Cooee Australia, stop producing fossil fuels and develop credible climate action plans. All nations must preserve ecosystems with ‘irrecoverable carbon’.
Australia continues to behave selfishly and irresponsibly, increasing fossil fuel production and having no credible plans to transition to a zero carbon society. Protecting the world’s immense natural reservoirs of carbon is almost as important as leaving fossil fuels in the ground. Manatees join the list of marine mammals threatened by human activities.
Australia one of the Fossil Fuelled 5
Australia, the UK, USA, Canada and Norway have all committed to reaching net zero by 2050 (SBS has the current status of all countries) and, with the exception of Australia, they now love to present themselves as champions of climate action both domestically and internationally. In fairness, all except Oz are making serious efforts in some of the right directions. But there’s a BUT and it’s a mighty big, flashing red, 72 font, bold, capital letters BUT. They are all wealthy fossil fuel producing and exporting nations that are planning to increase their production of fossil fuels over the next decade. This is despite their historical responsibility for the climate crisis and their current economic capacity to effect a rapid transition out of fossil fuel production and help developing nations avoid a dependence on coal, oil or gas.
To keep the 1.5 degrees Celsius warming target in sight, globally the production of coal, oil and gas must fall by 69 per cent, 31 per cent and 28 per cent respectively. However, collectively The Fossil Fuelled 5 (FF5) plan to reduce their coal production by only 30 per cent and increase their oil and gas production by 33 per cent and 27 per cent respectively. Australia is the world’s largest exporter of gas and second largest exporter of coal (largest in terms of value). Our governments plan to expand production of all three fuels over the next decade: coal 4 per cent, oil 32 per cent and gas 12 per cent.
In addition the FF5 have invested more than US$150 billion supporting the production and consumption of fossil fuels since the beginning of Covid. This is slightly more than all the G7 nations have invested in clean energy during this period.
If we look globally, the fossil fuel production figures are even more alarming. All countries combined are projecting increases of coal 240 per cent, oil 57 per cent and gas 71 per cent. In total, that’s more than double what we can afford to produce and burn by 2030 to stay under 1.5C.
What should the FF5 be doing?
- Halt all further exploration and extraction
- Phase out domestic use of fossil fuels in line with staying under 1.5C
- End all financial support for fossil fuel companies (subsidies, tax relief, royalties holidays, etc.)
- Redirect this money to help developing nations avoid a reliance on fossil fuels
- Join other countries in the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance and similar initiatives.
Why on earth would poor countries that produce fossil fuels feel any obligation to reduce their output, with all its domestic social and economic complications, when they can see what the rich ones are doing?
Climate Change Performance Index
Australia’s ranking on the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) received some publicity when the latest results were released in November. Not surprising really as we ranked 56th of the 60 nations plus the EU included. Collectively these nations are responsible for 92 per cent of global greenhouse emissions. Rankings are tricky beasts, however. You can be numero uno and still rubbish, and you can be bottom of the pile and still be achieving a respectable standard. So let’s look at Australia’s scores on the CCPI and its four constituent elements, not just our ranking.
Regrettably, the scores confirm Australia’s abysmal record of climate action: no score was above the halfway point and we were regarded as ‘Very Low’ in all categories. Morrison and crew can’t play the traditional “We’ve increased our ambition since the assessment was done” get out of jail card here either. The assessment of Australia’s performance occurred after the government released the Technology Investment Roadmap and made its commitment to net zero emissions by 2050. Australia’s poor scores were attributed to:
- Continuing reliance on fossil fuels, including subsidies and the gas-led recovery, with no policies for phasing out coal and gas
- No new policies or plans to deliver net zero
- Insufficiency of the Roadmap for decarbonising the economy
- Failure to take advantage of our renewable energy potential and no plan to transition to renewable energy.
The authors concluded that “Australia’s international standing has been damaged by the country’s climate denialism by politicians, refusal to increase ambition, and refusal to commit to international green finance mechanisms”.
