rainfall events, many more hot days and more severe (but less frequent) tropical cyclones and associated storm surges in coastal areas.
Dealing with climate change
Adaptation to climate change will be required across all of Australia. In the south the focus will have to be on adapting to projected drying trends. Other challenges include more frequent droughts, more warm spells and hot days, higher fire weather risk and rising sea levels in coastal areas.
The future growth of the north remains debatable. I have already pointed out the lack of consideration of climate change in the White Paper for the Development of Northern Australia.
The white paper neglects to explain how planned agricultural, mining, tourism and community development will adapt to projected changes in climate over coming decades — particularly, the anticipated very high number of hot days.
For example, Darwin currently averages 47 hot days a year, but under a high carbon emission scenario, the number of hot days could approach 320 per year by 2090. If the north is to survive and thrive as a significant economic region of Australia, it will need effective climate adaptation strategies. This must happen now — not at some distant time in the future.
This requires bipartisan support from all levels of government, and a pan-northern approach to climate adaptation. It will be important to work closely with industry and affected local and Indigenous communities across the north.
These sectors must have access to information and solutions drawn from interdisciplinary, “public good” research. In the face of this urgent need, CSIRO cuts to such research and the defunding of the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility should be ringing alarm bells.
As we enter uncharted climate territory, never before has public-good research been more important and relevant.
Steve Turton is an Adjunct Professor of Environmental Geography at CQUniversity Australia and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/steve-turton-15660" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

The world’s tropical zone is expanding, and Australia should be worried: Steve Turton

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/67629/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The most recent report card on the Great Barrier Reef’s water quality highlighted major changes that need to be made to meet targets by 2018. 
Sediment and pollutant runoff from land use have increased 2-3 fold since 1850, largely driven by agricultural land clearing and grazing, while fertiliser used in sugar cane farming contributes to nitrogen runoff.
Runoff increases coral’s sensitivity to bleaching and disease, shifts the balance between coral and algae, leads to a build-up of pollutants in marine species that are long-lived or high in the food web, and increases the chances of crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks.
Improving water quality will likely increase the health of reef organisms, and help reefs to bounce back from disturbances. 
Government investment plans need to account properly for the total estimated value of the Great Barrier Reef and past progress in reducing runoff. An estimated A$500 million per year is needed to improve management action. 
So what’s the best way to meet these targets? You won’t be surprised to find that scientists are working on the answer. But innovative projects fusing art and science are also appearing in north Queensland. 
<h2>The problem of collective action</h2>
Like many environmental issues, runoff on the Great Barrier Reef is a classic example of a collective action problem. Collective action is at the heart of this issue in two ways. 
First, the alongshore transport of sediment and runoff pollutants by currents means that the effects of managing runoff along one section of coastline may be felt elsewhere. The condition of the reef adjacent to a particular river mouth may not, therefore, necessarily reflect the land management within that river’s catchment. 
Second, the health of the reef is dependent on other factors, such as bleaching driven by increased sea surface temperatures related to climate change. These are caused by many geographically remote activities (for instance, someone burning coal in London). 
Collective action problems can be understood through US academic Garret Hardin’s famous “tragedy of the commons” theory. This theory states that self-interested individuals acting rationally may not behave in the best interests of the whole group.
Hardin used the example of a group of herdsmen allowing their cattle to graze a pasture that is running out of fodder. For an individual herdsman, the cost of removing cattle exceeds the benefit of leaving some pasture for the future, unless other herdsmen also agree to remove cattle.
Similarly, it takes an exceptional individual to reduce their runoff impacts, in light of the agricultural benefits to be gained from activities that increase runoff volume and decrease its quality (such as land clearing and use of fertilizers). This is particularly the case when others are not acting to abate their own activities. 
Many farmers say that the Reef 2050 target to reduce runoff by 80% by 2025 is not economically viable. But without acting now, our metaphorical common (the inshore Great Barrier Reef) will continue to degrade.
