climateunitednations
Fossil fuels win billions in public money after Paris climate deal, angry campaigners claim.
Coal, oil and gas finance from major development banks totalled $5bn in year after historic climate pact, according to estimates.
Billions of dollars of public money was sunk in new fossil fuel projects by the world’s major development banks in the year after the Paris climate change deal was agreed, according to campaigners who are calling for the banks to halt their financing of coal, oil and gas.
The new analysis also reveals that some of the taxpayers’ money given to coal and gas projects was counted as “climate” finance.
Funding for fossil fuel projects from the six main international development banks totalled at least $5bn in 2016, according to a report from researchers at Oil Change International (OCI).
In particular, OCI estimate the funding for exploration for new oil and gas more than doubled in 2016, to $2.1bn. Funding for clean energy also grew by more than a third, to $11.4bn.
A second report from analysts at E3G suggests that in recent years the World Bank and European Bank for Development and Reconstruction (EBRD) have given similar levels of funding to fossil fuels as to climate-friendly energy projects.
“Despite the Paris Agreement being reached, multilateral development banks that say all the right things on climate are still financing billions of dollars in oil, gas, and coal projects,” said Alex Doukas at Oil Change International. “They are using relatively scarce public resources that need to be used as strategically as possible if we have a hope of meeting the agreement’s aims. If they really want to help lift people out of poverty, taxpayer-funded banks can no longer finance climate destruction. They must stop funding fossil fuels.”
Helena Wright at E3G said: “Development banks must do more to green their investments. As a first step, the banks should commit to ending finance for fossil fuel exploration. Obviously exploration for new resources is not in line with the Paris goals – we have got enough fossil fuels already to go over 2C of warming.”
Scientists showed in 2015 that to keep under the internationally agreed 2C warming limit, then most existing fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground. In July, the G20 nations were accused of hypocrisy for talking tough on global warming but providing four times more public finance for fossil fuels than for renewables.
Wright also found that millions of dollars given by the EBRD for a coal port in Morocco were counted as climate finance on the grounds the port contributed to adaptation to climate change. In another example, millions of dollars given by the EBRD for an offshore gas exploration project in Azerbaijan were also counted as climate finance on the basis that it reduced emissions compared to baseline. “It seems a bit ridiculous,” she said.
However, a spokesman for the EBRD said it strongly disagreed with the analysis in the new reports and the way in which the projects were categorised. He said the EBRD spent 2.7 times more on energy-related climate projects than on fossil fuels and that the analyses had not included lending that went to projects via partner banks.
A World Bank spokesman also disputed the analyses and emphasised the bank’s clean investments: “Over the last five years, the World Bank Group has invested more than $11bn in renewable energy and $4.5bn in energy efficiency. We are now the largest multilateral provider of finance for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in developing countries.”
Both of the new reports analysed the lending by the World Bank, EBRD, the African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Investment Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank.
The OCI report estimated significant rises in fossil fuel funding in 2016 by the Asian Development Bank, where it leapt fivefold, and at the World Bank. The E3G report judged the Inter-American Development Bank as the greenest, giving over five times more to climate-friendly energy projects between 2013 and 2015 than to fossil fuel schemes.
Yongping Zhai, energy advisor at the Asian Development Bank, said: “ADB will continue to expand climate finance, while still providing access to energy in the most cost effective manner to support progress for developing countries. ADB’s financing to fossil fuel in 2016 was limited to natural gas, which is an important transition fuel, [with] lesser carbon.”
Keep reading...Show less
Interpreting the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C temperature limit.
In a commentary paper for the journal Geophysical Research Letters, we show that the temperature limits in the Paris Agreement should be understood as changes in long-term global averages attributed to human activity,
Guest post: Interpreting the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C temperature limit
MULTIPLE AUTHORS
10.10.2017 | 2:09pm GUEST POSTS
Guest post: Interpreting the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C temperature limit
Dr Joeri Rogelj is a research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria, and a coordinating lead author of the IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5C. Dr Carl-Friedrich Schleussner is head of climate science and impacts at Climate Analytics, and is on the steering committee of the initiative Half a degree Additional warming, Prognosis and Projected Impacts (HAPPI).
Long-term temperature limits like 2C or 1.5C above pre-industrial levels have long been used as goalposts for climate change mitigation.
Recently, these limits have received renewed attention in the scientific community, media and general public because of their inclusion in the Paris Agreement and the decision of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to prepare a Special Report on 1.5C.
However, the Paris Agreement itself does not spell out explicitly how such temperature limits should be used in climate policy and practice. These limits are therefore subject to interpretation, leading to confusion when trying to communicate how achievable the 1.5C limit is and the mitigation effort required.
In a commentary paper for the journal Geophysical Research Letters, we show that the temperature limits in the Paris Agreement should be understood as changes in long-term global averages attributed to human activity, which exclude natural variability.
This means 1.5C might be breached in individual years well before the global long-term 1.5C temperature limit has definitively been crossed.
