An Italian judge ruled on 3 January that three environmental activists who sprayed the Senate building in Rome with washable paint must stand trial. The action, carried out on 2 January, had sparked anger from Italy’s far-right government.
Laura, Davide, and Alessandro – who belong to the Last Generation group and go by their first names – are accused of criminal damage. They could spend up to three years behind bars.
Grabbing attention
They were among five climate activists who used fire extinguishers to spray the front of the upper house of the Italian parliament with washable orange paint. Police seized the fire extinguishers and detained all five activists, before releasing two.
Laura said in a statement that they were responding to the:
willingness of political and economic elites to deliberately choose to condemn much of the global population to drought, famine, war and death
The group wants Italy to invest more in renewable energy and reduce carbon emissions.
Last Generation said the arrests were:
aimed at intimidating and criminalising those who are trying to bring attention to the real crime that this government is perpetrating.
The trial for the three arrested will begin on 12 May, their lawyer – Ilaria Salamandra – told Agence France-Presse (AFP).
“The defence hopes the court will change the offence,” reducing it to soiling rather than damage, she said. Soiling would be a lesser charge that carries a punishment of between six months to one year.
Right-wing backlash
Stefano Feltri, editor of the left-wing Domani, wrote on Monday 2 January that climate activists in Italy were:
treated more harshly than hooligan leaders who collude with organised crime.
True to form, far-right prime minister Giorgia Meloni called the spraying an “outrageous gesture”. Meanwhile, Senate speaker Ignazio La Russa, from Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party, said it was “cowardly”.
Last Generation began carrying out peaceful but disruptive protests in Italy last year ahead of the general election, urging politicians from all parties to make climate change their priority.
Activists threw paint at Milan’s famed La Scala opera house last month and have targeted artworks in museums. These are forms of direct action designed not to damage the works, but rather to highlight the risk of environmental disaster.
A broader scope
The protests in Italy are part of a series of actions across Europe to focus attention on climate change.
Activists have targeted masterpieces such as ‘Girl with a Pearl Earring’ by Johannes Vermeer at The Hague’s Mauritshuis museum, Klimt’s ‘Death and Life’ in Vienna’s Leopold Museum, and Van Gogh’s ‘Sunflowers’ at London’s National Gallery, hurling soup or other food at the paintings behind glass.
Featured image via Unsplash, resized to 770×403 pixels
On 1 January, environmental campaign group Extinction Rebellion (XR) stated that it will no longer stage its well-known blockades of UK transport networks. Instead, it will hold a major demonstration against government policy in April.The activist network, formed in the UK in 2018, has regularly used civil disobedience to protest government inaction on climate change.Protesters linked to the group gained notoriety for blockading train lines, airports, and roads. At the end of August, they blockaded London’s iconic Tower Bridge.
The statement
A statement from XR read:
As we ring in the new year, we make a controversial resolution to temporarily shift away from public disruption as a primary tactic.
This year, we prioritise attendance over arrest and relationships over roadblocks, as we stand together and become impossible to ignore.
While recognising “the power of disruption to raise the alarm”, the activists said the group would now focus on disrupting “the abuse of power and imbalance” by demanding politicians end fossil-fuel use.
XR is calling for 100,000 people to demonstrate outside the Houses of Parliament in London on 21 April.
Draconian countermeasures
The group’s actions have infuriated the Conservative government and much of the media, among others. Many activists have been arrested, and the government is pursuing plans to further outlaw XR’s protest tactics.
However, in its latest statement, the group argued:
The latest draconian attempt by the government to shut down and criminalise effective protest is only increasing public sympathy toward brave activists using their voices to stand up for justice and the loving protection of all humanity.
XR has been joined in its fight by radical groups such as Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil. Activists from the latter group splashed soup on the glass covering Vincent Van Gogh’s ‘The Sunflowers’ at London’s National Gallery in October.
Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse
Featured image via Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0, resized to 770*403 pixels
A climate activist furious with the Aotearoa New Zealand government’s watering down of the proposed emissions pricing scheme says he hopes for stronger environmental representation from the Pāti Māori and the Green Party next year.
David Tong told RNZ Morning Report he wanted the proposed Agricultural Emissions Pricing Plan reconsidered, but acknowledged it could be rolled back even further after the next election.