<h2>Best environmental practice</h2>
Agriculture is a social and cultural activity, just as much as it is a process of environmental engineering, and the push to transform farming practices needs to recognise this. Top down incentive schemes do have some impact, but could there be a better way?
For instance, for sugar cane growers, the Smartcane Best Management Practice (BMP) Guidelines are an attempt by the industry to shift farming practices towards compliance with government directives to reduce run-off impacts on the reef. 
The Smartcane BMP guidelines aim to improve farming practices through seven principles:
<ol>
<li>
Soil health and plant nutrition management 
</li>
<li>
Pest, disease and weed management 
</li>
<li>
Drainage and irrigation management 
</li>
<li>
Crop production and harvest management
</li>
<li>
Natural systems management
</li>
<li>
Farm business management
</li>
<li>
Workplace health and safety management
</li>
</ol>
As with many corporate social responsibility initiatives, growers who volunteer for Smartcane BMP are required to assess their current practices and set benchmarks for improvement in order to receive accreditation that indicates good environmental practice. There are clear marketing and, in many cases, cost-cutting benefits that motivate farmers to participate. 
This has driven some examples of good practice within the farming community. However, as the 2015 report card shows, “only 23% of sugarcane land was managed using best management practice systems”, which is inadequate for achieving the Reef 2050 goal of an 80% reduction in dissolved nitrogen loads from agricultural runoff by 2025. 
<h2>Motivating farmers</h2>
One project which engages with this problem is Sugar vs the Reef? by artists Lucas Ihlein, Kim Williams and Ian Milliss. This project is based on the idea that there is a greater chance of influencing farming practices if the desire to improve environmental performance comes from within the farming community. Innovation is celebrated from below by staging public collaborative events to generate dialogue about agriculture’s complex social and environmental interactions. 
For example, over the next two years, the project will coordinate a collaboration between Mackay Botanical Gardens, sugar cane farmers and community members to plant a dual crop of sunflowers and sugar caneas a highly visible work of “land art”.
This crop - whose cycle of planting, growth and harvesting will exceed the minimum standards of BMP - will stretch over four hectares near the centre of Mackay. Over two years, the project will engage sugarcane farmers, artists, high school students, members of the Australian South Sea Islander community, the Greater Whitsunday Food Network, soil and reef scientists, as well as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
While it is easy to point the finger at agricultural practices as a major cause of poor water quality in the inner waters of the Great Barrier Reef, change will be slow until the complex social factors that shape modern farming are recognised. This requires deeper engagement with the varied cultures of farming.
Sarah Hamylton is senior lecturer, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Wollongong and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sarah-hamylton-134715" target="_blank">here</a>.
Lucas Ihlein is ARC DECRA research fellow, University of Wollongong and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/lucas-ihlein-112028" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Cleaning up runoff onto the Great Barrier Reef: how art and science are inspiring farmers to help

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/68068/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Company directors who don’t properly consider climate related risks could be liable for breaching their duty of due care and diligence, a new legal opinion has found. 
Although the alarm for business leaders has been sounding for some time, the release of the opinion by senior barristers and leading solicitors confirms the potential liability for Australian company directors.
Australian companies are particularly exposed to the physical, transition and liability risks posed by climate change. The Paris Climate Agreement, which comes into force today, brings the transition risks (and opportunities) forward, given the policy and business changes necessitated by the agreement’s commitment to a sustainable economy.
Directors’ liability hinges on the foreseeability of risks or opportunities material to the best interests of the company. Courts have long experience of finding fault for inadequate responses to foreseeable risks, even where there is supposed uncertainty. Examples of this are when health risks associated with HIV and asbestos were improperly understood or managed. A defendant can be liable even though they are ignorant, if a reasonable person would have known about them. 
Some corporate leaders might want to hit the snooze button again, but today’s challenges to business as usual are acute. The long foreseen economic and environmental impacts of a changing climate are intensifying. Legally, any excuse that prior uncertainty about the science or impacts of climate change may have previously afforded directors has expired. 
