Climate crisis

When a heat dome shattered temperature records across the Western U.S. and Canada in June 2021, the resulting fatalities exposed a pattern. In Portland, Oregon, and surrounding Multnomah County, 56 of the 72 people who died were age 60 and up. In British Columbia, people 60 or older accounted for 555 of the 619 fatalities.

Just over a year later, a sizzling June, July and August in England caused roughly 2,800 excess deaths among people 65 and older. More than 1,000 of them occurred over four days in late July.

Intense heat waves in recent years offer a stark warning of what’s at stake for humanity. The planet just endured its 12 hottest consecutive months on record, and this summer threatens to be hotter than ever. But those stakes are not experienced equally across age groups. Older adults are more at risk of experiencing dangerous health impacts during periods of intense heat.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government says the move is needed to shore up domestic energy supply while supporting a transition to net zero.

But critics argue the move is a rejection of science, pointing to the International Energy Agency (IEA) call for "huge declines in the use of coal, oil and gas" to reach climate targets.

Australia - one of the world's largest exporters of liquefied natural gas - has also said the policy is based on "its commitment to being a reliable trading partner".

Released on Thursday, the strategy outlines the government's plans to work with industry and state leaders to increase both the production and exploration of the fossil fuel.

The government will also continue to support the expansion of the country's existing gas projects, the largest of which are run by Chevron and Woodside Energy Group in Western Australia. 

When it comes to our sustainability problems, striving for greater resource efficiency seems like an obvious solution. For example, if you buy a new car that’s twice as efficient as your old one, it should cut your gasoline use in half. And if your new computer is four times more efficient than your last one, it should cut your computer’s electric bill fourfold.

In short, boosting efficiency seems like a straightforward way to reduce your use of natural resources. And for you personally, efficiency gains may do exactly that. But collectively, efficiency seems to have the opposite effect As technology gets more efficient, we tend to consume more resources. This backfire effect is known as the ‘Jevons paradox’, and it occurs for a simple reason. At a social level, efficiency is not a tool for conservation; it’s a catalyst for technological sprawl.

Here’s how it works. As technology gets more efficient, it cheapens the service that it provides. And when services get cheaper, we tend to use more of them. Hence, efficiency ends up catalyzing greater consumption.

When used to generate power or move vehicles, fossil fuels kill people. Particulates and ozone resulting from fossil fuel burning cause direct health impacts, while climate change will act indirectly. Regardless of the immediacy, premature deaths and illness prior to death are felt through lost productivity and the cost of treatments.

Typically, you see the financial impacts quantified when the EPA issues new regulations, as the health benefits of limiting pollution typically dwarf the costs of meeting new standards. But some researchers from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab have now done similar calculations—but focusing on the impact of renewable energy. Wind and solar, by displacing fossil fuel use, are acting as a form of pollution control and so should produce similar economic benefits.

Do they ever. The researchers find that, in the US, wind and solar have health and climate benefits of over $100 for every Megawatt-hour produced, for a total of a quarter-trillion dollars in just the last four years. This dwarfs the cost of the electricity they generate and the total of the subsidies they received.

• In short: A former ADF chief says the federal government either doesn't understand or is hiding from the public the risk of climate change to national security.
• Admiral Chris Barrie says mass migration, food insecurity and other climate risks must be addressed by government and defence.
• What's next? The group of former defence and intelligence officials have called for a secret climate security report to be made known for public debate.

Rapid diffusion of solutions to a changing climate is paramount if the US is to mitigate carbon emissions. A timely response depends on how people perceive and understand innovations such as new practices, programs, policies, and technologies that promise to reduce emissions. This article explores multisolving innovations in the context of interventions that can be targeted to community leaders and decision makers. We focus on examples led by policy staff; directors of municipal offices and departments of transportation, housing, sustainability, urban planning, and public health; and elected county and city officials where there may be mixed support for efforts to reduce carbon emissions, to show that some innovations can be accurately framed solely in terms of community health benefits. When communicating with stakeholders who are dismissive or skeptical of climate change, we suggest using messages that describe the benefits of mitigation innovations in terms of human health, rather than climate, to achieve broader acceptability.