Despite advice from the Climate Change Commission to base behavioural change on the rising price of carbon, farmers will now be charged the lowest levies possible.
They will be able to manage and report their emissions as collectives.
More types of tree and vegetation cover can now be used to offset emissions.
Tong said it was a humiliating move for Green Party coleader James Shaw to be Climate Change Minister at the time of this decision.
Tong told Morning Report it was appalling that after years of lobbying the farming sector had been able to further erode an already flawed process that would have only reduced agricultural pollution by 1 percent.
He said having a pricing mechanism was good, but it needed to be effective in reducing carbon emissions.
‘Not fair on rest’
“In 2017, when New Zealand First-Labour coalition deal committed to putting agriculture into the Emissions Trading Scheme.
“Now five years later, after delay and prevarication, the entire sector — the biggest polluting sector in the country — has been given its own special deal and a commitment to have the lowest price possible.
“That’s not fair on the rest of us.
“I’d like to see all sectors paying the cost of their emissions. Farmers are just as any other sector — they are an emissions intensive trade exposed sector.”
He said the government had not locked in a strong process, but rather a compromised process that could still be rolled back further by National and lobbyists.
Those in the farming sector now coming out and attacking the scheme further demonstrated a lack of genuine engagement in negotiating towards a consensus deal between government and the sector, he said.
“The same agricultural lobby groups who are part of designing the system have come out to attack it. That shows that there is not a good faith engagement in the system and the government is trying to negotiate with organisations that operate that way.
Hope in minority parties
Tong was putting his hope in minority parties strengthening their commitment to environment policies and being able to influence decision-making.
“We’re hoping that in the coming election year there is a stronger environmental representation from Te Pāti Māori and the Green Party, and that this could be reconsidered,” he said.
“However, there is also the possibility that it could be rolled back to an even more compromised state.”
James Shaw declined to be interviewed on Morning Report, as did Minister of Agriculture, Damien O’Connor.
Federated Farmers president Andrew Hoggard . . . New Zealand farmers are already engaged in mitigating and sustainable practices. Image: Jemma Brackebush/RNZ News
Federated Farmers remains opposed to the government’s Agricultural Emissions Reduction scheme, despite changes in its favour.
The body said the policy was still too vague, and it would not agree to any pricing scheme until a review of the methane targets is undertaken.
Federated Farmers president Andrew Hoggard told Morning Report the government’s emphasis on targets based on generalised global data meant farmers had a hard time accepting the plan.
Signed up
“We signed up at the start on the basis that we would support a pricing mechanism that applies at the margin, that’s only there to incentivise the uptake of mitigations and doesn’t lead to emissions leakage,” he said.
“So go back to those original founding sort of principles for this. If we can get there, then, you know, we’d be on board, but at the moment, we’re not there.
“We believe the targets are too high. They’re not based on latest science around how stable methane actually impacts on warming.”
He wanted the government to establish data and targets “required for no additional warming from New Zealand agriculture”. Targets based on generalised global data should not apply to New Zealand farmers who already work sustainably, Hoggard said.
He believed there was a need to improve sustainable methods of global food production and that New Zealand does so within its own borders, so that others in the world need to follow that example.
“What the planet needs to do is actually improve the efficiency of food production elsewhere and in New Zealand we can still keep trying to do more and better,” he said.
“The solution is going to be developing more mitigations at the moment that the toolbox is pretty damn empty. There isn’t a lot we can do beyond just cutting production, and it makes very little sense when we’re one of the most efficient in the world.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee recently released internal fuel company documents providing an insider’s view of what they say is a multi-year effort by four leading fossil fuel firms to greenwash their public image. The documents show how the companies intentionally made climate action promises that their executives knew would do more to protect their business model than secure a…
NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet is pleased that a Sydney magistrate jailed protester Deanna “Violet” Coco on Friday. But he is out of step with international and Australian human rights and climate change groups and activists, who have quickly mobilised to show solidarity.
On Monday, protests were held in Sydney, Canberra and Perth calling for the release of Coco who blocked one lane of the Sydney Harbour Bridge for half an hour during a morning peak hour in April.
