Wednesday 31 July 2019

Clean energy set to provide 35% of Australia's electricity within two years

The renewable boom will end without a national policy to encourage future clean investments, industry warns
Wind, hydro and solar power made up 22.3% of electricity used across the month, peaking at 39.2% in the middle of the day on 30 June
Wind, hydro and solar power made up 22.3% of electricity used across the month, peaking at 39.2% in the middle of the day on 30 June. Photograph: Dan Himbrechts/AAP

Clean energy will be providing 35% of Australia’s total electricity needs within two years, analysts say, as new data underlines the pace at which solar power is transforming the national energy market.
A report by consultants Green Energy Markets found rooftop solar systems and new large-scale farms regularly pushed renewable energy to beyond 30% of generation at midday during June, one of the least sunny months.
Wind, hydro and solar power made up 22.3% of electricity used across the month. The level of clean energy in the system at one time peaked at 39.2% in the middle of the day on 30 June.
Tristan Edis, a Green Energy Markets director and analyst, said clean energy growth would continue in the short term as a number of projects were in development and yet to come online. But he said the boom was expected to end in the absence of a policy to encourage further investments.
He said he expected clean energy would provide on average 35% electricity by 2021.
“What we are seeing now is just a glimpse of what’s ahead because you’ve still got a substantial number of solar farms coming through,” Edis said. “We’re going to be regularly having 50% of renewables – solar, wind and hydro – across the national electricity market in the middle of the day in the next 12 months. But it is also soon going to get hard to get new stuff built.”
A report by the Clean Energy Regulator last week found enough projects were committed to meet the 2020 renewable energy target, roughly equivalent to 23% of electricity. While most recent investment has been driven by incentives attached to the target, and to a lesser extent a state target in Victoria, recent large-scale clean plants have been funded on a commercial basis by businesses wanting to lock in cheap solar and wind deals while wholesale electricity prices were high.
But Edis said this would end as abundant free solar power during the day reduced wholesale prices to a level where investment in any type of new large-scale generation was not financially attractive. In the absence of federal policy to drive grid transformation, he said investment was likely to slow until the circumstances in the market changed – for example, a coal-fired power plant closed, reducing supply.
“It just shows how crazy this idea is that we should go and build another coal-fired generator to run as baseload,” Edis said. “If we do that it just means another coal-fired power plant is going to shut down because nothing can outcompete solar and wind.”
Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity are expected to continue to be reduced in the short-term, but at a slower pace than experts say is possible or necessary for Australia its part under the Paris climate agreement. While federal data released last month found emissions from electricity were down, national emissions continue to rise due to increased carbon pollution from the resources industry, mostly liquefied natural gas production for export, and transport.

‘Any of them could do the job’

At an Australian clean energy summit in Sydney on Tuesday, the Clean Energy Council chief executive, Kane Thornton, said it had been a record-breaking two years, with more than $24bn worth of large-scale renewable energy projects, solar panels on 2m homes and the world’s biggest battery based in South Australia.
But he said a survey of 75 chief executives showed industry confidence had fallen since December due to policy uncertainty, growing constraints on the grid and the pace at which regulations and markets that had been designed for last century were having to be changed. The survey found energy bosses believed the single greatest challenge facing the industry was getting new farms and plants connected to the grid. A lack of energy and climate policy was the second biggest challenge.
“The economics of clean energy continues to improve and we no longer require subsidy,” Thornton said. “But the wholesale market is riddled with uncertainty.”
He said collaboration on energy between the commonwealth and the states was near non-existent, noting federal and state ministers energy ministers had not met for eight months and no meeting was planned.
Thornton said a sensible energy policy could accelerate investment, drive down power prices and deliver jobs in rural areas. The industry did not mind whether the policy was the abandoned national energy guarantee, an extended renewable energy target, the clean energy target proposed by the chief scientist, Alan Finkel, or a baseline-and-credit trading scheme. “Any of them could do the job,” he said.