Corporate leadership ignoring interdependent economic, social and environmental risks and drivers of value has never been a sustainable long term strategy. Here are four reasons why there is only upside for business leaders to change course:
1. Markets are supporting the transition
Investors are demanding better information about companies’ carbon emissions and risk management strategies so they can properly understand the near and long term prospects of the companies they are investing in. Increasingly, they are getting it. Large institutional investors like BlackRock have led the charge on board-level management of climate and other sustainability risks.
Underpinned by better information, new opportunities are being supported by financial instruments such as green bonds or government backed financing for clean technology or renewable energy projects. Such instruments help capital flow towards investments that are consistent with decarbonisation of the economy in the longer term. 
These initiatives are being reinforced by economy-wide measures like carbon pricing schemes to ensure that market prices reflect true costs of emissions-intensive activities. The latest example is Canada’s decision to impose a benchmark price on carbon pollution. 
Under this plan, Canadian provinces can decide how the revenue raised is spent, but are required to have an effective price of C$10 per tonne of carbon pollution in 2018, rising by C$10 each year to C$50 per tonne in 2022. 
2. Risk disclosure will improve and converge
Michael Bloomberg’s Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosureswill update its (voluntary, business-led) framework for climate risk disclosure in December 2016. This is the next step in accelerated global efforts to increase transparency of physical, liability and transition risks. 
In Australia, enhanced ASX guidelines, which commenced in July 2014, require listed entities to disclose any exposure to economic, environmental and social sustainability risks, and how such risks will be managed. 
Calls to renew the lapsed Senate Economics Committee inquiry into carbon risk disclosure have been answered; the committee will report in early 2017.
However, significant issues remain around consistency and comparability of disclosures. The level of variation of disclosure of carbon-related and other sustainability risks by entities in the same sector, including Australia’s banks, is concerning. 
3. Regulators are focusing more on climate risk
Global regulators are stepping up supervision of firms exposed to disruptive climate related changes in asset prices, technology, and policy. Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, said that regulators and investors expect much more than “static” disclosure of risks.
Australian regulators are sending similar signals that more sophisticated stress testing and scenario-based analysis of climate related risks will be par for the course.
4. Better political dynamics
With the Paris targets locked in, more ambitious national policy settings needed to deliver them will not be far away. Years of policy reversals and missteps domestically and globally have been replaced by the policy certainty business craves. 
Pressure from Australian businesses for the government to take ambitious commitments to Paris in 2015, including through the Australian Climate Roundtable, is a sign the game has shifted, albeit after years of diversion and delay for which business leaders share some responsibility. 
This trend was reinforced when NSW became the latest state governmentto commit to a net zero emissions target by 2050. Policy changes inevitably create transition risks. But by supporting the implementation of effective, proactive policy, business can reduce the risks of sharper and unpredictable responses later.
Corporate governance will be tested against this backdrop. The implications are clear: at a minimum, where they are not already, climate and other sustainability issues must be elevated to the board level. Boards must establish the information channels, governance processes and technical capabilities. They must also be able to cultivate shareholder support for effective long-term strategies, rather than short-term sugar hits.
The coming into force of the Paris Climate Agreement promises to be a historic global tipping point in accelerating the transition to a net zero carbon economy. The release of this legal research on directors’ duties is a timely and powerful reminder of the risks, opportunities – and responsibilities – which Australian company directors face in addressing this challenge.
Travers McLeod is honorary fellow in the School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/travers-mcleod-44584" target="_blank">here</a>.
John Wiseman is professorial fellow, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-wiseman-252" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Property 101: Company directors can be held legally liable for ignoring the risks from climate change

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
GUEST OBSERVER
The latest updates to Green Star promise to accelerate action on climate change, incentivise new industries and encourage market leaders to push the innovation envelope, says the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA). 