She climbed onto the roof of a truck holding a flare to draw attention to the global climate emergency and Australia’s lack of preparedness for bushfires. Three other members of the group Fireproof Australia, who have not been jailed, held a banner and glued themselves to the road.
“Free Coco” protesters at Sydney’s Downing Centre. Image: Zebedee Parkes/City Hub
Coco pleaded guilty to seven charges, including disrupting vehicles, possessing a flare distress signal in a public place and failing to comply with police direction.
Magistrate Allison Hawkins sentenced Coco to 15 months in prison, with a non-parole period of eight months and fined her $2500. Her lawyer Mark Davis has lodged an appeal which will be heard on March 2, 2023.
Unusually for a non-violent offender, Hawkins refused bail pending an appeal against the sentence. Davis, who will again apply for bail in the District Court next week, said refusal of bail pending appeal was “outrageous”.
Climate change protester sentenced to jail over Sydney Harbour Bridge protest. Video: News 24
‘People shouldn’t be jailed for peaceful protest’ In Sydney, about 100 protesters gathered outside NSW Parliament House and then marched to the Downing Centre. The crowd included members of climate action groups Extinction Rebellion, Knitting Nannas and Fireproof Australia but also others who, while they might not conduct a similar protest themselves, believe in the right of others to do so.
One of the protest organisers, Knitting Nanna Marie Flood, was unable to attend due to illness. Her message called for the release of Coco and an end to the criminalisation and intimidation of climate activists.
It was read by another Knitting Nanna, Eurydice Aroney:
“Nannas have been on Sydney streets protesting about gas and coal mines for about 8 years now. Over that time we’ve had lots of interactions with the Sydney Events police, and not a lot of trouble.
“You could say we are known to the police. We were amused and surprised at the recent climate emergency rally at town hall, when one of the police said to some Nannas that he thought we’d fallen in with the wrong crowd!
“Looks like we better clear some things up.”
Knitting Nannas protesters Helen and Dom at a previous protest. Image: Environmental Defenders Office/City Hub
“We ARE the crowd who knows that climate action is urgent and it starts with stopping new gas and coal. We know the importance of public protests to bringing about social and political change.
“We will stand up against any move to take away the democratic right to protest. What is happening to Violet Coco is a direct result of the actions of the NSW government with the support of the ALP opposition.”
The message ended with a call to all climate activists: “Now is the time to BE THE CROWD — we can’t afford to fall for attempts to divide the climate movement. We all want to save the climate, and to do that we need to protect democracy.”
The Knitting Nannas have launched a challenge to the validity of the protest laws through the Environmental Defenders’ Office.
Snap rally at NSW Parliament and a march to the courts at the Downing Centre where climate activist Violet Coco was sentenced to 15 months in prison last week.
We demand repeal of the draconian anti-protest laws, an end to new fossil fuel projects and serious climate action now! pic.twitter.com/F1Yxs8L0DG
One of those attending the protest was Josh Pallas, president of NSW Council for Civil Liberties. Civil Liberties has been defending the right to protest in NSW for more than half a century.
In a media release, he said: “Peaceful protest should never result in jail time. It’s outrageous that the state wastes its resources seeking jail time and housing peaceful protesters in custody at the expense of taxpayers.
“Protesters from Fireproof Australia and other groups have engaged in peaceful protest in support of stronger action on climate change, a proposition that is widely supported by many Australians across the political divide and now finding themselves ending up in prison.
“Peaceful protest sometimes involves inconvenience to the public. But inconvenience is not a sufficient reason to prohibit it. It’s immoral and unjust.”
Deputy Lord Mayor and Greens Councillor Sylvie Ellsmore told the crowd that they had the support of the City of Sydney which recently passed a unanimous motion calling for the repeal of the NSW government’s draconian anti-protest laws.
“If you are a group of businesses in the City of Sydney and you want to close the street for a street party, this state government will give you $50,000. If you are a non-violent protester who cares about climate change and you are blocking one lane of traffic for 25 minutes, they will give you two years [in jail].
“We know these laws are designed to intimidate you… Thank you for being the front line in the fight. you are the ones to put your bodies on the line to protest about issues we all care about, ” she said.
