Friday, 31 July 2020

The four types of climate denier, and why you should ignore them all.

The shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool: each distorts the urgent global debate in their own way

Signs of global warming on the Mer de Glace glacier in the French Alps.
‘Serious debates about what to do about the climate crisis are turning into action. The deniers have nothing to contribute to this.’ Signs of global warming on the Mer de Glace glacier in the French Alps. Photograph: Konrad K/SIPA/REX/Shutterstock

A new book, described as “deeply and fatally flawed” by an expert reviewer, recently reached the top of Amazon’s bestseller list for environmental science and made it into a weekly top 10 list for all nonfiction titles.

How did this happen? Because, as Brendan Behan put it, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity”. In an article promoting his book, Michael Shellenberger – with jaw-dropping hubris – apologises on behalf of all environmentalists for the “climate scare we created over the last 30 years”.

Shellenberger was named a hero of the environment by Time magazine in 2008 and is a loud advocate of nuclear power, but the article was described by six leading scientists as “cherry-picking”, “misleading” and containing “outright falsehoods”.

The article was widely republished, even after being removed from its first home, Forbes, for violating the title’s editorial guidelines on self-promotion, adding further heat to the storm. And this is why all those who deny the reality or danger of the climate emergency should be ignored. Obviously, I have broken my own rule here, but only to make this vital point once and for all.

The science is clear, the severity understood at the highest levels everywhere, and serious debates about what to do are turning into action. The deniers have nothing to contribute to this.

However infuriating they are, arguing with them or debunking their theories is likely only to generate publicity or money for them. It also helps to generate a fake air of controversy over climate action that provides cover for the vested interests seeking to delay the end of the fossil fuel age.

But the deniers are not all the same. They tend to fit into one of four different categories: the shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool.

The shill is the easiest to understand. He, and it almost always is he, is paid by vested interests to emit clouds of confusion about the science or economics of climate action. This uncertainty creates a smokescreen behind which polluters can lobby against measures that cut their profits.

A sadder case is that of the grifters. They have found themselves earning a living by grinding out contrarian articles for rightwing media outlets. Do they actually believe the guff they write? It doesn’t matter: they just warm their hands on the outrage, count the clicks and wait for the pay cheque.

The egomaniacs are also tragic figures. They are disappointed, frustrated people whose careers have stalled and who can’t understand why the world refuses to give full reverence to their brilliance. They are desperate for recognition, and, when it stubbornly refuses to arrive, they are drawn to make increasingly extreme pronouncements, in the hope of finally being proved a dogma-busting, 21st-century Galileo.

The ideological fool is the fourth type of climate denier, and they can be intelligent. But they are utterly blinded by their inane, no-limits version of the free-market creed. The climate emergency requires coordinated global action, they observe, and that looks horribly like communism in disguise.

They could explore the many credible climate action plans being pursued, including by those on the political right. But their cognitive dissonance forces them to the conclusion that because state intervention is wrong, acting to avert climate danger cannot be right. Intellectual gymnastics to “expose” climate alarmism then follow naturally.

But why do I say ignore them all? The climate crisis is urgent, and we need debate to drive action. However, vigorous debates over action are already taking place in good faith all over the world, from the tops of governments to the smallest local action groups.

Every nation in the world signed up to the 2015 Paris climate deal, pledging to keep global heating below 2C and ideally to 1.5C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change involves thousands of international scientists and is arguably the greatest scientific endeavour in history. It has spent three decades spelling out in painstaking detail how humanity is causing global heating, how catastrophic that threatens to be – and how drastic action is required to avert the worst.

The world of finance and business is catching up fast with the science, and almost all the technology needed already exists. In short, no sane or serious actor can countenance denial of climate danger. Bad-faith arguments motivated by greed, egomania or ideology have nothing to add.

Which brings me to the US president, Donald Trump. Political leaders are the exception to the rule. Their climate idiocy should be challenged, as they hold actual power. But even in this case, reality is fast debunking their proclamations.

In the US, coal is dying, because green energy is cheaper and cleaner, however great Trump claims he will make the miners. Even if Trump, and Brazil’s president, Jair Bolsonaro, persist, other nations will begin to ostracise them via trade sanctions and border taxes.

As for the shill, grifter, egomaniac and ideological fool, the reality of increasing climate impacts and successful action is fast exposing them as well. Those willing to employ the shills and the grifters are dwindling.

