GIve Me Everything about Safe Climate
You asked for it and here is it.. the nitty gritty of climate change.
1. Australia at Risk
Climate change is a serious threat to the high standard of living you and other Australians enjoy. More heatwaves, bushfires, droughts and floods, and loss of the Great Barrier Reef, would leave a very different Australia to our children. On a global scale climate change could cost as much as the two World Wars and the Great Depression combined. Yet by acting now, we can prevent the more serious impacts of climate change.
The problem
Burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas releases the greenhouse pollution which causes climate change. Coal power, used to generate about 80 per cent of Australia's electricity, is our biggest single contributor to greenhouse pollution. Today, Australia's 24 coal-power stations produce one third of our greenhouse pollution. Australia may have large coal reserves, but we are also blessed with some of the planet's best wind and solar resources.
No one's saying we should turn off our coal power stations overnight. But the solutions for a clean energy future are ready and available right now. The longer we delay this inevitable transition, the more difficult it will be for our children and future generations. As we make this shift to clean, green technology of the future, we can ensure workers and families who are economically reliant on coal have a "fair go".
How climate change could affect us
Global impacts
A massive increase in refugees could be a serious problem as people flee areas hard hit by climate disasters and extremes. A U.S. Pentagon analysis concludes that climate change is more than just an environmental threat. It is also a major security risk because of the widespread unrest and global upheaval that would follow massive droughts, floods and famines.
Australian impacts
Climate change would bring more frequent and severe bushfires, droughts, storms and floods to Australia. By 2080, temperatures could be 6.7 °C warmer, on average, than now. Rising sea levels would imperil coastal communities with erosion, flooding and landslides. Climate change will also harm our agriculture and tourism industries. Warming will bring more tropical diseases, and destroy world-famous national icons like the Great Barrier Reef. According to the UN, climate change is expected to cost the Australian economy $7 to $14 billion a year.
Australia’s icons at risk
As an Australian, you’re proud of world-famous icons like the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu wetlands, the Wet Tropics rainforests and the snowfields of the Australian Alps. Yet our hotter climate and shifting rainfall patterns threaten these natural treasures. Scientists warn that most of the Great Barrier Reef could be “functionally” extinct within 50 years due to yearly coral bleaching caused by hotter oceans. This also threatens the reef’s $5.8 billion a year tourism industry, along with its equivalent of 63,000 full time jobs.
Read the latest UN reports on climate change risks to Australia
Bleak future for farmers if we don’t act
The current drought signals what lies ahead for Australian farmers if we don’t reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Rural employment lost 80,000 jobs between 2001 and 2005. The 2002-3 drought was estimated to cost the economy around $6.6 billion. Though a 1 °C increase in global temperature may sound modest, it actually represents a huge change in the global climate system that would cause a 70 per cent increase in NSW drought. A 2 °C increase would reduce Australia’s livestock carrying capacity by 40 per cent.
Threat to Australians’ property
Sea-level rise and extreme events such as bushfires put Australians’ property – and lives – at risk in the future. Rising sea levels threaten to drown or put at risk billions of dollars worth of private and public property before the end of the century, accordingto University of Sydney researchers. The famous surf beach at Narrabeen, NSW could be obliterated, at a cost of $245 million, according to UN research. Hotter, drier conditions will increase bushfire risk. The tragic Black Saturday Victorian bushfires are a powerful reminder of this threat.
Australian Greenhouse Office: Living with Climate Change
Climate change – bad for your health
Climate change could put more Australians’ at risk from tropical diseases such as deadly dengue fever, Ross River fever, malaria and encephalitis. The dengue transmission zone could reach as far south as Brisbane and Sydney, according to the Australian Medical Association. The number of very hot days, over 35 °C, is expected to increase six-fold for Sydney, and more than double for Perth by 2070. Outback towns such as Wilcanna, NSW would have to endure 136 such days by 2070. Excessively hot days take their greatest toll on the health of the young, the ill, and the elderly. This is especially true in urban areas where heat increases smog, which causes asthma. Heat-related deaths in Australia could rise to 6,300 a year by 2050, and up to 15,000 by 2100.
The Australian Medical Association’s climate change health warning
The AMA’s full report on climate change and health
Water and Climate Change
Drought, dry riverbeds, falling dam levels and water restrictions … more than ever, water is a hot topic in Australia. Water restrictions may leave you concerned about a future that promises still more extreme changes. Australians are rising to the challenge, but at the end of the day there’s a limit to how far you can adapt. That’s why tackling climate change is vital to drought-proofing Australia’s future.