Long-term goal
The long-term temperature goal agreed in Paris in December 2015 is enshrined in Article 2.1 of the final text. It outlines the aim to hold rising temperatures to “well below 2C above pre-industrial levels” while “pursuing efforts” towards the more ambitious limit of 1.5C.
The Paris Agreement final text. Source: UNFCCC (pdf)
The wording of the text is not without ambiguity (though this was arguably intentional in order to help reach agreement during negotiations). The agreement does not establish two “either-or” temperature goals, but a single goal, yet it does not make explicit how “well below 2C” or “limit to 1.5C” should be interpreted.
In the months since Paris there has been flurry of new journal papers and media articles focusing on the long-term goal – particularly the 1.5C limit – and this has highlighted the different ways in which it is being understood.
Much of the recent peer-reviewed research into 1.5C and 2C has taken the Paris Agreement temperature limits as long-term climatological global averages over multiple decades (see: here, here or here).
In others, the 1.5C and 2C limits have been compared to temperature metrics that look at smaller geographical scales or shorter time periods. These include, for example, looking at land temperatures only or at regional temperatures, or by assessing annual temperatures that include modes of natural variability such as the Pacific Interdecadal Oscillation.
Media articles have also discussed how close record monthly temperatures have come to hitting 1.5C above average.
These widely-different interpretations lead to quite different messages and insights, and have the potential to create confusion around what the long-term goal means and our chances of meeting the challenge.
Thought experiment
So, does it matter if the long-term goal is characterised in different ways? The simple answer is yes.
Widely-different interpretations lead to quite different messages and insights, and have the potential to create confusion around what the long-term goal means and our chances of meeting the challenge.
We illustrate this here with a thought experiment by showing how different warming limit interpretations affect the carbon budget for keeping to the 1.5C limit.
(We argue that one misinterpretation of international climate limits is to assume that they apply to global mean temperature rise including interannual natural variability. This is not the case – as will become clear further below – but let’s make this assumption for our thought experiment.)
Even in a stable climate, annual temperatures fluctuate around a long-term global temperature as a result of natural variability, caused by a range of unforced climate phenomena such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, and of variations in natural forcing, including volcanic eruptions, and variations in solar activity.
In a world where human-caused greenhouse gas emissions have taken long-term global warming to 1.5C, there would be a 50:50 chance of annual temperatures in any given year showing more than 1.5C of warming. In other words, you would expect to see more than 1.5C of warming one out of every two years on average over a sustained period of time.
Diverging interpretations of international warming limits, which look at exceeding 1.5C less frequently in individual years, make the challenge of keeping warming below 1.5C much greater.
In our thought experiment, we explore what happens when we reduce the chances of crossing 1.5C in any given year from one in two down to one in five, one in 10, one in 20, or never. The last of these levels, for example, means global temperature virtually never passes 1.5C of warming.
For this we derive annual average temperatures for each annual exceedance frequency using simulations from 24 climate models. You can see the results in the chart below, which shows the likely spread of annual temperatures as a result of natural variability.
So, for example, if we were to interpret the 1.5C limit as exceeding 1.5C of warming once every five years, we would actually need to hold the long-term global average temperature to 1.41C.
The more strictly we take the 1.5C goal, the lower the long-term average needs to be.
If we want to ensure annual global temperature never exceeds 1.5C of warming (see blue curve on the chart), we actually have to hold the long-term temperature to around 1C – a threshold we have almost reached.
Annual global average temperature anomalies from running a 21-year average for 24 climate models and the 1900-2090 period (combined historical and RCP2.6 scenario). Levels shown for four probabilities relating to the 1.5C limit, with the central bold line of each curve showing the equivalent average long-term temperature. Note: this is an approximation of natural variability, as it does not capture low frequency variability, and it also includes variations due to changes in historical natural solar and volcanic forcing. Credit: Joeri Rogelj.
Carbon budgets
Long-term temperature levels, such as those laid down in the Paris Agreement, provide guidance for short, mid and long-term global mitigation action.
One way they are used is by being translated into specific “carbon budgets” – this is the maximum amount of CO2 humans can emit while still having a good chance of meeting a given temperature limit.
Different interpretations of the long-term goal thus affect the carbon budget for 1.5C.
For example, if annual temperatures can only exceed a long-term temperature limit once every five years, the compatible carbon budget is around 200bn tonnes of CO2 smaller than the budget for once every two years. At current CO2 emission rates, that translates into using up the 1.5C budget around five years earlier.
For 1.5C never to be breached in any given year, the carbon budget would be reduced by more than 1,000bn tonnes of CO2.
This shows that there are substantial real-world policy differences involved in the interpretation of the Paris Agreement’s long-term temperature goal.
Our findings for each annual exceedance frequency are shown in the table below.