NSW threatens to go it alone

Matt Kean, the New South Wales energy and environment minister, repeated his warning that the Berejiklian government would introduce its own climate and energy policy if the federal government did not act.
“The NSW government still supports the national energy guarantee and will continue to support a national mechanism that integrates climate and energy policy,” he told the summit. “As I’ve said before, if the commonwealth won’t get on board NSW will consider going it alone.”
Kean said NSW wanted to be known as the easiest jurisdiction in the OECD for energy construction.
Thornton said the industry was still on track for 50% clean energy before 2030 and a fully renewable energy system was now inevitable and could be achieved well before mid-century. He said the next stage would be decarbonising other sectors such as transport and building a renewable export industry selling green hydrogen and clean energy via undersea cable.

“It’s now time we started debating when Australia should target 200% renewable energy generation,” he said.

Former national security watchdog slams Coalition bid to extend emergency terror laws

Updated 39 minutes ago

A former national security watchdog has launched a stinging critique of the Coalition's demand for Parliament to extend emergency terror laws beyond their scheduled end date, urging Labor not to fold and support the plan.

Key points:

  • The powers were introduced after the September 11 terror attacks, and are due to lapse in just over a month
  • The Coalition wants to extend them for another 12 months
  • A former national security watchdog is suggesting that is lazy politics

Federal Parliament passed legislation in the wake of the September 11 terror attacks, giving ASIO the power to secretly detain and interrogate terror suspects.
The legislation contained a "sunset clause", which required the Parliament to review the efficacy and merit of the powers after a specific period of time.
The laws are due to lapse in early September, but the Coalition wants to kick that deadline out by 12 months.
It is the latest flashpoint in the national security debate in the 46th Parliament, following last week's debate on temporary exclusion orders.
Former Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) Bret Walker SC reviewed the legislation in 2012 and recommended significant changes.
He does not accept the Coalition's argument further extension is required, suggesting it is lazy.
"If national security is to be a mantra that commands some kind of falling in with government proposals, then the very least we can ask in return is a demonstration that government itself has been dealing urgently and profoundly with these problems," Mr Walker told the ABC.
"I'm sorry, the time that has elapsed since people first started questioning the existence of these powers suggests there's been nothing like urgency, and nothing like profound consideration of them."
There are two parts to the emergency ASIO powers. The first is a "questioning and detention warrant", which has never been used, and allows a terror suspect to be taken into custody for urgent questioning. The second is a "questioning warrant".
Mr Walker recommended scrapping the detention warrant in 2012, in his capacity as the INSLM.
A 2018 report by Parliament's Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS), agreed with the calls to scrap the detention powers, while recommending broadening the scope of the questioning warrant to include cases of espionage and foreign interference.
"I don't think there is reason [to extend], in the sense of something that would withstand scrutiny," Mr Walker said.
"I think this is a reflex by people who are too nervous to give up what they regard as powers in what they regard as the fight against terrorism."

Coalition demanding powers be extended a fourth time

The "sunset" provisions have been extended three times before — once in 2006 under the Howard government, a second time in 2014 under then-prime minister Tony Abbott, and a third time last year.

Labor said it would be willing to allow a three-month extension this time around, but it is understood it would not block the year-long deadline change if the Coalition did not agree.
Mr Walker urged the Opposition not to back down on its position, suggesting it would go against the spirit of inserting sunset clauses into legislation.
"It is, in my view, an unprincipled approach, and I wish Parliament would not do it," he said.
Labor allowed a 12-month extension to the powers last year on the basis the Government would act.
Shadow Home Affairs Minister Kristina Keneally defended the Opposition's current stance.
"Bret Walker is arguing the same thing as Labor; that Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton should not be given a free pass," Senator Keneally told the ABC.
"Under Labor's amendments, the [questioning and detention warrant] power — which has never been used since it was introduced in 2003 — will sunset on September 7, 2019.
"Mr Dutton has done nothing to reform [questioning warrant] powers and now wants another year to do the work; Labor is proposing he gets on with the job in three months."
Attorney-General Christian Porter, acting as Home Affairs Minister while Peter Dutton is overseas, defended the Government against criticism it had been slow to act on the 2018 intelligence committee report.
"In a complex and evolving threat environment, it is vital that our intelligence agencies continue to have the powers they need to keep Australians safe," he said.
"Whilst the Government carefully considers all PJCIS recommendations, given a full general election occurred during the previous 12 months, consideration of these reforms [and] important and complex changes to the powers of our agencies is still ongoing."