Is the current drought just part of a natural cycle?
Our scientists can’t yet tell us for certain whether this drought is caused by climate change. But they do tell us that this is what climate change will look like. A hotter, drier future is in store for many regions of Australia unless we cut greenhouse pollution. Some areas are expected to warm as much as 6.7 ºC by 2080. In future, droughts are expected to be most serious in northeast and southeast Australia. Increasing drought is already being felt in southern Australia.
Coal and water
Australia depends on coal for about 80 per cent of its electricity. Yet coal power fuels our water shortage in two ways. First, it produces the greenhouse pollution that causes climate change. Second, coal power plants themselves require large amounts of water to operate. What's more, the coal mining operations that feed our coal plants also require water. Taking all these freshwater demands into account makes coal power the largest water consumer for a given amount of power produced in New South Wales.
How will Australia’s climate change?
Being the world’s driest inhabited continent makes Australia especially fragile in the face of climate change. While northern Australia will generally receive more rainfall, the southern mainland will generally get less. (Tasmania, an exception to the rule, is expected to receive more rainfall.) This means Australia’s most populated areas would have to adapt to less rain under climate change. Yet floods will also be a problem because rainfall, when it does come, is expected to be more intense.
Can better water management solve the problem?
Water management won’t be enough if Australia’s climate changes radically. The CSIRO estimates that water flowing into the Murray Darling Basin could fall by almost half if we don’t cut greenhouse pollution. Better water management is a strong step forward, but tackling climate change is crucial to dealing with the root problem.
Water for cities
If you live in a city, chances are you’ve already faced the challenge of water shortages. Yet unless we cut our greenhouse pollution, we can expect this problem to really intensify with climate change. Many cities will have less water over the next 70 years, with Perth and Adelaide being most at risk. Melbourne could lose as much as 35 per cent of water flowing into dams by 2050, and Sydney’s already-stressed water supplies will also be reduced.
Water for farmers
Australia’s farmers rely heavily on irrigation. In fact, Australia is the fourth largest exporter of “virtual water”. This refers to all the water taken to produce a final farm product. For example, a 150-gram hamburger’s virtual water content is a whopping 2,400 litres!
This is a trend that cannot continue here on the world’s driest inhabited continent. Most farmers can expect negative consequences from climate change. Farmers will have to change their cropping patterns and some crops will no longer be suitable for some regions. For example, the southern Murray-Darling Basin’s water levels will fall dramatically, with a direct impact on how much farmers can irrigate there.
Water for rivers
Healthy rivers are crucial to our Australian way of life. Yet many of our rivers are in dire health. Today the mighty Murray’s flow is less than 10 per cent of its optimum. With climate change, our river systems’ water levels are predicted to deteriorate even further. Getting our greenhouse emissions under control is indispensable to restoring our rivers’ health.
What we're seeing with this drought is a frightening glimpse of the future with global warming
SA Premier Mike Rann, 2006
2. What's causing climate change
Fossil Fuels
More about brown coal
Transport
Land Use
3. False 'solutions' to climate change
Nuclear Power – An Unnecessary Risk
Nuclear power has moved off the agenda since the election of the Rudd Government, but it's still worth arming yourself with the facts because going nuclear is sure to raise its ugly face again:
Nuclear reactors are dangerous
The Chernobyl disaster and the Three Mile Island accident are only the best known of hundreds of nuclear industry accidents or “incidents”. If anything, the risks of nuclear reactors are higher today than ever. Take, for example, the alleged targeting of Sydney’s Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in a terrorist plot.
Sydney’s Lucas Heights reactor allegedly targeted
Read about the enormous health consequences of the Chernobyl disaster
Nuclear reactors are water-hungry
Nuclear reactors use tonnes of water per second. For example, a nuclear reactor built in Australia could be expected to use 1.7-2.8 million litres of water per minute, according to the Australian Government. Nuclear reactors use water from rivers, lakes, dams or the sea. However, safer energy options available today – such as wind and solar – require no ongoing use of water.
Nuclear reactors are too slow
Nuclear reactors take at least a decade to build. In fact, the last US nuclear power station took 23 years to construct. Yet scientists warn that we have just ten years to make major headway in terms of slashing greenhouse pollution to tackle climate change.