Implications of limits to the annual exceedance frequency of 1.5C for equivalent long-term global warming levels and respective carbon budgets, based on a transient climate response of 1.65C per 3664bn tonnes of CO2 (which is the average of the IPCC AR5’s likely 0.8 to 2.5C range). This estimate assumes invariable non-CO2 contributions. Reproduced from Rogelj et al. (2017). Note: the cumulative carbon budget for limiting warming to 1.5C relative to 1861-1880 in 50% of the model simulations was reported to be of the order of 2300bn tonnes of CO2 since 1870 in the IPCC Synthesis Report. A recent study, which has also been extensively covered on Carbon Brief and elsewhere online, reported updated estimates for an additional 0.6C of warming above the 2010-2019 average of about 730-880bn tonnes of CO2.
Legal and policy context
So, how can we know the correct way to interpret Paris Agreement temperature levels?
In our article, we show that the answer lies in analysis of the available information and examination of the context – in this case the legal framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – to which the Paris Agreement is a subsidiary legal instrument – defines “climate change” specifically as changes caused by human activity, without natural variability included.
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992). Source: UNFCCC (pdf)
Further, the most recent IPCC assessment report provides additional clarity by defining “climate” as the statistical description in terms of the average and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time – with a classical period for averaging being 30 years, also commonly used by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).
In the context of the Paris Agreement, definitions set out by the UNFCCC will apply. In addition, IPCC assessment reports – particularly the most recent one – played a predominant role defining and underpinning the scientific components of the agreement.
Therefore, we argue that the long-term temperature goal in the Paris Agreement should be understood as long-term changes in climatological averages attributed to human activity – excluding natural variability.
Communicating 1.5C – the challenges ahead
Given the sensitive nature of the topic in the public debate, we think it is indispensable for the scientific community working on the topic to be well aware of the legal and scientific characteristics of the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal.
At some point in the near future we will record the first year where the global average temperature is 1.5C warmer than pre-industrial levels. This will undoubtedly generate headlines.
Indeed, even before that, we will likely also see individual months and regions “exceeding” 1.5C.
But this won’t necessarily mean we’ve reached 1.5C of human-caused warming because a single month or year is also subject to natural variability. We need to be clear, for example, that even if a year sees 1.5C of warming, it need not mean that we have failed to fulfill the Paris Agreement – although it will provide an important warning shot.
While there are many challenges for scientists and policymakers in how we communicate climate change, being consistent about what the Paris Agreement temperature goal refers to should not be one of them. It is an essential step for providing relevant information to the public and policy debate alike.
Rogelj, J. et al. (2017) Getting it right matters – temperature goal interpretations in geoscience research, Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1002/2017GL075612
Keep reading...Show less
UNEP official calls for ‘coherent planning’ as Aichi falters in Africa.
International agreements are increasingly looking at conserving forests as a way to mitigate global warming, preserve biodiversity and safeguard human communities from environmental disasters.
International agreements are increasingly looking at conserving forests as a way to mitigate global warming, preserve biodiversity and safeguard human communities from environmental disasters.
An assessment by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has found many forest-related Aichi Targets of the Convention of Biological Diversity will not achieve their goals at their current rates of progress.
Over the past few years, more forest-conservation goals have been adopted by UN member countries. But a UNEP official says this duplication of efforts may actually be derailing forest conservation.
He recommends a more streamlined approach focused on the Aichi Targets and Sustainable Development Goals.
Forests cover about 40 million square kilometers – around 30 percent – of the Earth’s surface. They provide habitat for countless species, as well as important ecosystem services for human communities. Tree roots prevent land degradation and desertification by stabilizing soils, and help maintain water and nutrient cycling in soils.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that about 1.6 billion people depend on forests for employment, income generation and subsistence. The FAO warns that deforestation sparked by an ever-increasing demand for food, materials and fuel is degrading ecosystems and diminishing water availability.
Forests are also huge carbon sinks and, as such, feature prominently in international strategies to combat climate change. According to a report by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), forests may be capable of absorbing approximately 10 percent of all global emissions by 2050.
Research indicates that, globally, an estimated 570 million hectares could be available for forest restoration. If restored, these areas could sequester about 440 billion metric tons of CO2.
Because of the ability of forests to sequester large amounts of carbon, forest restoration has become a critical part of the Paris Agreement. The multinational accord, signed by 195 countries in 2016, seeks to keep global temperatures from rising 2 degrees or more above a preindustrial baseline in the hopes of staving off the worst effects of climate change.
The Paris Accord wasn’t the first global effort by governments to tackle forest conservation. The 1992 Earth Summit, which gathered leaders from 105 nations in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, resulted in the adoption of the Rio Convention aimed at conserving biodiversity, mitigating global warming and combating desertification. Participating governments also agreed on a framework for sustainable development – but via forestry principles that weren’t legally binding.
Tony Simons, director general of the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), told Mongabay that despite harboring 90 percent of the world’s biodiversity, forests were largely left behind when the Rio Convention was devised and adopted in 1992.