The book I started with has now been knocked off the environmental bestsellers list, fittingly enough by one published by the environmental hero Rachel Carson, in 1951. I can’t profess to know what Shellenberger’s motivation was, but one thing is clear: the egomaniacs and ideological fools will get the place in history they so lust for. It will be a small footnote marking the useful idiots of the climate war.

Damian Carrington is the Guardian’s Environment editor

NASA launches Mars rover Perseverance from Florida to seek signs of past life on Red Planet.

Extract  from ABC News

,
NASA launches Mars rover to look for signs of life

NASA's next-generation Mars rover Perseverance has blasted off from Florida's Cape Canaveral atop an Atlas 5 rocket on a $US2.4 billion ($3.36 billion) mission to search for traces of potential past life on Earth's planetary neighbour.

The next-generation robotic rover — a car-sized six-wheeled scientific vehicle — is scheduled to deploy a mini helicopter on Mars and test out equipment for future human missions to the fourth planet from the Sun. It is expected to reach Mars next February.

It soared into the sky under clear, sunny and warm conditions carried by an Atlas 5 rocket from the Boeing-Lockheed joint venture United Launch Alliance.

The launch took place after the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California — where its mission engineers were located — was rattled by an earthquake.

This marks NASA's ninth journey to the Martian surface.

Perseverance is due to land at the base of a 250-metre-deep crater called Jezero, a former lake from 3.5 billion years ago that scientists suspect could bear evidence of potential past microbial life on Mars.Artist's impression of the Perseverance rover

Perseverance has been tasked with finding evidence of past life.(Supplied: NASA/JPL-Caltech)

Scientists have long debated whether Mars — once a much more hospitable place than it is today — ever harboured life.

Water is considered a key ingredient for life, and the Mars of billions of years ago had lots of it on the surface before the planet became a harsh and desolate planet.

NASA's Mars rover Perseverance offers a new frontier of research

One of the most complex manoeuvres in Perseverance's journey will be what mission engineers call the "seven minutes of terror," when the robot endures extreme heat and speeds during its descent through the Martian atmosphere, deploying a set of supersonic parachutes before igniting mini rocket engines to gently touch down on the planet's surface.Mars landing sites over image of landscape.

The Mars 2020 mission will land in an area known as Jezero Crater.(Supplied: NASA/JPL)

This is the third launch from Earth to Mars during a busy month of July, following probes sent by the United Arab Emirates and China.

The state from which the rover was launched, Florida, is currently one of the hot spots in the United States for the coronavirus pandemic.

Aboard Perseverance is a 1.8kg autonomous helicopter named Ingenuity that is due to test powered flight on Mars for the first time.

Since NASA's first Mars rover Sojourner landed in 1997, the agency has sent two others — Spirit and Opportunity — that have explored the geology of expansive Martian plains and detected signs of past water formations, among other discoveries.

NASA also has successfully sent three landers — Pathfinder, Phoenix and InSight.

The United States has plans to send astronauts to Mars in the 2030s under a program that envisions using a return to the moon as a testing platform for human missions before making the more ambitious crewed journey to Mars.

Perseverance will conduct an experiment to convert elements of the carbon dioxide-rich Martian atmosphere into propellant for future rockets launching off the planet's surface, or to produce breathable oxygen for future astronauts.

The rover is also intended to help bring Martian rock samples back to Earth, collecting materials in cigar-sized capsules and leaving them in various spots on the surface for retrieval by a future "fetch" rover.

That planned rover is expected to launch the samples back into space to link up with other spacecraft for an eventual Earth homecoming around 2031.

Reuters

Thursday, 30 July 2020

James Hansen - Sophie’s Planet #17: Chapter 25 (Paleoclimate and “Slow” Feedbacks)

28 July 2020

James Hansen
Whew!  Chapter 25 was hard, and I’m still not happy with it – afraid that it is too technical.  So I added this paragraph at the end of revised Chapter 24 (Deep Water and Two Angels):

Climate oscillations in Earth’s history are especially useful in providing information about “slow” climate feedbacks.  Chapter 25 takes a fairly deep dive into climate science.  A reader uninterested in such complexity could jump to the summary on the final page.  In Chapter 26, I resume in the mid-1980s a chronological account of the climate story as seen through my eyes.