Among the proposed evolutions to Green Star, are: 
<ul>
<li>
  minimum requirements for greenhouse gas emissions for different star ratings 
</li>
<li>
  measures to build industry capacity in air-tightness testing 
</li>
<li>
  a new materials pathway to incentivise the use of engineered timber and 
</li>
<li>  new requirements that will enhance the workplace environments of construction workers.</li>
</ul>
Minimum requirements for greenhouse gas emissions</div>
<div class="column"> </div>
<div class="column">The GBCA’s is reprioritising carbon as a key environmental issue – and setting minimum requirements is an important part of this. Under the proposed changes, a building project seeking 5 Star Green Star certification would be required to achieve three Green Star points in the ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ credit, and be 25 percent more efficient than a benchmark building.</div>
<div class="column"> </div>
<div class="column">A 6 Star Green Star building would be required to achieve six points and demonstrate efficiency of almost 40 percent above the benchmark. The improvements would be addressed through energy efficiency or onsite renewables.</div>
<div class="column"> </div>
<div class="column">This measure would enable us to provide clearer differentiation between the star ratings, and to guarantee, as a minimum, that a 5 Star building would produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a 4 Star building, and so on.</div>
<div class="column"> </div>
<div class="column">Minimum requirements are part of a broader plan to align Green Star with the distinct trajectories outlined in the Paris Agreement.</div>
<div class="column">
 Air-tightness testing</div>
<div class="column">
 A proposed change to the ‘Commissioning and Tuning’ credit would drive the uptake of air-tightness testing.</div>
<div class="column">
 Under the revised credit, project teams would be required to undertake testing to demonstrate that the façade airtightness specifications had been achieved. “This isn’t about setting a standard for air-tightness yet, though this allows us to push Australia to take air-tightness seriously. This first step is about building industry capacity and educating project teams on the value of air-tightness testing.”</div>
<div class="column">
 The GBCA would analyse and share the information gathered from the credit to “better understand where Australian buildings are landing”, to support industry action on air-tightness testing and standards that respond to Australia’s unique climate conditions.</div>
<div class="column">
 Incentivising the use of engineered timber</div>
<div class="column">
 The GBCA is also proposing the introduction of a new pathway for engineered timber within the Materials category – just as we have for concrete and steel.</div>
<div class="column">
 This initiative recognises the innovative approach taken on projects such as Lendlease’s Forté and acknowledges the industry’s growing appetite for products such as Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) and Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL). </div>
<div class="column"> </div>
<div class="column">Jorge Chapa is GBCA’s head of market transformation and can be contacted <a href="https://new.gbca.org.au" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

Property 101: Green Star updates open for consultation

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/63943/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Bushfires in Australia can have a devastating impact on an environment and destroy homes and lives, so any effort to prevent them is a welcome move.
But the way that we have traditionally understood bushfires and forest flammability in Australia is not up to the challenges of our changing climate. Thankfully, a new approach is making sense of the confusion by looking at the plants themselves.
Unfortunately though, time is running out. Years ago I could stand on a ridge in the mountains as winter gales roared through the Alpine Ash forests on the slopes below me. There’d be black cockatoos on the wind and the first hard snow flakes rattling on my coat. It was a wildness that stung the eyes with raw beauty.
Sadly those forests are dying. They are being burnt so often that they may be gone by the end of the century. Like the tallest hardwoods in the world and the thousand year old King Billy pines of Tasmania, they are places we have no room for in our fossil fuel economy.
It’s not that fire is bad; our forests need it. But it’s coming so hard and fast in this changing climate. We fight the fires and we manage the fuels as best we can, but our best efforts are only as good as the science they are built on, and there are some hard questions to be asked about that science.
At the heart of our traditional approach are hand-drawn dots on a graph from a leaflet published by Australian bushfire expert Alan McArthur in the 1960s. Nine data points telling us that if we halve the fuel load – the leaf litter on the ground – we can halve the speed of the fire.
It has never been backed by evidence, but in the absence of something better it became the bedrock of Australian fire management. One rule for all forests: burn them.
But in the past two hundred years, Australian forests have been getting more fire than at any time in the tens of thousands of years before, and all of the controlled burning is not helping.