Amnesty International support for democracy
Amnesty International spokesperson Veronica Koman emphasised how important it was to see the defence of democratic rights from a regional perspective. She said that Amnesty was concerned that severe repression of pro-independence activists in West Papua was spreading across to other parts of Indonesia.
She fears the same pattern of increasing repression taking hold in NSW.
Human Rights Watch researcher Sophie McNeil, who has won many awards for her journalism, was another person who was quick to respond.
“Outrageous. Climate activist who blocked traffic on Sydney Harbour Bridge jailed for at least eight months” she tweeted on Friday.
Since then she has followed the issue closely, criticising the ABC for failing to quote a human rights source in its coverage of the court case and speaking at a protest in Perth on Monday.
Today she posted this tweet with a short campaigning #FreeVioletCoco video that has already attracted nearly 13,000 views:
Authorities in #Australia are disproportionately punishing climate activists in violation of their basic rights to peaceful protest
Violet Coco has been sentenced to 15 months in prison
‘If you’re reading this, you’ll know I am in prison’
In jailing Coco, Magistrate Hawkins went out of her way to diminish and delegitimise her protest. She described it as a “childish stunt’ that let an “entire city suffer” through her “selfish emotional action”.
Coco has been involved with climate change protests for more than four years and has been arrested in several other protests. On one occasion, she set light to an empty pram outside Parliament House.
Rather than fight on technicalities, she chosen to plead guilty, knowing that if the magistrate was hostile, she could be taken into custody at the end of Friday’s hearing.
Several steps ahead of her critics, she made a video and wrote a long piece to be published if she went to prison.
The piece begins: ”If you are reading this, then I have been sentenced to prison for peaceful environmental protest. I do not want to break the law. But when regular political procedure has proven incapable of enacting justice, it falls to ordinary people taking a stand to bring about change.”
She describes how her understanding of the facts of climate science and the inadequacy of the current response led her to decide to give up her studies and devote herself to actions that would draw attention to the climate emergency.
“Liberal political philosopher John Rawls asserted that a healthy democracy must have room for this kind of action. Especially in the face of such a threat as billions of lives lost and possibly the collapse of our liveable planet.
“But make no mistake — I do not want to be protesting. Protest work is not fun — it’s stressful, resource-intensive, scary and the police are violent. They refuse to feed me, refused to give me toilet paper and have threatened me with sexual violence.
Jailed Australian climate protester Deanna “Violet” Coco . . . “Protest work is not fun — it’s stressful, resource-intensive, scary and the police are violent.” Image: APR screenshot
“I spent three days in the remand centre, which is a disgusting place full of sad people. I do not enjoy breaking the law. I wish that there was another way to address this issue with the gravitas that it deserves.”
She describes how she has already been forced to comply with onerous bail conditions:
“I was under 24 hour curfew conditions for 20 days in a small apartment with no garden. After 20 days effectively under house arrest, my curfew hours changed — at first I could leave the house for only 5 hours a day for the following 58 days, then 6 hours a day under house arrest for the following 68 days.
“This totalled 2017 hours imprisoned in my home for non-violent political engagement in the prevention of many deaths. Cumulatively, that is 84 days or 12 weeks of my freedom.”
Premier Perrottet says he does not object to protest so long as it does not interfere with “our way of life”.
If it does, individuals should have the “book thrown at them.”
His “way of life” is one in which commuters are never held up in traffic by a protest while endlessly sitting in traffic because of governments’ poor transport planning.
A way of life in which it is fine for governments to take years to house people whose lives are destroyed by fires and floods induced by climate change, to allow people to risk death from heat because they cannot afford air conditioners, open more coal and gas operations that will increase carbon emissions and turn a blind eye to millions of climate refugees in the Asia Pacific region.
It involves only protesting when you have permission and in tightly policed zones where passers-by ignore you.
Labor still backs anti-protest laws
Leader of the Opposition Chris Minns also says he has no regrets for supporting the laws which he says were necessary to stop multiple protests.
But laws don’t target multiple actions, they target individuals. He has not raised his voice to condemn police harassment of individual activists even before they protest and bail conditions that breach democratic rights to freedom of assembly.