However, I hope that the non-scientist will tackle the challenge of reading about the remarkable glacial cycles that our planet has experienced again and again.  We can learn a lot from Earth’s history, especially if we combine paleo studies with observations of what is happening now, and interpret all of this with the help of global climate models.

Chapter 25. Paleoclimate and “Slow” Feedbacks is available here for fact checking.
 
You can sign up for our monthly global temperature updates here.

You can sign up for my other Communications here.

I opened a Twitter account @DrJamesEHansen, (https://twitter.com/drjamesehansen), but I am focusing mainly on finishing the book.

Australia's Covid-19 response shows we can confront major crises. Threats to our planet should be next.

During the pandemic, we saw ideological nonsense and prejudice mostly put aside – and we saw what we could accomplish when it was

Photograph: James Cook University/AFP via Getty Images

Carl Sagan – one of my heroes and a scientist with a gift for communicating complex ideas in accessible ways – wrote back in 1994: “If we continue to accumulate only power and not wisdom, we will surely destroy ourselves … If we become even slightly more violent, shortsighted, ignorant, and selfish than we are now, almost certainly we will have no future.”

Clearly I don’t know what he would write if he were alive today. But he could hardly say that in the intervening 26 years we have become even slightly less violent, shortsighted, ignorant and selfish; I suspect that he would be dismayed at how much worse we have become; and how much more power has been accumulated without wisdom.

He would probably wonder how we have let it happen. How we can have sat by and watched politics turned into a game played by rules politicians write and then rewrite to suit their own ends. How we can have allowed our political leaders to replace any concept of strategy with transactions – short-term exchanges to get them through to the next election. How we have seen some of them simply change their labels while hoping that “the punters” won’t see that the contents are still the same – and be right.

He would see how we have risked the future of all living systems on our one single planet because we haven’t demanded better. Yes, there has been the occasional but apparently aberrant attempt at vision, but generally we have had to choose our leaders from among a group who think the next election is more important than the next decade or the next half century. Who focus on a way station and not a goal.

In my view, the answer is that we don’t demand enough. When we don’t expect our leaders to be visionary and strategic, they aren’t. When our expectations are low, they are met. When we aren’t persuaded by them to aim high we don’t, and so we drift along in the expectation “she’ll be right” – because most often it has been.

Surely the pandemic should give us pause for thought. It’s clear that she won’t be right unless we embrace evidence and reason instead of the standard political game that is so enjoyed by the players and too often of little real value to those same punters, their children and their grandchildren.

The first response to Covid-19 in Australia showed what we could do as a community. We looked to leadership and expected them to listen to experts. They did; we saw it and we heard it – “based on advice” became the standard (and appropriate) introduction to something more often than not discomforting. We responded as a community: we were encouraged to lift our sights, we did and we got it under control, together. We saw ideological nonsense and prejudice put aside for the most part – and we saw what we could accomplish when it was. Even selfishness was put aside, until recently – and the comparison is stark.

We had a dress rehearsal for what we face and, tough as it was and is, we must learn from it.

We can learn that communities of individuals will act cohesively when the stakes are high. We can learn that communities will respond to real leadership. We can learn that sometimes hard decisions have to be made when the evidence available is less than perfect, because we saw that waiting for certainty is not an option. We can learn to face down the bombastic commentary from those whose life is spent with both eyes fixed on the rear-vision mirror.

Covid-19 is not the only problem that confronts our planet. There are other threats that are captured in the report Surviving and Thriving in the 21st Century, prepared by the Commission for the Human Future. There are 10 threats listed, including mass extinction of species largely due to climate change and loss of habitat.

We humans are the species that can do something about it. We are the ones who can demand that our governments, our communities and our companies work together to plan a sustainable future – with an economy shaped to fit the aspirations of an advanced and caring community. And we can demand that policies are implemented to get us to our goal. The evidence may not always be perfect – but doing nothing is not an option. That we have learnt.

It is clear: we have to change if we are to sustain life on the planet in the long term, and quality of life in the short to medium term – the span of our children and grandchildren. We have shown we will change when the message is clear, the stakes are high and the leadership leads.

Sagan published a book in 1997: The Pale Blue Dot: a Vision of the Human Future in Space. In it he described images of Earth from a spacecraft more than 6bn km away – the image took up 0.12 pixel. He wrote about how the “history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam … in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves … this distant image of our tiny world … underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.”