For 26 out of 30 bioregions in south-east Australia, there is no evidencethat prescribed burning has reduced bush fire sizes.
<h2>New thinking</h2>
Clearly, it’s time for a rethink. Can a few centimetres of leaf litter on the ground really give us enormous crown fires? Any fire fighter will disagree, saying you need tree crowns to get a crown fire. The issue then is not how much fuel you have, but whether flames will span the gaps to ignite those plants.
There are no mysterious black box equations to tell us the answer to this, so it needs sound science. The Forest Flammability Model we have developed is an attempt to join the dots and build a full picture.
How high will the flames be from a burning plant? How hot will it be above them at the next plant? How long will those leaves take to ignite? And will the first leaves stay alight long enough for that to happen?
The strength of this approach is that every part of it is open to question and improvement. If someone finds that the oils in leaves affect the way they ignite, or that they can better model the angle of a flame, we can build that in to our model.
<h2>Testing the model</h2>
If flammability is about surface fuel load, then old forests are always more flammable than young ones because fuel accumulates.
But plants change as fire germinates some, they then grow and others die. The pattern of flammability could be different in every forest. When I looked at snow gums, I found that our model recreated the same pattern of flammability that we could see from 53 years of mapped history. It broke the established rules as the regrowth was more flammable than the old forests.
Our team later looked at 58 sites across eight different ecosystems ranging from woodland to tall wet forest, all burnt under a wide range of conditions that gave everything from tiny flames to 30 metre crown fires.
Our model recreated the flame heights with an average error of only 40cm, and correctly predicted larger flames 12 times more often than the best available surface fuel model.
<h2>Fire predictions</h2>
The implications of this are significant. We can find where fire belongs and where it doesn’t. We can plan burn prescriptions around the plants they affect, find what the effects of logging or grazing might be and where it’s safe to build. We can see what will happen if more carbon dioxide changes leaves or more heatwaves dry some species.
Bushmen have long talked about “kerosene bush” – shrubs that go up in flame like a bonfire soaked with petrol – and ecologists have been studying individual traits that make leaves more or less flammable.
This model is the first complete picture of how it all fits together. It means that we are no longer limited to rules of thumb, that we can learn what we should have learnt long ago, the way fire should look in Australia.
Philip Zylstra is research fellow, flammability and fire behaviour, University of Wollongong and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/philip-zylstra-288456" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

New modelling on bushfires shows how they really burn through an area

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Coastal management in Australia is subject to competing interests and challenges. These range from land use and strategic planning issues to ecosystems preservation. Local councils are at the coalface as both key decision-makers and the first point of contact for communities.
Exacerbating these day-to-day challenges for councils are risks to property. A quantitative assessment undertaken by the then-Department of Climate Change in 2009 identified impacts of sea-level rise as a serious threat to property.
In New South Wales, under scenarios of a 1.1-metre sea-level rise, risks of damage or inundation to residential housing alone affected tens of thousands of properties, potentially costing millions of dollars. The NSW 2009 sea-level rise policy (now repealed) saw coastal councils considering this future risk when developing coastal zone management plans.
These metrics, while important, say little of the wide-ranging benefits of a freely accessible coast. Going to the beach is a fundamental part of Australian identity; it’s a “special place” for Australians.
Local councils are most exposed to the issues and challenges of a changing coastline in which there are many interests. Councils are often the first decision-makers for local development, asset management and land-use and strategic planning. Increased coastal erosion, storm events, more frequent and severe flooding impacts and higher tides can and will make these regular functions of councils more complicated.
In this context, the tabling of the NSW Coastal Management Bill on May 3 marks the formalisation of Stage 2 of the most significant law reform to coastal management since the 1970s. The NSW state government says that, by better integrating coastal management with land-use planning, the legislation offers:
 a modern, coherent coastal management framework that is responsive to current needs and future challenges.
<h2>Property rights hold sway</h2>
Despite a prominent focus on property values when it comes to coastal management issues, including climate adaptation, evidence is emerging that residents are attached to their property for more than financial reasons.