There was no visible Labor presence at Sydney’s rally.
Perrottet and Minns may be making right wing shock jocks happy but they are out of line with international principles of human rights.
They also fail to acknowledge that many of Australia’s most famous protest movements around land rights, apartheid, Green Bans, womens’ rights, prison reform and environment often involved actions that would have led to arrest under current anti-protest laws.
They display an ignorance of traditions of civil disobedience. As UNSW Professor Luke Macnamara told SBS News: “[V]isibility and disruption have long been the hallmarks of effective protest.”
He believes disruption and protest need to go hand in hand in order to result in tangible change.
“There’s an inherent contradiction in governments telling protesters what are acceptable, passive, non-disruptive means of engaging in protests, when the evidence may well be that those methods have been attempted and have proven to be ineffective,” he said.
“It’s not realistic on the one hand to support the so-called ‘right to protest’, and on the other hand, expect the protest has no disruptive effects. The two go together.”
Wendy Bacon was previously a professor of journalism at the University of Technology Sydney and is an editorial board member of Pacific Journalism Review. She joined the protest. This article was first published by City Hub and is republished with the author’s permission.
For 30 years, developing nations have fought to establish an international fund to pay for the “loss and damage” they suffer as a result of climate change. As the COP27 climate summit in Egypt wrapped up over the weekend, they finally succeeded.
While it’s a historic moment, the agreement of loss and damage financing left many details yet to be sorted out.
What’s more, many critics have lamented the overall outcome of COP27, saying it falls well short of a sufficient response to the climate crisis. As Alok Sharma, president of COP26 in Glasgow, noted:
“Friends, I said in Glasgow that the pulse of 1.5 degrees was weak. Unfortunately it remains on life support.”
But annual conferences aren’t the only way to pursue meaningful action on climate change. Mobilisation from activists, market forces and other sources of momentum mean hope isn’t lost.
One big breakthrough: loss and damage There were hopes COP27 would lead to new commitments on emissions reduction, renewed commitments for the transfer of resources to the developing world, strong signals for a transition away from fossil fuels, and the establishment of a loss and damage fund.
By any estimation, the big breakthrough of COP27 was the agreement to establish a fund for loss and damage. This would involve wealthy nations compensating developing states for the effects of climate change, especially droughts, floods, cyclones and other disasters.
Most analysts have been quick to point out there Is still a lot yet to clarify in terms of donors, recipients or rules of accessing this fund.
It Is not clear where funds will actually come from, or whether countries such as China will contribute, for example. These and other details are yet to be agreed.
Marathon negotiations saw hard-won progress on addressing #LossAndDamage, but woefully inadequate shared outcomes around phasing out fossil fuels and tackling the causes of the climate crisis. #auspol
We should also acknowledge the potential gaps between promises and money on the table, given the failure of developed states to deliver on US$100 billion per year of climate finance for developing states by 2020. This was committed to in Copenhagen in 2009.
But it was a significant fight to get the issue of loss and damage on the agenda in Egypt at all. So the agreement to establish this fund is clearly a monumental outcome for developing countries most vulnerable to the effects of climate change — and least responsible for it.
It was also a win for the Egyptian hosts, who were keen to flag their sensitivity to issues confronting the developing world.
The fund comes 30 years after the measure was first suggested by Vanuatu back in 1991.
The agreement reached at #COP27, imperfect as it may be, moves us forward in implementing the Paris Agreement. But what this COP made clear is that we need greater ambition. Recommitting to the 1.5°C target is an important outcome of #COP27, but it is the bare minimum. (1/4)
Not-so-good news The loss and damage fund will almost certainly be remembered as the marquee outcome of COP27, but other developments were less promising. Among these were various fights to retain commitments made in Paris in 2015 and Glasgow last year.
In Paris, nations agreed to limit global warming to well below 2℃, and preferably to 1.5℃ this century, compared to pre-industrial levels. So far, the planet has warmed by 1.09℃, and emissions are at record levels.
Temperature trajectories make it increasingly challenging for the world to limit temperature rises to 1.5℃. And the fact keeping this commitment in Egypt was a hard-won fight casts some doubt on the global commitment to mitigation.