Yes. It’s true. We are all in this together.

  • Prof Ian Chubb was Australia’s chief scientist from 2011 until 2016

Electric cars have few downsides except price. One company is looking to change that.

Extract from The Guardian
 

‘They’re so damn reliable’, says veteran mechanic Craig Salmon. In the second Green Recovery feature, we look at what’s stopping Australia from embracing EVs

by

Main image: Veteran mechanic Craig Salmon has retrained to work on electric cars and loves it when his regulars make the switch. Photograph: Matthew Netwon/The Guardian

Craig Salmon rattles off the benefits of electric cars with the swagger of a veteran car mechanic and the zeal of someone who is watching a profound historic change play out on his workshop floor.

“You ever look under the hood of one?” he asks. “They’re spectacularly simple. You’ve obviously got to be careful to not fry yourself with 1,000 volts, but day-to-day they’re far nicer to work on. You don’t get your hands dirty because there’s no oil. They don’t have exhausts. They don’t have turbos. They don’t have all the things that break on petrol cars.”

Salmon’s workshop is near Kingston, on the outskirts of Hobart, Tasmania, and although French cars are his speciality, he’s retraining to work on electric vehicles, which are rolling through his doors in greater numbers.

Craig Salmon in his workshop.
‘Mechanics think they’re the antichrist.’ Craig Salmon is the proud owner of a Nissan Leaf and runs a mechanic business in Hobart. Photograph: Matthew Netwon/The Guardian

Two years ago the 57-year-old bought a second-hand Nissan Leaf from Japan before there was any easy way of doing so. Since then 15 of his regular customers have made the transition to electric – often after he let them take his car for a test drive.

"You get 100% of the torque with zero rpm. So right off the lights, it’s got a stack of performance"

“After the first 10 minutes, their eyes pop and then they go, ‘Holy shit!’” Salmon says. “It’s just a pleasure to drive.

“The thing no one tells you about electric cars is you get 100% of the torque with zero rpm. So right off the lights, it’s got a stack of performance.

“The real problem right now is the price. Not everyone can afford to buy new. The kicker for a lot of people at the moment are the low volumes of second-hand cars – this is what the Good Car Company guys are trying to do.”

Hand plugging in an electric car
As technology develops, an electric car will be able to function like a battery-on-wheels, replacing the need for a separate battery to store energy produced from rooftop solar panels. Photograph: Matthew Netwon/The Guardian

Some 4.79m electric cars were sold worldwide in 2019, according to International Energy Agency figures, but Australia has been slow to embrace the trend. Of 19.9m cars on the road in 2020, the Australian Bureau of Statistics records just 14,253 as electric.

To date, a critical reason has been a lack of political leadership, with the federal Coalition’s “technology neutral” approach to electric cars swinging periodically between neglect and hostility.

This has led to a degree of inertia within the Australian car market where the lack of clear regulations has turned the country into a dumping ground for petrol engines that can no longer be sold in other jurisdictions.

"It would be very smart to be at the forefront of the electric vehicle and autonomous vehicle revolution"

Flinders University’s Prof John Spoehr, the director of the Australian Industrial Transformation Institute, says this doesn’t have to be the case.

“The great thing about focusing on the growth of a green vehicle fleet in Australia is that it really utilises or makes use of the extraordinary skills base we still have in this nation following the close of the automotive industry,” Spoehr says.

“Much of that capability is underutilised. At this point in time, when there’s a lot of underutilised capability everywhere, it would be very smart to be at the forefront of the electric vehicle and autonomous vehicle revolution.”

One way to achieve this, Spoehr says, is to roll out charging infrastructure through a stimulus program that treats it as a national commitment similar to the NBN.

“There’s a lot of jobs in this,” Spoehr says. “So far we’ve been pretty slow in rolling out the necessary charging infrastructure to support [the] change [from petrol to electric].”

Anthony Broese van Groenou, Co founder of the Good Car Company an electric car company based in Hobart.
Electric cars ‘have the ability to unlock a lot of renewable power generation because they soak up a lot of the excess power generated during the day,’ says Anthony Broese van Groenou, of the Good Car Company. Photograph: Matthew Netwon/The Guardian

The solution seems obvious to Anthony Broese van Groenou: flood the market with good quality, second-hand electric cars.