Private property interests often take priority as councils attempt to balance competing interests. An example of this is ongoing litigation over a sandbag wall on Belongil Beach in Byron Bay.
After a series of severe coastal storms in the 1970s, Byron Shire Council adopted a policy of “planned retreat<a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/byron-bay-mayor-jan-barham-vows-no-retreat-on-beach-barriers/story-e6frg6o6-1225778397737">”</a>. The location of this small northern NSW community on the most easterly point of Australia means it is already exposed to coastal hazards. These will become more frequent and more severe under future climate scenarios.
The planned retreat policy set requirements for the future relocation of private property. Local property owners, particularly those with beachfront property, have vehemently opposed the use of the policy to prevent coastal property protection.
In May 2009, a particularly severe coastal storm caused significant damage to private residential property and the beach. Beachfront property owners (the Vaughans) sought to reinstate council-approved sandbag protection works on their property. This sandbag wall had collapsed during the storm.
The Vaughans sued the council and the council sued the Vaughans. This particular matter settled in February 2010 and the failed sandbag wall has been reinstated.
More recently, council plans to install a permanent rock wall at the same location ran into fierce opposition from the community, for whom the public amenity of the beach is critical, and legal challenges.
This example highlights some critical aspects of coastal management:
<ul>
<li>
private property rights are deeply entrenched in Australian culture and legal systems
</li>
<li>
climate adaptation is easier when it comes to future development
</li>
<li>
recourse to litigation in protecting your property is much easier if you can afford it.
</li>
</ul>
Climate adaptation planning, including planned retreat, can be more easily implemented for future development. There are excellent examples of local government in NSW providing landowners with a range of development options.
<h2>NSW reforms weigh future risks</h2>
Much of the coast of Australia, however, is already developed. The residential development includes affordable housing options. To balance competing interests along the coast, all members of coastal communities must be considered.
To this end, the NSW bill, if passed, would lead to a new Coastal Management Act, a new Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy and a coastal management manual. Together these advance a more forward-thinking coastal management response. This has a central focus on ecologically sustainable development that can better balance both the management of coastal hazards and the integrity of the coast.
Local councils will be responsible for implementing these new legal requirements. Under Part 3 of the Coastal Management Bill, councils will be required to monitor coastal hazards and to give effect to coastal management plans. It would appear this includes future sea-level rise.
As has been advocated in numerous policy reports, the councils can’t do this alone. They need assistance from the federal government as well as the state.
Tayanah O'Donnell is research fellow, University of Canberra and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tayanah-odonnell-122914" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Coastal law shift from property rights to climate adaptation is a landmark reform

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/68348/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Australia is a huge continent, but a coastal nation.
About 80 percent of Australians live within 50km of the coast, and a sea-level rise of 1.1 metres (a high-end scenario for 2100) would put about A$63 billion (in 2008 dollars) worth of residential buildings at risk. 
Anyone who lives along Sydney’s northern beaches, especially in Collaroy, saw at first hand the damage the ocean can wreak on coastal properties when the coastline was hit by a severe east coast low during a king tide in June.
There are many different factors that determine which coastal homes or suburbs are most at risk of inundation or erosion, either now or in the future. In a review published as part of a series produced by the Australian Energy and Water Exchange initiative, we investigated the causes of extreme sea levels and coastal impacts in Australia, how they have changed, and how they might change even more. While significant progress has been made over recent decades, many questions remain.
The first factor to consider is the average sea level, relative to the land elevation. This “background” sea level varies, both from year to year and season to season. Depending on where you live and what the climate is doing, background sea level can fluctuate by up to about 1m. Around Australia’s northern coastline, for example, El Niño and La Niña can cause large variations in year-to-year sea levels. 
On top of this are the tides, which rise and fall predictably, and whose range varies by location and phase of the moon. Most places have two tides a day, but curiously some only have one - including Perth. 