Tuesday 30 July 2019

Courier-Mail story attacking scientists over Adani mine not accurate or fair, watchdog says

Press Council says News Corp paper’s article ‘Mega-mine’s future in hands of greenies’ failed to meet standards
The Courier-Mail breached the press watchdog’s standards for accuracy, fairness and balance in a report headlined “Mega-mine’s future in hands of greenies” about Adani’s Carmichael mine in Queensland.
The News Corp paper claimed that the Threatened Species Recovery Hub was an “anti-coal group” made up of “greenies” who had been “hand-picked by the Palaszczuk government to review one of the mine’s environmental management plans”.
But the Australian Press Council said the hub is a collaboration of research scientists engaged in issues of threatened species and only one member was involved in the review.
“The council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the ‘anti-coal group’ headline was accurate, not misleading, and fair and balanced,” the council said in an adjudication published by the Courier on Monday.
The newspaper reported, in print and online, in January that “the fate of Queensland’s Carmichael mine is in the hands of an environmental group whose members champion radical action on climate change, oppose coal and have appeared as expert witnesses against Adani”.
The Hub complained to the press council that the article implied they were environmental activists, when in fact they were a “collaboration of more than 150 world-class research scientists from the CSIRO, Australian Universities and various non-government organisations working on the challenge of how to recover Australia’s threatened species.”
Some of the errors were caused by incorrect information provided by the Queensland government to the Courier-Mail, but the paper did not contact the Hub prior to publication and only got the views of Adani.
The newspaper published an opinion piece by the deputy director of the Hub on 22 February 2019 which was a robust defence of scientific practice. It also said the Hub did not request that it be able to respond in the opinion piece more generally to the article.
The Press Council requires publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (general principle 1) and presented with reasonable fairness and balance (general principle 3). In this case, the Courier breached principles 1 and 3.
“The council notes that the terms ‘compromised’ and ‘incapable of carrying out a review’ are not presented as fact or comment by the publication but as direct quotations from the Adani spokesperson,” the adjudication says.

“However, the publication did not contact the Hub for comment prior to publication and the Council considers that it was not reasonably fair and balanced to only present Adani’s perspective. In these circumstances the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that Adani’s views of the Hub were presented with reasonable fairness and balance and breached general principle 3.”

'Unfunded empathy': Scott Morrison pushes back on growing calls to lift Newstart rate

Extract from The Guardian




Prime minister ducks question on whether he could live on the $277.85 weekly payment, acknowledging it is ‘modest’
Scott Morrison
Prime minister Scott Morrison is resisting calls to lift the rate of Newstart. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP

Scott Morrison has declared the Coalition will not engage in “unfunded empathy” when it comes to raising the Newstart rate, and has ducked a direct question about whether he could live on the payment.
Amid calls from within his own ranks to boost the benefit, the prime minister was asked in question time on Monday whether he could live on the Newstart rate of $40 a day.
Morrison acknowledged the payment, worth $277.85 a week, was “modest” but said the focus should be getting unemployed people into jobs. The prime minister told parliament he wanted “to commend all those Australians who are on Newstart and looking for a job” and he repeated his regular declaration that “the best form of welfare is a job”.
Morrison said unlike Labor, he would not engage in what he termed “unfunded empathy” about boosting the payment. “I will not go out as the Labor party did at the last election pretending they’re going to do something about Newstart but they won’t tell Australians how much they’re going to increase it by, how much is that going to cost and how are they going to pay for it”.“I won’t do that,” the prime minister said.