The group succeeded in their demands to water down the pollution standard despite overwhelming evidence showing the devastating impact that vehicle exhaust pollution has on human health and climate, as well as polling showing overwhelming support for the proposed standard.

Such policy “compromise” is often portrayed as important to the cost of living for the average “punter”. But there is no disguising the winners here.

The exemptions, or “re-categorisation” of luxury SUVs into the “light commercial class” included such everyman vehicles as the Mercedes AMG-G 63 (price range $180,000 to $350,000), and the Lexus LX (around $200,000). Most of the other models included have variants that cost well over $100,000.

[…]

In a sign of just how low expectations of government are in Australia, most organisations, including environmental groups, welcomed the changes announced on Tuesday, which have garnered the support of the fossil fuel giants such as Toyota, if not the federal Coalition or the Greens.

These groups were at pains to point out how remarkable it is, given Australia’s political situation, that we now stand the chance of actually having vehicle emissions standards. But it is equally remarkable, and testimony to the power of the fossil fuel lobby, that – apart from Russia – Australia is the only western country in the world that doesn’t have them.

Climate and housing are vitally connected, and acknowledging this turns a pair of calamities into one huge opportunity.

That’s the message from the national Task Force for Housing and Climate, a cross-partisan group of former politicians and policy experts that launched in September and released their final report on March 5. The non-governmental task force convened fifteen heavy hitters from across the country, including former Conservative cabinet minister Lisa Raitt and Edmonton’s progressive former mayor Don Iveson as co-chairs, as well as economist and former governor of the Bank of Canada Mark Carney and former Toronto chief city planner Jennifer Keesmaat. The group has created a road map for 5.8 million “affordable, low-carbon and resilient” homes to be built by 2030.

[…] 

If all this sounds wildly optimistic, somewhere between wartime effort and fever dream on the scale of probabilities, well, so is the fight against climate change. One could take heart from the fact that, last fall, housing minister Fraser told the CBC “this is a wartime effort we need to adopt.” There’s also the fact that the debate over housing policy hasn’t suffered the same partisan warping that afflicts climate policy. Nobody in Canada is arguing the housing crisis is a hoax or wildly overblown; instead, every party is now competing to prove it has the best, most aggressive solution.

At first blush, these tycoons might seem to be “prepping” for a familiar 20th-century style apocalypse, as depicted in countless disaster movies. But they’re not. 

Yes, their vast estates do include bunkers and other technologies traditionally associated with prepping. For example, the mansions of Ko’olau Ranch are connected through underground tunnels that feed into a large shelter.

However, Zuckerberg, Winfrey, Ellison and others are actually embarking on far more ambitious projects. They are seeking to create entirely self-sustaining ecosystems, in which land, agriculture, the built environment and labour are all controlled and managed by a single person, who has more in common with a mediaeval-era feudal lord than a 21st-century capitalist.

[…]

What we see with Zuckerberg’s project isn’t an overt conflict between billionaire and community. In Kauai, members of a community have consented, or conceded, to grant a plutocrat the stewardship of their land, in the name of preservation. This is a business model that leads directly (back) to feudalism.

This insight is lost in the media’s obsession with the “craziest features” of Zuckerberg’s Hawaiian folly. Rather, what is emerging among billionaires is a belief that survival depends not (only) on hiding out in a reinforced concrete hole in the ground, but (also) on developing, and controlling, an ecosystem of one’s own.

The UN agency's annual State of the Global Climate report confirmed it wasn't just the hottest year on record, ocean heat reached its highest level since records began, global mean sea level also reached a record high and Antarctic sea ice reached a record low.

The impacts of extreme weather and climate events up-ended life for millions of people across the world and inflicted billions of dollars in economic losses, according to the WMO.

"Extreme climate conditions exacerbated humanitarian crises, with millions experiencing acute food insecurity and hundreds of thousands displaced from their homes," WMO Secretary General Professor Celeste Saulo said.

"Heatwaves, floods, droughts, wildfires and intense tropical cyclones wreaked havoc on every continent and caused huge socio-economic losses."