“Forestry was a political battle: this saw it lag behind as the first three got a framework convention,” Simsons told Mongabay. “This was until the Bali Action in 2007 during COP13 [when] Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) was included in the Bali Action Plan as a component of curbing emissions.”
REDD is a U.N. policy mechanism first negotiated under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) in 2005 to help developing countries reduce greenhouse gas emissions by providing financial incentives for keeping their forests in the ground. In 2010 it was expanded to include other conservation and management principles, and is now denoted as REDD+.
The Rio Convention, which includes the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCDD) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), acknowledge that forests are critical in achieving their respective goals.
Tim Christophersen, chief terrestrial ecosystems expert at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) told Mongabay that the CBD later revised its forest biodiversity program, which contributed to subsequent global conservation agreements.
“This paved the way for the forest-related Aichi Targets (5, 7, 11 14 and 15), which are very ambitious and cover almost all aspects of sustainable forest management,” Christophersen said.
The Aichi Biodiversity targets are part of the 2011-2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity adopted during the tenth Conference of the Parties (COP10) in 2010 in Nagoya, Japan. There are 20 targets in all, which aim to achieve broad biodiversity safeguards by 2020. For instance, Target 5 seeks to halve the overall rate of habitat loss while significantly reducing degradation and fragmentation.
Progress in Africa – and lack thereof
Africa contains a significant portion of the world’s forest cover – including its second-largest rainforest. To see how Africa was faring in its progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, UNEP conducted a 2016 mid-term review.
Overall, UNEP found nine out of the 20 targets were progressing towards their goals, but at an “insufficient rate,” five showed no progress and three appear to be regressing further away from target goals. These three – Targets 4, 5 and 12 – pertain to sustainable production and consumption, habitat loss reduction and extinction prevention. The report indicates only two targets – 16 and 17 – which are concerned with international agreement ratification and action plan documentation are on track to achieve their goals. For one target – 14 – there was not enough data for UNEP to make an assessment.
One of the three targets UNEP assessed as regressing is Target 5, which aims to reduce habitat loss. The report indicates the continent lost between 0.2 percent and 2.57 percent of its forest cover every year from 2001 through 2013. Satellite data referenced in the report indicate deforestation accelerated in that period, with 2013 experiencing the most tree cover loss.
Professor Godwin Kowero, executive secretary of the African Forest Forum (AFF), told Mongabay that while some regions are seeing progress, Africa as a whole is not likely to achieve Target 5 as its forest loss has accelerated.
“The rate of forest loss globally has decreased in developed countries, and places like Latin America has seen an increase in forest cover, but the rate of deforestation is still a bother in developing countries, Kowero said. “Forest degradation is difficult to monitor, but we still have a long way to go in achieving the target.”
Africa’s deforestation drivers are many. Among the biggest, says Harrison Kojwang, an environment and natural resources consultant based in Namibia, are charcoal production, timber harvesting, agriculture expansion, mining, oil and gas exploration, and the curing of tobacco.
Target 15 is one of the five targets that show little to no progress, according to UNEP. This target aims to conserve and restore at least fifteen percent of degraded ecosystems by 2020, and one way Africa is exploring to meet this goal is through the African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative (AFR100). AFR100 is a country-led program devised to restore 100 million hectares of land by 2030. The program’s restoration activities are supported through national development financing amounting to around $1 billion and $540 million in private sector funding.
AFR100 was launched during COP21 in Paris in 2015. So far, 21 African countries have committed at least 63.3 million hectares of land for forest landscape restoration.
However, there appears to have been some progress made towards other forest-related Aichi targets, such as Target 11. Focused on aquatic environments, Target 11 aims to see 10 percent of coastal and marine areas and 17 percent of terrestrial and inland water areas conserved by 2020. These areas include peatlands, coastal wetlands and mangrove forests.
Peatlands and mangroves are particularly high carbon-value ecosystems. A report by Wetlands Internationals referenced by UNCCD found 25 to 30 percent of the world’s terrestrial carbon is stored in peatlands, and that the decomposition of drained peatland generates 1.3 billion tons of C02 per year. A 2010 study published in Nature found mangrove degradation releases between 0.07 and 0.42 billion tons of CO2 annually.
In its progress report, UNEP notes that protected area coverage in Africa has steadily increased since 1990 and is making progress towards the terrestrial and marine coverage elements of Aichi Target 11. The report found 13.8 percent of terrestrial and inland aquatic environments and 3.7 percent of marine and coastal areas were included in protected areas in 2014.
Yet, despite that progress, UNEP considers progress towards Target 11 insufficient to meet its goal unless efforts are improved.
Dr. Martin Nganje, president of the Africa Section of the Society for Conservation Biology and a consultant at the African Forest Forum based in Cameroon, disagrees with this. He said that at its current rate of progress, Africa is likely to meet the requirements of Target 11.
“Reducing the rates of loss and degradation of these natural ecosystems offer cost-effective strategies that deliver immediate climate action,” Nganje told Mongabay.