China in particular had questioned whether the 1.5℃ target was worth retaining, and this became a key contest in the talks.
New Zealand Climate Change Minister James Shaw said a group of countries were undermining decisions made in previous conferences. He added this:
“really came to the fore at this COP, and I’m afraid there was just a massive battle which ultimately neither side won.”
Perhaps even more worrying was the absence of a renewed commitment to phase out fossil fuels, which had been flagged in Glasgow. Oil-producing countries in particular fought this.
Instead, the final text noted only the need for a “phase down of unabated coal power”, which many viewed as inadequate for the urgency of the challenge.
Likewise, hoped-for rules to stop greenwashing and new restrictions on carbon markets were not forthcoming.
Both this outcome, and the failure to develop new commitments to phase out fossil fuels, arguably reflect the power of fossil fuel interests and lobbyists. COP26 President Alok Sharma captured the frustration of countries in the high-ambition coalition, saying:
“We joined with many parties to propose a number of measures that would have contributed to [raising ambition].
“Emissions peaking before 2025 as the science tells us is necessary. Not in this text. Clear follow through on the phase down of coal. Not in this text. Clear commitments to phase out all fossil fuels. Not in this text. And the energy text weakened in the final minutes.”
And as United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres lamented: “Our planet is still in the emergency room”.
Beyond COP27? In the end, exhausted delegates signed off on an inadequate agreement, but largely avoided the backsliding that looked possible over fraught days of negotiations.
The establishment of a fund for loss and damage is clearly an important outcome of COP27, even with details yet to be fleshed out.
At the beginning of these talks, loss & damage was not even on the agenda and now we are making history. It just shows that this UN process can achieve results, and that the world can recognise the plight of the vulnerable must not be treated as a political football.
But otherwise, the negotiations can’t be seen as an unambiguously positive outcome for action on the climate crisis — especially with very little progress on mitigating emissions. And while the world dithers, the window of opportunity to respond effectively to the climate crisis continues to close.
It’s important to note, however, that while COPs are clearly significant in the international response to the climate crisis, they are not the only game in town.
Public mobilisation and activism, market forces, aid and development programmes, and legislation at local, state and national levels are all important sites of climate politics — and potentially, significant change.
There are myriad examples. Take the international phenomenon of school climate strikes, or climate activist Mike Cannon-Brookes’ takeover of AGL Energy. They point to the possibility of action on climate change outside formal international climate negotiations.
So if you’re despairing at the limited progress at COP27, remember this: nations and communities determined to wean themselves off fossil fuels will do more to blunt the power of the sector than most international agreements could realistically hope to achieve.
Robust discussions at the resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh have seen many collaborations and discord resulting in negotiators not reaching agreement on funding that would see vulnerable countries compensated for climate change-fuelled disasters caused by developed nations.
A key milestone was reached on Friday morning (New Zealand time), when the European Union shifted its position to support the G7 and China which includes Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Pacific.
The EU along with the United States pushed back this agenda as it feared being put on the hook for payments of billions of dollars for decades or even centuries to come.
However, developing nations and their allies have been able to stir up support, with major voting in favour for the set up of a loss and damage facility. Australia has chosen to keep the discussion open while the US maintained an isolated position, showing no flexibility.
Now, there are three options on the table for politicians to agree upon and they were due to be debated over the next few hours.
Climate change with Al Jazeera.
The Pacific’s call The Pacific through the G7 and China has stressed the urgency of establishing a loss and damage framework at this COP.
Samoa Prime Minister Fiamē Naomi Mata’afa today called on the nations to place the same level of global urgency as seen for the covid-19 pandemic to meeting the 1.5 Celsius degree pathway.
Fiame said more action was needed on upscaling ambition on funding for loss and damage and must remain firmly on the table as nations continued to witness increasing occurrences and severity of climate change impacts everywhere.
Samoa Prime Minister Fiamē Naomi Mata’afa . . . the climate needs the same urgent response that was applied to the covid-19 pandemic. Image: Tipi Autagavaia/RNZ Pacific
Option one also entails need for loss and damage to be a separate funding from adaptation and mitigation.
Fiji’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Satyendra Prasad, explained there were gaps in trying to conflate the funding intended for other purposes with compensation as they were not the same thing.
