Climate change and the consumer - news

Impacts on the web of life at higher latitudes.

For those who would deny the consumer relevance, it’s food.

Activism and related terms are dog-whistles. When encountered in the context of anthropogenic global warming, they reveal some degree of denialism.

I live in a coal-mining region. Even people who concede the science of global warming often have a blind spot when it comes to the role of coal.They refer to any attempts at reducing or preventing increases in Australia’s coal production as activism (or sometimes less polite terms).

2 Likes

Science not at it’s best?

“The implication is that it’s impossible to say what the implication is,” says Jørgen Berge, the lead study author and a biologist with the Arctic University of Norway.

Blind spot or acceptance that the role of coal remains critical to the futures of China, the United States and India?

For Australia the export income coal and iron ore creates is currently offsetting our trade and helping to fund the importing of Solar panels, wind turbines and battery electric cars. It’s currently odds on Australia will be independent of coal generated electricity long before any of these big three miners. The prospect of stopping the export of iron ore (which is currently reduced to iron with coal) is an equally effective strategy to ending the consumption of coal.

Perhaps there is hypocrisy in considering

When there are no concurrent calls for an end to the mining and export of iron ore.

As for NSW and it’s addiction or dependence on coal.
No blind spot, just a simple point that production peaked in 2013-14 and is on the way down, albeit slowly.

The other news is that a majority of Australians desire change. No blind spot there.

[“There’s no shortage of research that shows people are worried about climate change,” she said.

“The problem is not people thinking it’s a problem, the problem is what are people willing to do about it.”

While a minority of people were willing to make big sacrifices to see climate change tackled, Ms Huntley said there were many more for whom it’s not a top priority.

For instance, while 62 per cent of respondents said they would support a levy on fossil fuel companies to help transition to clean energies, that could change if jobs were lost or prices went up, she said.]
(Climate change survey shows Australians want action on emissions, but are divided on nuclear - ABC News)

The majority of Australian’s see Climate Change through local issues.

And a majority disagreed with the sentiment that Australia should not act on climate change until major emitters like the US and China did.

Although Australia’s local emissions contribute around 1.4 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions,

A long way removed from any concerns about impossible to define implications of light on Arctic fisheries.

Perhaps news closer to home might provide great impetus?

Sources of sound advice and informed opinion.

Engineers Australia now with 100 years of professional representation provided this response to the Climate Change Authority issued Consultation Paper, August 2019.

Titled: Practical action to meet the Paris Agreement.

The short response is non partisan and holistic in it’s assessment and recommendations. Pertinent given the importance of needing a strategy, planning and goals.

Note:
The CCA is due to report again to Govt this year.

It’s report in 2019 was far from complementary, with Reneweconomy offering this assessment.

1 Like

A remarkably rational response from the right:

Unwise investment in dying technologies will be costly - and by whom do you think the costs will be paid?

1 Like

We hear the phrase “Net-Zero Emissions” bandied about, but what does it mean?

1 Like

Fact Check?
Should we be scared of big numbers.
It depends on which market you are looking at. The RenewEconomy Headline “

This is misleading in the context of the current discussion. It refers to the global scenario. It is also referring specifically to new and planned investments in coal fired power stations. It’s possible Australia might build another, political will overriding common sense. For now this seems highly unlikely.

It would appear there is little here Aussie consumers need to be concerned about. Unless you invest in offshore coal fired power stations?

Note:
Australia has experienced to 2017 a drop in coal fired power from 80% to 60% of electrical power produced. The following table reveals just how close much of this capacity is to retiring naturally.

One third or the 23GW capacity if stretched to a 50 year plant life will not make it to 2030 and two thirds will be life expired before 2034. By then and well before 2050 less than 20% of Australia’s electricity will come from coal.

The headline from RenewEconomy (click bait) does itself a disservice.

P.S.
Australia does generate a significant portion of it’s electrical power from natural gas and CSG. Aside from Snowy 2, investment in the storage capacity required to support renewables is lagging wind and solar.

Perhaps the discussion should be more about the possible short fall of investment in storage. :wink:

Or

As I see it, the pandemic is fast-moving and practically impossible to deny. So we act (maybe not fast enough, but we can’t rationalise inaction).