No country was accorded the ‘Very High’ status category on the overall CCPI. The top ranking country was Denmark with a score of 77, closely followed in the 70s by Sweden, Norway, UK and Morocco, and then Chile and India marginally below 70. So you don’t have to be rich or northern European to perform well.
Irrecoverable carbon
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the most urgent and important issue that the world’s population faces collectively (if we ignore the possibility of some idiot initiating a nuclear war). Only marginally behind that task is preserving the natural environments that contain vast quantities of carbon. Particularly important is preservation of those carbon-rich environments that, if destroyed, could not be replaced before 2050, the timeframe for net zero emissions. The carbon in these areas constitutes “irrecoverable carbon” — if released into the atmosphere there would be no hope of it being reabsorbed over the next 30 years by ecosystem regrowth and recovery. In a double whammy, the loss of these environments would also reduce the amount of CO2 that is “routinely” absorbed from the atmosphere each year by the photosynthesis that powers the day to day life of plants.
So what sorts of environments contain the most irrecoverable carbon, how much carbon do they contain and where are they? Glad you asked:
- The best estimate of the amount of irrecoverable carbon globally is around 140 Gigatonnes (Gt), but there’s a large possible range, up to almost 600 Gt. To put that into perspective, humans have added about 650 Gt to the atmosphere in the last 200 years and can add only another 110 Gt for a two-thirds chance of staying under 1.5C of warming.
- About 60 per cent of the 140 Gt is in biomass and 40 per cent in soils.
- The areas with the most irrecoverable carbon are mostly in two bands: the tropics and the far north. The principal locations are the tropical forests of the Amazon, Congo and SE Asia (53 Gt); peatlands of Canada and Siberia (12 Gt); temperate rainforests of NW North America (5 Gt); and global mangroves and tidal wetlands (5 Gt). The largest single location by far is the Amazon (32 Gt).
Irrecoverable carbon in Earth’s ecosystems:
- Over 80 per cent of irrecoverable carbon areas have tree cover, so halting deforestation for agriculture and cities, and reducing the droughts and bush fires associated with climate change are urgent. Deforestation alone can destroy 4.5 Gt of irrecoverable carbon each decade.
- Staggeringly, half of the world’s irrecoverable carbon is found on 3.3 per cent of the land area (roughly equivalent to WA, SA and NT). Seventy-five per cent is found on just 7.5 per cent of the land. All of it is on 20 per cent.
- About half of the irrecoverable carbon is in state and/or Indigenous protected land.
The concept of “unburnable carbon” — fossil fuel reserves that must be left in the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change — is now well established. To this must be added “unconvertible” or “unexploitable ecosystems” if we are to avoid destroying our reserves of irrecoverable carbon. This work shows us where to direct our most urgent action and, somewhat encouragingly, demonstrates that the highest priority areas are not too dispersed.
Florida’s manatees starving to death
Remember the North Atlantic right whale and the vaquita? Marine mammals are doing it tough in North America’s coastal waters. Here’s another example, this time from Florida.
Fertilizer run off from farms and lawns flows into the rivers; populations expand and the increased number of septic tanks allows human waste to leak into the estuaries; nutrients concentrate in the waters around Florida; algal blooms explode; sea grass is killed off; manatees starve to death. Since 2011, 90 per cent of the sea grass in the region has disappeared and this year alone more than 1000 of the approximately 9000 manatees have died. When people are starving you feed them, right? So why not do the same for manatees? Put cabbage and lettuce in the water for them. Well, it’s not so simple. Habituating the manatees to vessels increases the risk of boat strikes. Uneaten greens might further fuel algal growth. Wildlife feeding can disrupt migration patterns and spread disease. Artificial feeding programs for other starving species have had mixed results. What about heading upstream, literally and metaphorically: reduce the use and run off of fertilizers on farms and gardens; and upgrade septic tanks or switch to municipal sewage systems. Nah, let’s just build another house on the beach and another country club in the Everglades and chuck an iceberg or two overboard from the yacht at the weekend.
Peter Sainsbury is a retired public health worker with a long interest in social policy, particularly social justice, and now focusing on climate change and environmental sustainability. He is extremely pessimistic about the world avoiding catastrophic global warming.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