Broese van Groenou is a co-founder of the Tasmanian-based start-up the Good Car Company. As an idea, it began over beers at a North Hobart pub in mid-March last year when Broese van Groenou, whose background is in community-owned renewable energy, was talking with his co-founders – energy consultant Anton Vikstrom and environmental scientist Sam Whitehead – about how best to make electric cars more accessible.

“Our very first thought was that we should start converting conventional cars into electric vehicles,” says Broese van Groenou.

“We had a Toyota Hilux I was going to convert. I got to the point of ripping the motor out, but then saw all the labour involved in it. Then we thought: ‘wow, it would be so much easier and cheaper to import a really good car’.”

Investigating further, the trio took inspiration from New Zealand, where a thriving second-hand car market has brought down prices significantly even if the quality of imported vehicles has sometimes been mixed.

Using this basic model, they began to flesh out a plan to import large numbers of good quality, second-hand electric cars into Australia.

It was an idea that came with an attractive logic: the more cars they brought in, the more pressure big car companies would be under to lower their prices and expand their limited electric range.

Once a critical mass of electric cars is achieved, many other things become possible.

“The wonderful thing about electric cars is that they have the ability to unlock a lot of renewable power generation because they soak up a lot of the excess power generated during the day,” Broese van Groenou says. “And the cars not only absorb power, but discharge it into the home. It’s only happening in trials in Australia at the moment, but once there are regulations in place, they can support the grid.”

As technology develops, this will allow the cars to function like a battery-on-wheels, replacing the need for a separate battery to store energy produced from rooftop solar panels.

An empty car space reserved for electric vehicles
The Good Car Company hopes Australian regulatory authorities and utility companies will be confronted by growing numbers of electric cars on the streets, forcing them to prioritise related infrastructure Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

There have been multiple predictions about when the number of electric vehicles in Australia will grow to a meaningful level. But Cheryl Loone, the head of electric vehicle strategy development at the state’s electricity provider, TasNetworks, says the truth is: no one really knows. “We’re currently in a discovery phase,” she says.

“It’s not so much the number of vehicles across the state, it’s the concentration of vehicles that matter. From a network perspective that means concentrated community charging.”

When governments or companies invest in an entire fleet of electric vehicles, or when a company like the Good Car Company imports a batch into a community, it allows utility companies to get a valuable glimpse into consumer behaviour by learning how and when people charge their cars. This allows them to plan for and respond to demand, Loone says.

The bulk-buy model

The first challenge for the Good Car Company was getting hold of the cars. After weighing their options, the group began to source vehicles from Japan where the tax system encourages people to replace their cars only a few years after purchase.

Anthony Broese van Groenou, Anton Vistrom and Sam Whitehead. Co founders of the Good Car Company, an electric car company based in Hobart, Tasmania
Anthony Broese van Groenou, Anton Vistrom and Sam Whitehead, co-founders of the Good Car Company, a second-hand electric car importation company based in Tasmania. Photograph: Matthew Netwon/The Guardian

From there they contracted a Japanese firm to trawl auction houses and lists, carefully examine each listing for damage and ensuring the battery has a minimum 80% health. The ones that were in good nick were bought and prepared for transport.

Once they landed, the cars could then be sold to individual clients or groups of clients as part of community-specific “bulk-buy” programs. This is where the Good Car Company partners with a local council or community organisation to buy cars in batches for those who express interest.

Their efforts have so far brought down the cost to $20,000 for the smallest battery and up to $50,000 for batteries with maximum range.

"There’s such a social justice element to making electric vehicles really affordable as well"

In June 2019 the group imported their first car. In December that same year, they organised their first bulk buy with 22 participants, and have plans for another in the Shire of Hepburn – a 15,000-person community in regional Victoria working to become carbon-neutral by 2030.

There the Good Car Company partnered with Hepburn Wind – Australia’s first community-owned windfarm – whose manager, Taryn Lane, says they had 150 expressions of interest before the pandemic delayed its official rollout.

“Here we see ourselves as first movers,” Lane says. “We can make it happen, and then there is something for others to point to.

Hepburn Wind Farm, Victoria, Australia.
The Shire of Hepburn is a 15,000-person community in regional Victoria working to become carbon-neutral by 2030. Photograph: Supplied

Broese van Groenou says the Hepburn bulk buy will go ahead when the pandemic resolves, along with others being planned for southern Tasmania, northern Tasmania, Canberra and North Sydney. In the meantime, as the Good Car company waits out Covid-19, it has finished up outstanding deliveries and begun investigating ways to scale-up the business.