Newstart is tied to inflation, not wages, which means the benefit does not keep pace with other government payments like pensions.
As political support has increased over recent months for increasing the Newstart payment the Australian Council of Social Service has surveyed people on the payment, and 84% of respondents said they had skipped meals to save money. Of the people who reported skipping meals, 30% said they missed between three and four each week. A further 13% went without food at least eight times a week.
A number of Nationals and Liberals have advocated publicly for an increase to the payment post election.
A range of people and groups, from John Howard, to the Business Council of Australia, to welfare organisations like Acoss support increasing the benefit, arguing it is currently low enough to create a barrier for recipients attempting to find work.
The Reserve Bank governor has argued recently increasing Newstart is a decision for government, but noted it would be “good for the economy”.
During the last term in opposition, Labor promised an inquiry with a view to increasing the payment. Post election, Labor has strengthened its position, calling on Morrison and the Coalition to raise the rate.
But Labor is continuing to delay a decision about the dollar figure it will propose for the increase. A boost to the payment of $75 a week would cost the budget about $3bn a year.

Labor says the government should conduct a review to determine how much Newstart needs to be increased by. Last week, Labor, the Greens and the crossbench voted to institute a Senate inquiry into Newstart.

UN chief calls for 2050 zero emissions plans – but Australia remains tightlipped

Countries asked to flag plans for net zero emissions by 2050, but so far Australia is only talking about its 2030 target
The Australian government says it will respond formally to the UN chief’s 2050 emissions request, but so far is only addressing its 2030 target
The Australian government says it will respond formally to the UN chief’s request on 2050 emissions, but is keeping its focus on 2030 commitments. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian

The United Nations secretary general, António Guterres, has written to all heads of state asking countries to outline their plans to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, but at this stage the Australian government is only engaging on commitments to 2030.
Ahead of a climate action summit in New York on 23 September, Guterres has reportedly asked leaders to flag plans they will set next year for 2030 emissions reduction commitments, and their plans to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
A spokesman for the prime minister, Scott Morrison, says Australia will respond formally to the UN chief in due course, but when asked by Guardian Australia what commitments would be outlined, only addressed the 2030 target.
The spokesman said the Morrison government recognised “the serious challenge climate change presents, which is why Australia’s 2030 target is one of the strongest efforts among G20 countries”.
“The government has beaten Australia’s 2020 targets by 367 million tonnes and has already clearly outlined Australia’s plan to meet our 2030 target which will cut the emissions intensity of our economy by two thirds and reduce our emissions per person by half,” Morrison’s spokesman said.
Ahead of a climate meeting in Bonn in June, the Morrison government was challenged by the European Union and by China about whether it can meet its Paris commitments given the trend of rising emissions evident since the repeal of the carbon price, including increased pollution from vehicles.
The EU pointed out “on the basis of reported projections with existing policies and measures” Australia did not appear to be on track to meet the Paris commitment. It asked whether Australia would need further policies to meet the commitment, given the current trends.
In their responses, Australian government officials defended Australia’s policies, but in defending the status quo, officials also restated a commitment to “review and refine” domestic policies aligned with the five-yearly review process under the Paris agreement. “This approach will provide for integrated consideration of domestic policy and international targets, and provide guidance for industry about future policy review processes,” Australian officials said in June.
The EU and Canada ahead of the June talks in Bonn also queried the Coalition’s decision to use carry-over credits from the Kyoto Protocol in the carbon budget it outlined before the May election.
The Coalition is counting a 367 megatonne abatement from carry-over credits (an accounting system that allows countries to count carbon credits from exceeding their targets under the soon-to-be-obsolete Kyoto protocol periods against their Paris commitment for 2030) to help meet Australia’s 2030 target.
Australia’s carbon budget also factors in emissions reduction from the Snowy Hydro expansion; energy efficiency measures; an electric vehicle strategy that the government has not yet unveiled; pollution reduction from the rebadged emissions reduction fund and just under 100Mt of abatement from “technology solutions” which aren’t specified and “other sources of abatement” such as projects under development but not yet contracted.
The minister for emissions reduction, Angus Taylor, has found himself under pressure post election for presiding over a clear trend of emissions increases.
During the last parliamentary sitting week, Taylor was asked repeatedly whether emissions had risen in recent years, not fallen, with official data showing increases for the past three years.
The minister for emissions reduction argued pollution went “up and down” but he acknowledged emissions had risen, arguing the trend was attributable to booming liquefied natural gas exports, which he claimed helped lower global emissions.