<a href="/images/2016/11/28/image-20161114-9065-mho9m6.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/11/28/image-20161114-9065-mho9m6.png" alt="">
Map of tide pattern variations. Red: one high and low tide daily (diurnal); blue: two high and low tides per day (semi-diurnal) with a mixed tidal regime between. OZEWEX, Author provided
On top of that again is the effect of the weather, the most notable short-term effects being storm surges and storm waves. During a surge, the storm pushes extra water onto the coast through a combination of wind pressure, wave buildup, and atmospheric pressure changes. Obviously these factors are much more localised than tides.
Extreme sea-level events, such as the one that hit Sydney in June, can arise from isolated events such as a storm surge. But more often they are due to a combination of natural phenomena that on their own may not be considered extreme. In Sydney, several factors aligned: a storm surge driven by an east coast low, an uncommon wave direction, a king tide, and a higher-than-average background sea level.
These processes already have the capacity to destroy coastal homes and infrastructure. But for the future, we also need to factor in climate change, which will raise the background sea level and may also change the frequency and intensity of storms.
<h2>Long-term trends</h2>
Average sea levels in Australian waters have been rising at rates similar to (but just below) the global average. Since 1993, Australian tide gauges show an average rise of 2.1mm per year, whereas satellite observationsreveal a global average rise of 3.4mm per year. 
What really counts is extreme sea levels, and these have been rising at roughly the same rate, meaning that the rising background sea level is a fairly good guide to how extremes are increasing. 
This trend will continue in the future, although more energetic storm systems may also cause larger storm surges and hence higher rates of extreme sea levels in some places. More frequent storms are also set to make extreme sea-level events more common.
By 2100, global average sea level is projected to rise by 0.28-0.61m, relative to the period 1986-2005, if this century’s global warming can be held to about 1℃. But if greenhouse emissions continue to increase at their current rate, the world is in line for sea-level rises of 0.52-0.98m. 
This rise will not be uniform around Australia’s coastline. The east coast is likely to experience up to 6cm more sea-level rise than the global average by 2100, because of the expected warming and strengthening of the East Australian Current.
Trends in Australia’s weather and waves are harder to predict. Satellite measurements over the past 30 years suggest that waves are getting slightly higher in the Southern Ocean, and climate models suggest that this may continue. As the tropics continue to expand with climate change, the band of westerly winds over the Southern Ocean will retreat further south and strengthen, whipping up higher waves that will travel to Australia’s southern coast as swell. On the other hand, weakening winds nearer to Australia may help to dampen down wave heights. On Australia’s eastern coast, climate models suggest fewer large wave events due to decreasing storminess in the Tasman Sea in the future. 
A significant challenge we face is not having the data available to monitor the changes along our southern coastline. Australia has the longest east-west continental shelf in the world, but we have only a handful of wave buoys to measure these processes; much of the coastline is not monitored despite widespread coastal management concerns.
Our understanding of extreme sea-level change in Australia is also limited by available tide gauge coverage. Only two digital tide gauge records (in Fremantle and Fort Denison) extend back to at least the early 20th century, and records elsewhere around the coast typically span less than 50 years. 
However, our investigation discovered that there is an opportunity to increase the length of available records by digitising old paper tide gauge charts. This could extend several records along our southern and tropical coastlines.
We also have major gaps in our knowledge about how our coastlines will be changed by flooding and erosion. The simple methods used to predict coastal erosion may underestimate erosion significantly, particularly in estuaries. 
Given the considerable urban infrastructure located within estuaries, and the fact that they are vulnerable both to coastal storms and river floods, this is one of the many crucial questions about life on the coast that we still need to answer.
Kathleen McInnes is senior research scientist, CSIRO and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kathleen-mcinnes-303453" target="_blank">here</a>.
Mark Hemer is senior research scientist, Oceans and Atmosphere, CSIRO and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mark-hemer-302723" target="_blank">here</a>.
Ron Hoeke is littoral oceanographer, CSIRO and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ron-hoeke-315391" target="_blank">here</a>.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Climate change

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Climate change

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News