Nuclear reactors are expensive
Nuclear power reactors need billions of dollars in public subsidies. Over half of all energy subsidies from OECD governments have gone to prop up the nuclear industry, according to The Economist magazine. Nuclear reactors often far exceed their construction budgets. The last nuclear power plant built in Canada cost more than double initial estimates – a total of AUD$15.1 billion. Shutting down (decommissioning) nuclear power plants also costs billions of dollars because of the high radioactivity levels that remain in their buildings and equipment.
Nuclear reactors are being phased out
In Europe the nuclear industry has steadily declined since 1989, as many European countries phase out and shut down nuclear reactors. Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden have decided not to build new reactors, or intend to phase out nuclear power.
Nuclear reactors make unpopular neighbours
Australia would need 25 nuclear reactors to meet a third of its electricity needs at 2050, according to the Australian Government. These nuclear reactors would be built near our coasts and major population to be close to water and markets. Yet most Australian communities outright reject the idea of a nuclear reactor in their neighbourhood.
No solution to deadly nuclear waste
Deadly waste from nuclear reactors stays dangerously radioactive for longer than any human civilisation has existed. No government has yet built or demonstrated safe, long-term nuclear waste storage. The only known way to safely prevent the buildup of deadly nuclear waste is to stop producing it.
The nuclear “debate” is a diversion
Scientists tell us we need action on climate change, now. The nuclear power debate is distracting our leaders’ valuable time and focus from the real energy transformation that must begin without delay. Many safe, affordable solutions including energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy can be put in place now without resorting to high-risk nuclear technology.
Burying greenhouse pollution from coal?
Australia’s coal-fired power stations are a major source of the greenhouse pollution that causes climate change. Will attempts to “clean up” coal by burying these emissions truly tackle this problem, or simply sweep it under the carpet?
The shift away from coal toward safe, truly clean energy sources like solar and wind is already underway overseas. Many argue Australia should lead this shift, not burden future generations with our pollution from burning coal.
What is this technology?
It’s been dubbed “clean coal”, carbon capture and storage, or geosequestration. It’s experimental technology that aims to capture greenhouse pollution from burning coal, then transport it to burial sites where it would need to be stored underground, essentially forever.
What are the unknowns?
There are many. Will the greenhouse pollution stay safely buried for millennia? Are there suitable burial sites in Australia – and if so how many? What will be the additional cost? One thing is certain. Taxpayers and consumers will pick up the tab to allow the coal industry to continue producing greenhouse pollution.
How long will it take?
The technology is still in its experimental phase. Even the coal industry admits that only nine such coal plants (less than 6,000 MW of capacity) would likely be built by 2020 worldwide. Yet by that time we could have more than two hundred times that much capacity of clean, safe, emissions-free wind power (installed capacity of 1,250,000 MW). With scientists warning we must curtail emissions within a decade, it makes sense to use safe, truly clean – renewable – technologies that are available now.
What could go wrong?
Leakage is one risk. Leakage would undermine the benefits of geosequestration for reducing emissions, and could even “pose immediate dangers to human life and health,” according to UN research. In 2006, scientists testing geosequestration found that greenhouse gas stored underground formed strong acids, creating a nasty mix of metals and organic substances. It also dissolved a surprising amount of the rock that helped hold the gas underground.
Who will pay the price if things go wrong?
Liability for accidents is another risk Australians face with this technology. You might think that it is unfair to expect governments, tax-payers or future generations to take responsibility for a geosequestration site after a corporation has created it. However, this is what the Ministerial Council for Mineral and Petroleum Resources has proposed.
I think it’s as big as the issue of nuclear waste … What are you going to do with millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide that is not nearly as compact as nuclear waste?...I don’t think the concept of pumping carbon dioxide down into a cavern under the ground is going to be the long term solution.
Paul Anderson, director & former head, mining giant BHP Billiton, 2007
4. What are the real solutions to climate change?
Clean, Renewable Energy
We often hear about “clean” or “renewable” energy, but what is it, really? Truly clean energy is renewable because it comes from unlimited natural sources: sunlight, wind, flowing water (hydro), heat stored in the earth’s crust, and the energy stored in plants, and animal waste (bioenergy).
Why renewable energy?