“We’re looking at capturing 1% of the market which is about 150,000 cars sold annually,” he says. “Once you get a bit of traction like that, people start talking. They see them around. And then it’s easier to step up to the next step.”

“At that point, things really begin to change.”

  • The coronavirus pandemic has devastated the economy but also presented a unique opportunity: to invest in climate action that creates jobs and stimulates investment, before it’s too late. The Green Recovery features talk to people on the frontline of Australia’s potential green recovery.

Gas prices will need to stay low to compete with alternatives on renewable grid, operator says.

A roadmap for an optimal electricity market suggests gas prices would need to remain at $4 to $6 per gigajoule

Solar panels on a house roof in Adelaide, Australia
Aemo’s electricity roadmap outlines a system based on large-scale renewable energy and distributed power sources such as rooftop solar panels supported by multiple ‘dispatchable’ sources. Photograph: Benjamin Egerland/Getty Images/EyeEm

New gas-fired power is not essential for a grid increasingly based on renewable energy, and gas prices will need to stay low if it is to compete with alternatives, according to the government agency responsible for the electricity system.

The Australian Energy Market Operator (Aemo) has released a roadmap detailing what an optimal national electricity market would look like to 2040 if it was designed with a focus on security, reliability and the lowest cost for consumers.

Its integrated system plan, the result of 18 months consultation and analysis, describes a diverse system based on large-scale renewable energy and distributed power sources such as rooftop solar panels supported by multiple “dispatchable” sources. That’s power generation that can be called on whenever needed.

Aemo says the plan focuses on what is best for consumers and could deliver $11bn in net benefits.

The plan suggests solar panels backed by small batteries would provide between 13% and 22% of electricity by 2040. They would run alongside more than 26 gigawatts of utility-scale renewable energy – big solar and wind farms – that would be needed to replace 15-gigawatts of coal-fired generation that is scheduled to shut.

Support for these would come from between six and 19 gigawatts of dispatchable power, new systems designed to manage the more flexible grid and significant amounts of new transmission infrastructure. Renewable energy zones such as those proposed in New South Wales would be developed.

Audrey Zibelman, Aemo’s chief executive, said it was a “no regrets” plan for investment that could develop a modern, resilient, affordable power system. She said the issue for policymakers was no longer whether renewable energy was the best economic choice, but ensuring it was properly integrated into the grid.

“We’ve now shifted from wondering whether wind and solar are our cheapest resource to a new set of problems which is: how do we efficiently integrate these resources into the system so that we can take full advantage of the fact that for the first time in this industry we can use free fuel?”

The report nominates six potential sources of dispatchable power to support variable wind and solar. Five are needed: pumped hydro plants, big battery storage such as Tesla’s operation in South Australia, household-scale batteries, virtual power plants and demand-side participation, which offers energy users cash to cut consumption when needed.

The sixth, gas-fired power, is described as “a potential complement to storage”, but further investment in it is considered “less likely”. “New flexible gas generators could play a greater role if gas prices remained low at $4 to $6 per gigajoule over the outlook period,” it says.

The federal government, the chief scientist, Alan Finkel, and Scott Morrison’s National Covid-19 Coordination Commission (NCCC) have said gas generation was a critical part of the future energy supply as renewable energy replaces coal. The energy and emissions reduction minister, Angus Taylor, and the NCCC have both suggested a substantial expansion of the gas industry as part of the recovery from recession.

The push has been criticised on the grounds that gas is a fossil fuel, with recent studies suggesting it releases more greenhouse gas when burned than previously thought. A leaked draft report by a manufacturing taskforce appended to the NCCC recommends the government back fossil fuel infrastructure that would operate for decades and does not consider cleaner alternatives.

The government’s push for gas escalated as the price plunged from about $12 a gigajoule to about $4. Analysts have said future investment will depend on it settling at about $6 – and they have raised doubt over whether that was likely.

In a statement on Wednesday, Taylor said the government “strongly believes” gas would play an important role in balancing the grid.