Trans-boundary policies enacting wildlife monitoring activities outside protected areas are also beginning to create incentives for protection of forest and forest resources used as wildlife corridors by member states, according to Kojwang.
“Forest management is riding on the objectives of the wildlife protection,” he said. “Namibia and Botswana have a joint elephant monitoring policy that is benefiting forest protection within the corridors. Also, strong community-based conservancies within which these corridors existing in Southern Africa countries are resulting in better protection of forests.”
For one target – Target 14 – a lack of available data prevented UNEP from assessing its progress. This goal pertains to the safeguarding of ecosystem services, which are benefits conveyed to human communities by surrounding natural environments.
One ecosystem benefit is drought mitigation by forests. Trees help bind water in soil and shade the ground from drying sunlight; scientists also believe forests also aid cloud formation as stored water molecules pass from leaves into the air. Research indicates that this lends to more resilience from droughts, with models showing forests have evaporation rates that are 30 percent less than savannahs.
Over the past several years, drought has ravaged parts of Africa – particularly the eastern and southern parts of the continent – leading to widespread famine as agricultural yields plummeted. Experts say better land use and protection could help reduce damage from future droughts; UNEP notes farmer-managed agroforestry projects in several countries has led to greater resilience from drought, as well as bigger yields of corn and other crops.
Kojwang says that while there is a lack of data on overall progress towards Target 14’s ecosystem services protection goal, countries like Ethiopia, Côte d’Ivoire and Kenya are showing some headway through REDD+ projects that are collaborating with local communities. However, he said efforts are lacking in the conservation of water catchment areas outside national parks in several regions.
Too much of a good thing?
In September 2015, 193 UN member countries gathered in New York and adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The SDGs are aimed at protecting the environment while addressing poverty, increasing economic growth and prosperity, and improving access to health, education, and social resources.
At the January 2017 UN Forum on Forests (UNFF), participating nations adopted the UN 2017-2030 Strategic Plan for . The plan includes a set of six Global Forest Goals (GFGs) and 26 associated targets. These goals intend to, among other things, increase forest area by 3 percent worldwide, enhance forest-based economic, social and environmental benefits, and increase both the area of protected forests and the proportion of forest products produced from sustainably managed forests.
The GFGs are also aimed at supporting the objectives of the International Arrangement on Forests and making progress towards the SGDs, the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, the Paris Agreement and other international forest-related commitments.
While having in place so many international agreements focused on conserving and restoring forest may sound like a good thing, UNEP’s Christophersen said it is leading to a duplication of efforts that may be negatively affecting forest protection.
“It is contributing to a lack of impact on forests as the projects are too small and fragmented,” he said. “We cannot afford it anymore after the adoption of the SDGs. It costs too much, but more importantly we need to send clear, coherent policy signals to governments and the private sector on forest policy, and this can only come from legally binding instruments, and by implementing the SDGs.”
Christophersen calls for streamlining international forest protection efforts and have countries adopt comprehensive land use plans that aim to restore forest landscape, mitigate climate change effects and conserve biodiversity
“All these efforts related to forest ecosystem and climate change, desertification and combating loss of biodiversity should be coherently planned and implemented under the SDG’s if forests are to be protected,” he said.
Christophersen thinks a merger between the UNFF and CBD forest-focused goals would be the best bet. Barring that, he suggests a slimming-down of UNFF priorities.
“If not [a merger], UNFF should at least only focus on monitoring the forest-related aspects of the SDG implementation, together with the CBD and other key players, and not engage in any other activities,” Christophersen said.
Mongabay reached out to UNFF for comment, but had received no response by press time.
Keep reading...Show less
'Alarming' rise in Queensland tree clearing as 400,000 hectares stripped.
Deputy premier brands Australia ‘deforestation hotspot’ after a 45 percent jump in her state’s reef catchment clearing.
'Alarming' rise in Queensland tree clearing as 400,000 hectares stripped
Deputy premier brands Australia ‘deforestation hotspot’ after a 45% jump in her state’s reef catchment clearing
Broadacre clearing of Gidgee scrub.
Queensland now has two-thirds the annual rate of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Photograph: Auscape/UIG via Getty Images
View more sharing options
Shares
2,378
Comments
578
Joshua Robertson
@jrojourno
Thursday 5 October 2017 02.12 EDT Last modified on Thursday 5 October 2017 04.52 EDT
Queensland underwent a dramatic surge in tree clearing – with the heaviest losses in Great Barrier Reef catchments – in the year leading up to the Palaszczuk government’s thwarted bid to restore protections.
ADVERTISEMENT
inRead invented by Teads
Figures released on Thursday showed a 33% rise in clearing to almost 400,000 hectares in 2015-16, meaning Queensland now has two-thirds the annual rate of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.
The latest Statewide Landcover and Trees Study (Slats) report showed a 45% jump in clearing in reef catchments, where 40% of all clearing took place.
The deputy premier, Jackie Trad, said the rise of 100,000 hectares to 395,000 hectares cleared was “incredibly alarming”.