In sharing that rationale, which experts have contested, Taylor did not mention Australia’s coal exports, which increase global pollution.

Poverty is rising again in Australia and expert cites welfare changes as likely cause

Moving people off higher pensions on to Newstart a possible reason for uptick in poverty, author of annual Hilda survey says
Poverty rates are increasing, likely caused by the ‘tightening of the screws’ of the welfare system, the author of the annual Hilda survey says
Poverty rates are increasing, possibly because of the ‘tightening of the screws’ of the welfare system, the author of the Hilda survey says. Photograph: Matt King/Getty Images

Poverty in Australia is increasing again after several years of decline, a respected University of Melbourne study has found, with changes to welfare policies cited as a possible contributor.
The annual Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (Hilda) survey, released on Tuesday, found the proportion of people living below the relative poverty line – 50% of the median income – increased in 2017, from 9.6% to 10.4%. Poverty rates also rose using the lower “anchored” measure in both 2016 and 2017.
Researchers said the trend was likely caused by the “tightening of the screws” of the welfare system, which has seen many Australians moved off higher pension benefits and onto the Newstart allowance.
“We have seen an uptick in measures of poverty in the last couple of years on the back of fairly substantial declines over this century,” said the report’s co-author, Prof Roger Wilkins.
“We’d be a bit concerned about whether that was the start of a trend upwards, or whether it’s just a short-term upward movement.”
Child poverty rates among single-parent families hit 19.2% in 2017, the highest rate since the global financial crisis.
Poverty rates were even higher among single elderly people, and in excess of 30% for elderly single women, although the report did not take into account owner-occupied housing and was therefore likely to “overstate the extent of their relative deprivation”.
The report did not investigate potential causes, but Wilkins said changes to the welfare system introduced by the Coalition and previous Labor government were a likely cause for the increase in poverty rates.
“Obviously, there’s a lot of attention on the lack of a real increase in the Newstart allowance,” he said.
“But that’s probably not the biggest factor. It would be things like progressively [moving] more people onto Newstart from higher benefits like parenting payment single and the disability support pension.”
The report’s findings are still likely to further fuel calls for an increase to the $277.85 a week Newstart payment, which is significantly lower than parenting and disability payments. The relative poverty line is about $430 a week for a single person.
Growth in household incomes has been stagnant since 2009, particularly for men. The median household income in 2017 of $80,095 was lower in real terms than in 2013, 2012, or 2009.
While there had been “little net change in income inequality” over the 17 years of the survey, there has also been a persistent decline in income mobility in the short and medium term, particularly among those in the top and bottom quintiles.
These two groups were “not moving up or down the distribution,” Wilkins said.
“That seems to have been sustained over much of this period that we’re examining,” he said. “So [it means] the poor tend to stay poor and the rich tend to stay richer.”
The employment rate among women hit 71.4% in 2017, its highest point in the history of the survey, but Wilkins said the proportion of women working full time was still lower than it was in 2008.
At the same time, parents are spending about 150% more on childcare than they did in 2002. While much of the increase was due to an increasing use of child care services, hourly costs had also increased by 51% since 2002-03.
Wilkins also drew attention to what the report said was the “relatively little net change since 2009” in the number of retired Australians relying on the aged pension.
“I would have presumed to think that as the superannuation system matures that over time more people would be relying on income from superannuation and reliance on the age pension will be diminishing,” he said.

“There has basically been no reduction in reliance amongst people aged 65 and over.”

Centrelink's 'robodebt' program 'harsh and unfair' and should be scrapped, Federal Labor says

Extract from ABC News

Posted about 5 hours ago


Federal Labor has called for Centrelink's "robodebt" program to be scrapped, saying the automated debt recovery program is causing a "trail of human heartache".