Aemo’s plan lists several “actionable” projects to be prioritised over the next five years. They include an upgrade to a Victoria-NSW interconnector, a new connection between NSW and South Australia, a transmission upgrade between Snowy Hydro and southern NSW and augmentations to support a proposed renewable energy zone in central NSW. It backs a new interconnector between Victoria and NSW and the proposed Marinus Link between Tasmania and the Latrobe Valley.

The report warns: “If essential investments are delayed or aborted, domestic and industrial consumers will face increased costs and risks. On the other hand, if planning and investment occur in an uncoordinated way or is done inefficiently, customers and investors will experience the risk and cost of excess investment.”

Taylor said the report identified several investments likely to be required over the next two decades. He said more transmission was likely to be important but needed to make economic sense. “It is critical to avoid over-investment and ‘gold-plating’ of the network because it is consumers who have to pay,” he said.

Dispatchable generation was critical, the minister said, and the government would continue to support it through projects such as Snowy 2.0 and its underwriting program, which is backing gas and hydro developments.

The NSW energy minister, Matt Kean, said the report was a “strong tick of expert approval” for the state’s plans to build renewable energy zones.

Renewable energy provides up to 25% of electricity to the five eastern states and the ACT, which are linked though the national grid. An Aemo study in April found the country has the technical capacity to get 75% of electricity from wind and solar, and with the right regulations could occasionally reach this level within five years.

Fossil fuel industry levy should pay for bushfire impact, climate action group report says.

Extract from ABC News

A firefighter in uniform stands in front of a fire in Torrington
An report by experts is out today and aims to improve bushfire responses.(AAP: Dan Peled)

Former emergency leaders, climate scientists, doctors and community members are calling on the Federal Government to impose a levy on the fossil fuel industry for a climate disaster fund to help pay for the impact of natural disasters.

It comes as part of 165 recommendations by the Emergency Leaders for Climate Action (ELCA), a group of more than 150 experts and affected community members, in a bid to improve bushfire readiness, response and recovery.

It follows the ELCA National Bushfire Summit, which took place in June and July — and it's hoped the findings will be included in the Royal Commission report, which is due to handed to the Government next month.

ELCA co-founder and former Fire and Rescue NSW commissioner Greg Mullins told the ABC that climate change was behind last summer's catastrophic bushfire season.Greg Mullins stands next to the ruins of a burnt out building.

Former NSW fire and rescue chief Greg Mullins is calling for a fossil fuel levy.(ABC News: John Mees)

"The escalation in natural disasters is driven by climate change," he said.

"There should be a levy on the fossil fuel industry, given all their tax breaks.

"We had the hottest, driest year ever — a year that would not have happened without the impact of climate change.

"It drove the worst bushfires in Australia's history — they were bigger, hotter, faster and more destructive what we've ever experienced before."

'Rapidly escalating threat'

The report, the Australian Bushfire and Climate Plan, to be released later today, describes a "new bushfire era where we must fundamentally rethink how we prepare for and manage this growing threat".

"There is no doubt that bushfires in Australia have become more frequent, ferocious and unpredictable," the reports states.

The coalition of experts includes ELCA members and the Climate Council of Australia, who more than a year ago warned of a catastrophic bushfire season.

"Sadly, those warnings fell on deaf ears and, as the world watched on in horror, those same warnings became a harsh reality."

The ELCA report, which includes former emergency services commissioners from all over Australia, has accused the Federal Government of underestimating and ignoring "the rapidly escalating threat of climate change".

"Consequently, our land management, fire and emergency services are under-resourced, disaster recovery is under-resourced and communities are underprepared for the worsening bushfire threat," the report said.

"Communities and ecosystems were already being pushed beyond their ability to adapt."Luke Wright sits on an insulated water bottle wearing a face mask. His clothes are covered in ash and he's surrounded by smoke.

Luke Wright takes a rest after putting out spot-fires at his brother's home in Oakdale, in Sydney's south-west, in December.(ABC News: Selby Stewart)

The group says its recommendations would cost billions of dollars to implement.

It is calling for greater funding for firefighting and land management to ensure faster identification and dousing of new fires.

Mr Mullins stressed Australia can no longer rely on assistance with aerial firefighting from overseas due to "overlapping bushfire seasons".

The report identifies a gap in aerial firefighting resources, specifically CL-415s — so-called "Super Scoopers" — that can drop 6000 litres of water or firefighting foam at a time.

"We need a large number of these," Mr Mullins told the ABC.A water bomber drops retardant on a fire.