Prasad said vulnerable people in the Pacific “are facing the loss of livelihoods, of land and of fundamental cultural and traditional assets”. These were non-economic losses that could not be compensated through adaptation and mitigation funds.
Short notice funding
Pacific’s Adviser for Loss and Damage Daniel Lund said when responding to damage caused by extreme weather events, finance needed to be available at short notice.
Lund added that current funding available was for project-based support under the Green Climate Fund which took around one year from proposal submission to receiving the first disbursement of funds,
“Something like that doesn’t work when the loss and damage are immediate.”
Republic of Palau’s Minister of State, Gustav Aitaro, in his address to world leaders, said, “every time we have a typhoon, we have to shift funds and budgets allocated for breakfast for students to address the damage. We have to shift funds from our hospital to address the damage, and it becomes such a big burden for us to look for funds to replace that.”
He pleaded with parties to understand the Pacific’s situation as it was a matter of life and death and their very existence depended on it.
“How do I explain to young kids in Palau, the children who live on that atoll, that their homes have been damaged by typhoons and we have to rebuild them over again and again? If they ask me why is it a recurring situation, what do I tell them? Who do we blame?
“Our islands, our oceans are our culture, it’s our identity in this world. I’m sure our developing countries share the same concerns and this is why we are asking them to help.”
Pacific Islands activists protest in a demand for climate action and loss and damage reparations at COP27 in Egypt. Image: Dominika Zarzycka/AFP/RNZ Pacific
Kicking the can down the road Australia and the US have put forward options two and three for consideration. They propose a soft power influence.
They are proposing more time be given to iron out the finer details to establish a loss and damage finance in COP28 and operationalise the funding by COP29 in 2024.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen as saying: “The world is unlikely to come to an agreement at COP27 over contentious calls for wealthy nations to pay loss and damage compensation to developing countries.”
He said: “Let’s just see how the internal discussions go. But I mean, I doubt very much it’ll be a full agreement on that at this COP.”
The two countries who have spent time in the wilderness of climate diplomacy, have also proposed developed nations continue to tap into climate funding made available through bilateral and multilateral arrangements.
This proposal also suggests that any funding made available for vulnerable states can be channelled through developed nation governments, proposing it does not need to be faciliated by a governing body like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The Pacific feels this is problematic. Pacific negotiator Sivendra Michael explained: “This is volatile as it depends on the government of the day.”
Finding a way for more capital
Time reports US climate envoy John Kerry as saying: “We have to find a way for more capital to flow into developing countries.”
Kerry added: “I think it’s important that the developed world recognises that a lot of countries are now being very negatively impacted as a consequence of the continued practice of how the developed world chooses to propel its vehicles, heat its homes, light its businesses, produce food.
“Much of the world is obviously frustrated.”
While the US allowed loss and damage finance to be added to the meeting’s formal agenda for the first time, it took the unusual step of demanding that a footnote be included to exclude the ideas of liability for historic emitters or compensation for countries affected by that pollution.
World leaders will now spend the next few hours deciding on which option to take on loss and damage finance.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The Pacific nation of Tuvalu is planning to create a version of itself in the metaverse, as a response to the existential threat of rising sea levels.
Tuvalu’s Minister for Justice, Communication and Foreign Affairs, Simon Kofe, made the announcement via a chilling digital address to leaders at COP27.
He said the plan, which accounts for the “worst case scenario”, involves creating a digital twin of Tuvalu in the metaverse in order to replicate its beautiful islands and preserve its rich culture:
The tragedy of this outcome cannot be overstated […] Tuvalu could be the first country in the world to exist solely in cyberspace – but if global warming continues unchecked, it won’t be the last.
Tuvalu’s “digital twin” message. Video: Reuters
The idea is that the metaverse might allow Tuvalu to “fully function as a sovereign state” as its people are forced to live somewhere else.
There are two stories here. One is of a small island nation in the Pacific facing an existential threat and looking to preserve its nationhood through technology.
The other is that by far the preferred future for Tuvalu would be to avoid the worst effects of climate change and preserve itself as a terrestrial nation. In which case, this may be its way of getting the world’s attention.