“We know that the current rates of land clearing in Queensland are unsustainable. Australia has become one of the deforestation hotspots in the world – the only advanced economy to be named in the 12 deforestation hotspots in the world.
“[It’s] because Queensland has returned to the bad old days of bulldozing hundreds of thousands of hectares of woody and remnant vegetations in order to make way particularly for pasture for cows,” she said.
Rates of clearing surged when Campbell Newman promised to scrap restrictions, which his Liberal National party (LNP) government did in December 2013. Rates then reached a plateau of about 300,000 hectares for several years.
Advertisement
The minority Labor government tried to reverse the legislation last year, but was blocked at the 11th hour in August 2016 when its former MP turned crossbencher Billy Gordon sided with the LNP.
The Newman changes included wiping out protections for high conservation value regrowth, which made up about a third of clearing in 2015-16. The resurgence of clearing shown in the latest figures raises concerns about a fresh bout of “panic clearing” by rural landholders – primarily graziers – in anticipation of Labor’s changes going through.
Labor has promised to push through protections if returned to office with a majority at the upcoming election, while the LNP and One Nation – which could hold the balance of power – have said they will scotch reforms.
The environment minister, Steven Miles, said the latest report was “nothing short of devastating” because of the effects on wildlife, reef waters and coral, and Australia’s carbon emissions.
“It’s even worse than my worst fears for this next round of land clearing data,” he said.
Miles said that “most concerningly” 35% of clearing was of remnant bushland, “138kha of old growth native forest, the most important habitat for native species”.
“We know that each year in Queensland 900,000 mammals lose their lives due to this loss of habitat.”
Play VideoPlay
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration Time 1:04
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
FullscreenMute
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Drone footage shows significant land clearing in Queensland
Miles said 40% of clearing was driving “more sediment into the Great Barrier Reef, literally suffocating our coral”.
“That’s not to mention the 45m tonnes of additional greenhouse gas emissions caused by this clearing.”
Deforestation in Queensland represents a hurdle not only to Australia’s priority goal of lifting water quality for the ailing reef but also its Paris climate commitments because it represents about 90% of the nation’s carbon emissions from land use.
Recent clearing for suburban development in the state’s south-east has also been linked to escalating pressure on koala populations from habitat destruction.
“We need a parliament in Queensland that recognises this is an unsustainable problem that needs urgent redress,” Trad said.
Tree protections in Queensland were the critical factor in Australia meeting its Kyoto commitments on emissions cuts before the LNP wound them back after years of disquiet in the state’s rural areas.
Queensland to use satellites to ensure native woodlands are not cleared
Read more
Previous protections had brought clearing rates down from 500,000 hectares a year to 50,000. But Trad said they had subsequently “quadrupled” since the year before the Newman LNP government took office.
Conservation groups said the renewed surge belied claims from the LNP and the farm lobby that opposition to deregulation amounted to scaremongering.
Gemma Plesman, from the Wilderness Society Queensland, said the “shocking” figures showed a “hidden environmental crisis” that put Queensland “up there with the world’s worst offenders for forest destruction”.
Queensland Conservation Council coordinator Tim Seelig said the state’s “tree clearing crisis just got a whole load worse”. He called it “a catastrophe for wildlife and a catastrophe for the reef”.
Miles said the figures showed the state was “still suffering the devastating effects of decisions made by [LNP leader] Tim Nicholls and the LNP both when in government and since then in opposition, blocking our responsible legislation”.
He said the federal government had stalled after initially launching investigations into allegations of illegal clearing in north Queensland, and the National party had responded “so violently”.
Murdered environment officer’s family says land-clearing law change would diminish his life
Read more
He stated: “The Turnbull government since then have failed to have any interest in assisting Queensland to protect our forests [or] to implement our long term sustainability plan for the Great Barrier Reef, which of course is incredibly disappointing.”
Miles said clearing statewide was the “single biggest threat” to koala populations and that a ban on developer donations, promised by Labor on the recommendation of the corruption watchdog, would help conservation efforts.
According to deputy premier Trad, most land cleared statewide was for pastoral land, with a spike in “fodder harvesting” and “tree thinning”.
Protections would remove landholders’ scope for “self-assessment” and apply the “rigour of science” to clearing applications, she said, and the surge in clearing ahead of Labor’s touted reforms last year showed it was “landholders doing the wrong thing”.
Asked if a tree clearing ban was a “vote-winner” in rural Queensland, Trad replied: “This is the right thing to do, whether it’s in the bush or whether it’s in the southeast Queensland corner.”
Topics
Logging and land-clearing
Deforestation
Trees and forests
Queensland
Amazon rainforest
Conservation
news
Keep reading...Show less
Protect indigenous people to help fight climate change, says UN rapporteur.
World leaders must do more to defend custodians of natural world whose lives are at risk from big business, says UN rapporteur Victoria Tauli-Corpuz.