Key points:

  • The debt recovery system is in the spotlight amid revelations Centrelink is pursuing the debt of a disability pensioner who has died
  • Labor spokesman Bill Shorten said the story "should shame" the Government into action
  • Government Services Minister Stuart Robert is standing by the policy

The electronic system compares income reported by welfare recipients with data held by the Australian Tax Office.
If there is a discrepancy, people are often automatically sent a notice asking for further information, such as payslips from years earlier.
A debt can then be raised if people do not provide their past employment details.
On Monday night, the ABC's 7.30 program revealed Centrelink is pursuing the debt of a disability pensioner who has died.
Six months after her son Bruce's death at age 49, Anastasia McCardel received a call saying he owed a debt of nearly $7000.

Opposition spokesman Bill Shorten said the story "should shame Government Services Minister Stuart Robert to finally act and address the problems at the heart of this scheme".
"The Government's robodebt scheme is so seriously malfunctioning it must be scrapped," he said in a statement.
Critics have questioned the legality of the online compliance system, which has been in operation since mid-2016.
It reverses the onus of proof and forces welfare recipients to show they do not owe money.

Debt recovery system 'a mess'

Thousands of the so-called "robodebts" have been waived or reduced because of errors with the initial calculation.

"Robodebt is inaccurate, harsh and unfair," Mr Shorten said.
"The Minister needs to go back to the drawing board.
"We recognise the right of government to recoup legitimate debts that are owed.
"But robodebt ... is a mess."
Labor wants more human oversight of the process.
In the past, a Centrelink officer would do a basic investigation before deciding whether to send out a letter.
Speaking before Mr Shorten's statement, Government Services Minister Stuart Robert stood by the policy.
"In the last four or five years the department has recovered $1.9 billion in overpayments and we have a legal responsibility to do that," Mr Robert said.
"There is a legal requirement upon us to ensure our highly-targeted welfare system has the right people getting the right money at the right time."

Mr Robert also defended the practice of recovering some debts from the estates of dead people.
"Normally in matters where someone has passed away, if the debt is substantial it gets raised with the estate or an assessment is made as to whether it's economic to actually recover," he said.
"And in many cases the debt is foregone and wiped."

Monday 29 July 2019

Extreme weather has damaged nearly half Australia's marine ecosystems since 2011

CSIRO says dramatic climate events are compounding the effects of underlying global heating
Extreme climate events such as heatwaves, floods and drought damaged 45% of the marine ecosystems along Australia’s coast in a seven-year period, CSIRO research shows.
More than 8,000km of Australia’s coast was affected by extreme climate events from 2011 to 2017, and in some cases they caused irreversible changes to marine habitats.
The study collated all the published research by leading scientists, who have examined the effects of marine heatwaves, heavy rainfall from tropical storms, cyclones and droughts on coral, kelp, mangrove and seagrass communities.

"It’s not just the Great Barrier Reef that we have to think about. It’s all around the country"
It paints a bigger picture of the extent to which the climate crisis is fuelling widespread change across Australia’s marine ecosystems.
The study found that big climate events were exacerbating the effects of human-induced climate change.
Heatwaves, for example, compounded the effects of the underlying global heating trend and left little time for organisms to adapt.
“All of the people around the country working on these systems for years have done a great job of documenting the impacts and repercussions,” Russ Babcock, the study’s lead author, said.
“If you stand back and have a look at how many [climate events] have happened between that period of 2011 to 2017, it really backs up that it’s not just the Great Barrier Reef that we have to think about. It’s all around the country.”
The team of scientists looked at events, including the 2011 marine heatwave in Western Australia, cyclone Yasi, the back-to-back mass bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, and the mangrove dieback in the Gulf of Carpentaria in 2015-16.
They also examined what the longer term repercussions of these events could be, given some areas had shown little, if any, sign of recovery.
“Some of our models showed it can take 15 years to recover from impacts like this,” Babcock said, noting that during that timeframe it was likely that more extreme events would occur.
He cited the large areas off the Western Australia coast where kelp canopies had not recovered since the 2011 marine heatwave.
Babcock said the long-term effects of such events affected other species, such as large animals that fed off sea grasses, which could lead to changes in the composition of entire marine communities.
“So things that we value about those habitats – the diversity of plants and animals there and the amount of things like fisheries you can harvest from them – can be affected,” he said.
“I think one of the important things is going to be to study the factors that make a difference in terms of the recovery of these habitats and therefore learn what we might be able to do to help them recover more quickly.”
Coral reef scientist Terry Hughes is one of the researchers whose work was referenced in the CSIRO study.
Hughes said the paper showed how serious the outlook was for all marine systems, not just coral reefs, which typically received more public attention.
“Other marine systems – kelps, seagrasses, mangroves – are just as vulnerable as reefs but they’re not the poster child,” he said.