Clean, renewable energy is the logical choice for many reasons. Unlike coal, oil and gas, renewable energy produces virtually no net greenhouse emissions when generating power. In most cases the fuel – sun, wind, heat from the earth or the power of flowing rivers – is free. Renewable energy is also secure and home-grown – unlike oil, which is running out, and leads to war and conflict.
But can it do the job?
Study after study shows that tapping a combination of clean, renewable energy sources, while improving energy efficiency and conservation, will tackle climate change while keeping our economy strong. We can do it by phasing out coal, and without building nuclear reactors.
In fact, we could cover the world’s entire current energy demand six times over by using renewable technology that’s available today. Denmark now sources about 20 per cent of its power from wind on average, and expects that figure to reach as high as 75 per cent by 2025. Spain now gets up to 27 per cent of its total power from wind.
Greenpeace International Energy [R]evolution report
Bring on the Solar Revolution, New Scientist article
What about cost?
Despite being the “new kids on the block”, some types of renewable energy, such as wind and biomass power (from plant and animal waste) are already competing with cheap coal power in some regions. The cost of these new energy industries is dropping fast as they expand, so they will keep getting cheaper. Even solar photovoltaic power (solar electricity), one of the costlier forms of electricity, could compete with regular electricity retail prices by 2020.
Research shows we can shift to clean energy without hurting the economy. In fact, not taking action will be much more costly.
http://www.environmentvictoria.org.au/sites/all/themes/ev/images/moreArr...); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-attachment: scroll; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; text-transform: lowercase; display: inline; float: none; background-position: 100% 65%; " href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/999/76/CLOSED_SHORT_executive_summary.pdf">the uk’s “stern review on the economics of climate change”
Generating jobs and investment
The renewable energy industry is job-intensive. Germany’s fast-growing renewable energy industry already employs more than its coal and nuclear industries combined. Spain’s wind industry has revitalized regional economies and supports more than 30,000 jobs – and will support twice that many by 2010. Meanwhile, yesterday’s energy industries are shedding jobs. For example, Australian coal industry employment dropped 30 per cent in just the four years between 1996 and 2000.
In Australia, making the switch to clean energy means a better future for our children in these bright, new sunrise industries for renewable technology.
Sending the right signal
Lack of government support for these promising new industries is holding back jobs and development. As a result, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment has left Australia for greener pastures in recent years. Renewable energy entrepreneurs who want to invest in Australia have simply received the wrong signals from government.
We know that coal is the single largest polluter, so we've got to move on to a new energy future…The Australia I grew up in rode on the sheep's back, but we've moved on – it's the same with coal.
Australian of the Year Tim Flannery, 2007
Feed-in Tarrifs - a smart mechanism to increase renewable energy
Energy Efficiency
5. What can you do right now?
Shrink your energy use
“Using less energy isn’t about making drastic lifestyle changes or sacrifices. Conservation and efficiency measures can be as simple as improving the standards for new buildings so that they use less energy for heating and cooling, replacing an old refrigerator…or adjusting the thermostat before leaving home.”
Suzuki Foundation.
Being more efficient with energy consumption is one of the easiest and most cost-effective ways to tackle climate change. You can make simple electricity savings throughout your household.
In all your rooms
In the bathroom
In the kitchen
In the laundry
For appliances
Renovating, building or buying?
Energy efficiency at home
Australian homes produce roughly 13 per cent of our total greenhouse pollution. Yet energy efficiency measures could slash these emissions more than 70 per cent using existing technologies, saving you and others across Australia a total of $65 billion over 12 years.
Efficiency for business
The good news is that commercial and manufacturing energy efficiency could easily increase by 20-30 per cent. And that’s with technology we have right now. These efficiency improvements would pay for themselves in just four years through energy savings. What’s more, putting such improvements in place in these and other sectors would grow Australia’s economy (real GDP) by $1.8 billion annually. At the same time, we would create 9,000 jobs, according to research by Australian governments. With political leadership, Australians could have the right incentives to unlock these valuable savings.
Efficiency for cars
Right now Australia’s tax system rewards big-car purchases and driving more kilometres. Cars are used for four out of five trips in Australia, compared to just half of trips in Europe and two out of five in wealthy Asian cities. Yet oil is a limited and increasingly costly resource, and Australia is already importing more of it than we produce. It’s time for our leaders to give you urban planning options that make cars a luxury, not a necessity.