Protect indigenous people to help fight climate change, says UN rapporteur
World leaders must do more to defend custodians of natural world whose lives are at risk from big business, says UN rapporteur Victoria Tauli-Corpuz
Native Americans march to a sacred burial ground disturbed by bulldozers building the Dakota Access Pipeline
Native Americans march to a sacred burial ground disturbed by bulldozers building the Dakota Access Pipeline. Protesters were attacked by dogs and sprayed with a respiratory irritant when they arrived at the site. Photograph: Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images
View more sharing options
Shares
27
Comments
3
Matthew Taylor
Friday 6 October 2017 04.53 EDT Last modified on Friday 6 October 2017 04.54 EDT
Global leaders must do more to protect indigenous people fighting to protect their land and way of life if the world is to limit climate change, according to the UN special rapporteur Victoria Tauli-Corpuz.
Speaking ahead of key climate talks in Bonn next month she urged politicians to recognise that indigenous communities around the world were the most effective custodians of millions of hectares of forest “which act as the world’s lungs”.
“Indigenous people’s rights need to be protected in the best way possible, not just for them but because they are also able to provide solutions to many of the world’s problems from climate change to biological diversity.
“It is in the self interest of states and even corporations in the medium and long term to protect and listen to these people – the question is, will they realise this in time?” said Tauli-Corpuz.
‘Indigenous peoples are the best guardians of world's biodiversity’
Read more
A recent study found that a quarter of the carbon stored above ground in the world’s tropical forests is found in the collectively managed territories of indigenous peoples and local communities.
In Brazil, deforestation in indigenous community forests from 2000 to 2012 was less than 1%, compared to 7% outside those areas.
“They are the most effective stewards of these key areas,” said Tauli-Corpuz. “The needs of these indigenous people are converging with the wider environmental needs to protect these areas.”
Indigenous people are locked in fierce conflicts with mining, logging and agricultural companies and their private security firms in hundreds of places from Indonesia to Brazil. 2016 was the deadliest year on record for land rights defenders with about 200 people killed in conflicts in Latin America, Africa and Asia. In addition, thousands more community activists were threatened or harassed. A Guardian project working with Global Witness is highlighting the pressure many of these groups face and has identified at least 134 people who have been killed so far this year.
Tauli-Corpuz, who was speaking at the launch of a new global institution dedicated to securing the land rights of tens of millions of indigenous people, said there was an atmosphere of fear and intimidation in many of these communities.
The defenders: recording the deaths of environmental defenders around the world
Read more
The event in Stockholm was the official launch of the International Land and Forest Tenure Facility which aims to help communities protect their land resources as well as combat climate change.
Funded by Sweden, Norway and the Ford Foundation, a US charity, the Tenure Facility, has already provided grants and guidance for pilot projects in six nations.
The Ford Foundation president Darren Walker said it was an important development in the fight against climate change and inequality. “Creating mechanisms that allow indigenous peoples and local communities to gain tenure over their land or forests is a way to tackle both these problems.”
Rukka Sombolinggi
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Rukka Sombolinggi represents 17 million people in Indonesia: “Our houses are being burnt down, people are being killed, tortured, and sent to jail .” Photograph: Roberto Cenciarelli/FAO
The Ford Foundation has pledged $5m, and Norway has announced a grant of $20m over the coming years. Sweden pitched in $10m during the pilot phase and will fund future projects. Walker said he expects donations to rise to $100m overall within a year.
'We'd rather die than lose': villagers in Indonesia fight for a land rights revolution
Read more
The project aims to boost forestland properly titled to indigenous peoples by 40m hectares, an area twice the size of Spain, within a decade. Organisers say this would prevent deforestation of 1m hectares and the release of 500m tonnes of CO2, more than the annual emissions of Britain or Brazil.
Indigenous leaders representing tens of millions of people involved in land disputes in Asia, Africa and South America attended the conference. They said the tenure programme was an important step towards stopping the persecution of indigenous communities – but warned more needs to be done.
Rukka Sombolinggi, the first female secretary-general of the world’s largest indigenous organisation, Aman, which represents 17 million people in Indonesia, said: “Our houses are being burnt down, people are being killed, tortured, and sent to jail as we speak.”
Sombolinggi said some progress had been made, with much of the forests where indigenous communities live in Indonesia mapped for the first time. And she said “dominant communities” would benefit, not only environmentally from more rights for indigenous people, but argued they could also learn important lessons from the way many of these groups lived.
“If we want to see the beautiful centuries ahead … we need to shift our paradigm of what constitutes wealth or prosperity because too many people see happiness only in terms of material goods and achievements and it is having a devastating impact. Many of us have lost our ability to connect with natural things and no longer seem able to live in harmony with the simple happiness around us.”
Topics
Indigenous peoples
The defenders
Land rights
Deforestation
Climate change
Conservation
Trees and forests
Keep reading...Show less
U.N. chief hopes storms will sway climate skeptics like Trump.