“I wasn’t surprised ... but it’s good to have the big picture and make the point that it’s a huge issue for all coastal areas of Australia. It’s not just a Barrier Reef issue.”

The Guardian view on Amazon deforestation: Europe must act to prevent disaster

We need rainforests to limit climate change, as well as protect biodiversity, and must do all we can to support Brazilian conservation
If there is a glimmer of light amid the darkness of recent reports from the Brazilian Amazon, where deforestation is accelerating along with threats to the indigenous people who live there, it could lie in the growing power of climate diplomacy, combined with increased understanding of the crucial role played by trees in our planet’s climate system. The deal agreed a month ago between the EU and the Mercosur bloc of Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay (Venezuela is suspended) enhances European leverage with its South American trading partners. Already, the prize of access to EU markets is credited with having convinced Brazil not to follow Donald Trump’s lead by withdrawing from the Paris climate deal. Now the EU must strengthen its environmental commitments, as a letter from 600 scientists demanded before the deal was agreed.
Brazil’s president, Jair Bolsonaro, made no secret of his plans to promote development, and drew powerful support from Brazil’s agribusiness and mining interests before last year’s election. He scorns conservation and indigenous rights, claiming recently that his foreign opponents want Amazon tribes to live “like cavemen”. Satellite data shows the message is getting through, with clearances up sharply and this month set to be the first in five years in which Brazil has lost an area of forest bigger than Greater London. Illegal gold mining too is spreading. Last week one of the leaders of the Waiãpi people, Emyra Waiãpi, was found stabbed to death on a remote reserve in the state of Amapá, after armed men raided his village.
The situation is of critical importance, and all the more disturbing given recent climate projections. Protecting the world’s largest tropical rainforest, thought to contain 30% of all species, has rightly been an important focus for Brazilian and global environmental policies for two decades. But less than a year after Mr Bolsonaro’s election, the national environment agency appears significantly weakened, with enforcement actions during the first half of 2019 down 20% on the same period in 2018. Prosecutors and activists have been intimidated, while public opinion is mostly engaged elsewhere (for example, on pension reforms).
Mr Bolsonaro’s pitch to domestic and foreign audiences is the same: the Brazilian Amazon is none of anyone’s business but Brazil’s. With this in mind, the forest’s international defenders must tread carefully. Denunciations of the new government’s pro-business policies in the name of biodiversity could prove counterproductive. Instead, environmentalists, including Green politicians, should work through European political institutions, in the knowledge that the EU is the second-biggest market for Brazilian exports. Firm pressure must be brought to bear in the form of strong environmental regulations, and a refusal to compromise on transparency. Beef or soya farmed on illegally cleared land must not be imported to Europe. At the same time, Brazilian civil society organisations need support to challenge and resist illegal incursions, and to champion their country’s existing commitments – including to reforestation of cleared areas. Climate education must be promoted globally, so that people can better understand what is going on (the murder of a journalist linked to rainforest exploitation is already the subject of a drama on Brazilian TV). Forest clearances may produce short-term gains, but in the longer term they can only bring disaster. Brazil is in a strong position, at the next round of UN climate talks (moved to Chile after Mr Bolsonaro withdrew an offer to host), to demand increased international aid for the vast Amazon region. If we claim this tropical wilderness as a green lung for the world, we cannot expect Brazil to conserve it alone.