Mr Mullins said more aerial firefighting resources are needed.(Reuters: Mike Blake)

The group is also advocating for an Indigenous-led National Cultural Fire Strategy, and greater action to address the health effects of bushfires.

Smoke from the recent bushfires resulted in more than 400 deaths and another 4000 people being treated in hospital, the ELCA said.

The Federal Minister for Emergency Management has been contacted for comment.

Wednesday, 29 July 2020

More than 50% of people expect Australia to be back to normal in six months. I suspect that's very optimistic.

A closed due to Covid-19 restrictions sign is seen at the front of a restaurant on Chapel Street in Melbourne.
A ‘Closed due to Covid-19 restrictions’ sign is seen at the front of a restaurant on Chapel Street in Melbourne. Just 1% of Victorians say life has already returned to normal. Photograph: Asanka Ratnayake/Getty Images

As the news on the job front continues to be bad, people remain oddly positive about the future, but new figures from the bureau of statistics on people’s beliefs about the future highlight how people’s mindset will influence the recovery from this recession.

The latest survey by the ABS on the impact of Covid-19 on households does not bode well for the next lot of jobs numbers.

While not completely analogous with the labour force figures (it’s a different sample of people) the latest survey of households suggests there was a drop in jobs in the early part of this month:

In early July, 63.5% of adults had a job – down from 64.6% in mid-June and well down on the 66.2% that were employed before the virus hit.

Given there are around 19 million people over the age of 18, that equates to roughly 170,000 fewer people working in early July compared to mid-June.

These are the first lot of figures that take into account the Melbourne lockdown. Whether they will get worse is tough to say – businesses might have been slow to respond and so more job losses are to come. But given the continuing numbers of cases in Victoria there is little reason to think things will improve.

And yet despite this, we remain a relatively positive bunch – or at least half of us are.

The household survey also asked people when did they think life would return to normal.

When you exclude the 10% who were unsure (seriously, take a guess!) and the 6% who said that life has not changed (cripes, this is what you consider normal?), just over half of us expect life to return to normal within six months.

Given the survey was done early this month, this effectively means just over 50% of adults think by the end of January next year Covid-19 will not be affecting their life.

That, I suspect, is a very optimistic view of life.

What is striking however is that even Victorians are that optimistic:

While just 1% of Victorians say life has already returned to normal, compared to 16% of those in the rest of Australia, all up 50% of Victorians think things will be back to normal in under six months.

When we breakdown the outlook by gender we find that men are more likely to think that we have just three months to wait, while women more likely expect it will take four to six months.

But combined, both are in relative agreement about the six month threshold:

It is a number that gives some pause because clearly life has not returned to normal. We have restrictions on state and national borders, on congregating indoors, on attending sporting events even outdoors and on just about every aspect of life.

And yet nearly 11% of the population say life is back to normal.

It suggests maybe a group of people for whom normal involved little work, travel, education or event going.

And thus it is not surprising perhaps that those aged over 65 are more likely to say that life has returned to normal:

And yet even across ages we see agreement that things should be back to normal within six months.

This of course would be wonderful. It is somewhat in alignment with the government’s recent expectations in its budget update.

And yet do we really think by the end of January there could be a packed house at the MCG to watch a cricket match, or a full theatre to see a play, or people going to a restaurant and feeling no concern about social distancing?

Do we expect international travel to have resumed as before within six months?

I suspect were the question framed in that manner, the response would be much less than 50%.

And yet I can understand (even as one whom is generally inclined to see the glass half empty) people willing themselves to hope for the best.

But half of us are not so inclined.

Because of course when I say just over half think things will be fine within six months, that means just under half don’t.

And around a third of us believe it will take more than a year for things to return to normal or that they never will.

This highlights the problem with this recession. For large sections of the economy – such as retail spending and hospitality – we need the economy to improve but also for people to feel safe and confident enough to go out and spend money.

Historically, spending in restaurants grows strongly when employment does – people feel comfortable enough to spend money on “a night out”.

But in this recession we not only have to clear the hurdle of feeling as though we have enough money to spend, but also that we feel safe enough to do so.

It will be worth watching to see whether people continue to see normality returning in the next six months and whether that six months keeps getting pushed further out.

And then it will be interesting to see whether what people perceive as “normal” begins to change as well, and how that affects our economy.