United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres said on Wednesday he hoped recent devastating hurricanes in the Caribbean and southern United States would convince climate change skeptics like U.S. President Donald Trump that global warming is a “major threat.”
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres said on Wednesday he hoped recent devastating hurricanes in the Caribbean and southern United States would convince climate change skeptics like U.S. President Donald Trump that global warming is a “major threat.”
Guterres, who will visit the Caribbean islands of Antigua, Barbuda and Dominica this weekend to see damage from last month’s hurricanes Irma and Maria, said the world must be more determined in pushing for ”a clean, sustainable energy future.”“I have not yet lost my hope that what is happening will be making those that are still skeptical about climate change to be more and more realizing that this, indeed, is a major threat for the international community at the present moment,” he said.
Trump has several times called climate change a hoax and announced in June that the United States would withdraw for a landmark Paris climate deal, which seeks to limit planetary warming by curbing global emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that scientists believe drive global warming.
Trump visited the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico on Tuesday to survey the damage from Hurricane Maria. He also visited the southern U.S. states of Texas and Louisiana in September in the wake of Hurricane Harvey and Florida after Hurricane Irma.
“It is rare to see so many storms of such strength so early in the season,” Guterres told reporters. “Scientific models have long predicted an increase in the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes. This is precisely what is happening – and even sooner than expected.”
The secretary-general said innovative financing mechanisms would be crucial in helping countries, such as those in the Caribbean, cope with such significant external shocks.
“I remember when Jordan and Lebanon were impacted by huge refugee inflows. They were finally entitled to receive concessional loans by the World Bank because of the fact that they had these huge external shocks,” Guterres said.
“I think we are facing a similar situation,” he said.
The United Nations and partners have so far sent to the Caribbean region: 18 tons of food; 3 million water purification tablets; 3,000 water tanks; 2,500 tents; 2,000 mosquito nets and school kits; 500 debit cards for cash assistance.
Guterres said an appeal has been launched for nearly $114 million to cover humanitarian needs, but that the response has been poor.
Reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by David Gregorio
Keep reading...Show less
High oil subsidies ensure profit for nearly half new US investments, study shows.
The findings suggests U.S. oil may be more dependent on subsidies than previously thought. The subsidies could also undermine international climate goals.
BY NEELA BANERJEE
FOLLOW @NEELAEAST
Government subsidies to American energy companies are generous enough to ensure that almost half of new investments in untapped domestic oil projects would be profitable, creating incentives to keep pumping fossil fuels despite climate concerns, according to a new study.
The result would seriously undermine the 2015 Paris climate agreement, whose goals of reining in global warming can only be met if much of the world's oil reserves are left in the ground.
The study, in Nature Energy, examined the impact of federal and state subsidies at recent oil prices that hover around $50 a barrel and estimated that the support could increase domestic oil production by a total of 17 billion barrels "over the next few decades."
Using that oil would put the equivalent of 6 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, the authors calculated.
Taxpayers give fossil fuel companies in the U.S. more than $20 billion annually in federal and state subsidies, according to a separate report released today by the environmental advocacy group Oil Change International. During the Obama administration, the U.S. and other major greenhouse gas emitters pledged to phase out fossil fuel supports. But the future of such policies is in jeopardy given the enthusiastic backing President Donald Trump has given the fossil fuel sector.
The study in Nature Energy focused on the U.S. because it is the world's largest producer of fossil fuels and offers hefty subsidies. The authors said they looked at the oil industry specifically because it gets double the amount of government support that coal does, in the aggregate.
Written by scientists and economists from the Stockholm Environment Institute and Earth Track, which monitors energy subsidies, the study "suggests that oil resources may be more dependent on subsidies than previously thought."
The authors looked at all U.S. oil fields that had been identified but not yet developed by mid-2016, a total of more than 800. They were then divided into four groups: the big oil reservoirs of North Dakota, Texas and the Gulf of Mexico, and the fourth, a catch-all for smaller onshore deposits around the country. The subsidies fell into three groups: revenue that the government decides to forgo, such as taxes; the government's assumption of accident and environmental liability for industry's own actions, and the state's below-market rate provision of certain services.
The authors then assumed a minimum rate of return of 10 percent for a project to move forward. The question then becomes "whether the subsidies tip the project from being uneconomic to economic," clearing that 10 percent rate-of-return threshold.
The authors discovered that many of the not-yet-developed projects in the country's largest oil fields would only be economically feasible if they received subsidies. In Texas's Permian Basin, 40 percent of those projects would be subsidy-dependent, and in North Dakota's Williston Basin, 59 percent would be, according to the study.
Subsidies "distort markets to increase fossil fuel production," the authors concluded.
"Our findings suggest an expanded case for fossil fuel subsidy reform," the authors wrote. "Not only would removing federal and state support provide a fiscal benefit" to taxpayers and the budget, "but it could also result in substantial climate benefits" by keeping carbon the ground rather than sending it into a rapidly warming atmosphere.
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