Climate change is slow-moving, so the motivated can deny it. Those who should lead can instead betray us. Looking back over the better part of a century, I can see changes in the world. On a political timescale, those changes are not visible.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90473758/what-would-happen-if-the-world-reacted-to-climate-change-like-its-reacting-to-the-coronavirus

[edit 1]
Lots of numbers for those who like numbers.

https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(19)30225-8

[edit 2]
Zali Stegall has delayed tabling her Climate Change Bill. Cornavirus has proved a godsend (so to speak) for the government. Then again, the delay just moves the issue closer to the next election.
https://www.zalisteggall.com.au/climate_change_bill_update

1 Like

Apologies in advance if this has been mentioned - there is so much traffic on this and the pandemic …

But it occurred to me (was I the last to think of it?) that during 911 scientists had an amazing opportunity to observe the impact (or dare I say, benefit) of a dramatic reduction of aircraft in the skies, specifically the continental United States. I’d certainly imagine the same bunch of boffins would be looking at things closely now this is extending to at least some degree over the whole planet with flights being reduced and cancelled all over.

Sometimes bad things bring interesting side effects, opportunities to study, etc …

3 Likes

The crash in China’s heavy industry production has greatly reduced air pollution in some areas. The bug has killed some but it will lengthen the lives of others. Such matters tend to be skipped over (or at least the industries and policy makers hope so) because they are more statistical in nature. You can list the names of the bug’s victims but identifying those individuals who lived another n years is not so easy. Nonetheless the effect is real.

4 Likes
2 Likes

An interesting article regarding climate change.

1 Like

Political spin notwithstanding, coal markets have been flat for some time and look like staying that way. Weak markets don’t create jobs. Any increase in supply will, at best, move some jobs. Adani plans Carmichael to be the most automated mine ever built. Jobs created there will be fewer than those destroyed elsewhere. As a resident of a coal-mining region, I don’t want to see the Galilee developed. I’d prefer the jobs remain where they are.

[edit]
Coincidence or exploitation of the distraction?

1 Like

From a Facebook climate change group:

[edit]
More from a writer for whom my admiration continues to grow:

Climate change is lethal in more ways than one.

1 Like

The concern is real.
Should we acknowledge the recent bush fire crisis had many contributing factors?

Climate Change is one factor that according to a generalisation concerning the extent of wildfires in the USA,

Migliaccio said that due to climate change increasing the frequency and severity of wildfires “these types of exposures are increasing in number and intensity,

That was the only comment in The Guardian article re Climate Change and not part of the content from the Australian research referenced.

It’s important to note the Guardian does not attribute 417 deaths to Climate Change. We don’t know how many.

a consortium of 10 air pollution researchers from across Australia, led by Marks and including Johnston, have already put up their hands for $3m in government funding,

Minimising the risks of major fire events requires more than just a response to Climate Change, as all the past RC’s and enquires into major fires attest.

Is it decent to deny the significance of the link?

I don’t see any denial, in general or personal.

It’s dramatic if we attribute the 410 deaths as a consequence of climate change, if that Is how it reads?

410 deaths due to smoke from all the bush fires is the report estimate.

How many did the scientific medical report attribute to Climate Change? It did not make any determination or connection.

Climate change is not our only challenge when it comes to managing bush fire risk. Hopefully in saying so, or suggesting the need to also act on other aspects is not denialist. Neither is pointing out that a portion only of the 410 deaths could be attributed to the extra intensity and extent of this fire season. It’s open to say what portion was due to the changes in our climate. Perhaps the specialist climate change researches in Holland are on the ball with their generalised 30%.

A slightly different use of phrase in the preceding post makes a lot of difference. I agree with everything else in that post.

But not everything that matters and happens to us is due to climate change.

Is it decent to implicitly deny the significance of the link?

[quote=“Drop_Bear, post:554, topic:18513”]

Climate change boosted Australia fire risk by 30%

Scientists quantify the role played by warming
[/quote].

30% significant, if we can agree to disagree.

I’m not sure agreeing it’s 30% as that is what the science is saying in this example is as critical as looking to what else is being done to reduce our carbon footprint and the impacts of climate change.

Climate change played a role in the bushfires. The fires produced smoke. The smoke contributed to deaths.

Do you have a point?