Tuvalu will be one of the first nations to go under as sea levels rise. It faces an existential threat. Image: Mick Tsikas/AAP/The Conversation
What is a metaverse nation? The metaverse represents a burgeoning future in which augmented and virtual reality become part of everyday living. There are many visions of what the metaverse might look like, with the most well-known coming from Meta (previously Facebook) CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
What most of these visions have in common is the idea that the metaverse is about interoperable and immersive 3D worlds. A persistent avatar moves from one virtual world to another, as easily as moving from one room to another in the physical world.
The aim is to obscure the human ability to distinguish between the real and the virtual, for better or for worse.
Kofe implies three aspects of Tuvalu’s nationhood could be recreated in the metaverse:
territory — the recreation of the natural beauty of Tuvalu, which could be interacted with in different ways
culture — the ability for Tuvaluan people to interact with one another in ways that preserve their shared language, norms and customs, wherever they may be
sovereignty — if there were to be a loss of terrestrial land over which the government of Tuvalu has sovereignty (a tragedy beyond imagining, but which they have begun to imagine) then could they have sovereignty over virtual land instead?
Could it be done? In the case that Tuvalu’s proposal is, in fact, a literal one and not just symbolic of the dangers of climate change, what might it look like?
Technologically, it’s already easy enough to create beautiful, immersive and richly rendered recreations of Tuvalu’s territory. Moreover, thousands of different online communities and 3D worlds (such as Second Life) demonstrate it’s possible to have entirely virtual interactive spaces that can maintain their own culture.
The idea of combining these technological capabilities with features of governance for a “digital twin” of Tuvalu is feasible.
There have been prior experiments of governments taking location-based functions and creating virtual analogues of them.
For example, Estonia’s e-residency is an online-only form of residency non-Estonians can obtain to access services such as company registration. Another example is countries setting up virtual embassies on the online platform Second Life.
Yet there are significant technological and social challenges in bringing together and digitising the elements that define an entire nation.
Tuvalu has only about 12,000 citizens, but having even this many people interact in real time in an immersive virtual world is a technical challenge. There are issues of bandwidth, computing power, and the fact that many users have an aversion to headsets or suffer nausea.
Nobody has yet demonstrated that nation-states can be successfully translated to the virtual world. Even if they could be, others argue the digital world makes nation-states redundant.
Tuvalu’s proposal to create its digital twin in the metaverse is a message in a bottle — a desperate response to a tragic situation. Yet there is a coded message here too, for others who might consider retreat to the virtual as a response to loss from climate change.
The metaverse is no refuge The metaverse is built on the physical infrastructure of servers, data centres, network routers, devices and head-mounted displays. All of this tech has a hidden carbon footprint and requires physical maintenance and energy. Research published in Nature predicts the internet will consume about 20 percent of the world’s electricity by 2025.
The idea of the metaverse nation as a response to climate change is exactly the kind of thinking that got us here. The language that gets adopted around new technologies — such as “cloud computing”, “virtual reality” and “metaverse” — comes across as both clean and green.
So where does that leave Tuvalu? Kofe is well aware the metaverse is not an answer to Tuvalu’s problems. He explicitly states we need to focus on reducing the impacts of climate change through initiatives such as a fossil-fuel non-proliferation treaty.
His video about Tuvalu moving to the metaverse is hugely successful as a provocation. It got worldwide press — just like his moving plea during COP26 while standing knee-deep in rising water.
Yet Kofe suggests:
Without a global conscience and a global commitment to our shared wellbeing we may find the rest of the world joining us online as their lands disappear.
It is dangerous to believe, even implicitly, that moving to the metaverse is a viable response to climate change. The metaverse can certainly assist in keeping heritage and culture alive as a virtual museum and digital community. But it seems unlikely to work as an ersatz nation-state.
And, either way, it certainly won’t work without all of the land, infrastructure and energy that keeps the internet functioning.
It would be far better for us to direct international attention towards Tuvalu’s other initiatives described in the same report:
The project’s first initiative promotes diplomacy based on Tuvaluan values of olaga fakafenua (communal living systems), kaitasi (shared responsibility) and fale-pili (being a good neighbour), in the hope that these values will motivate other nations to understand their shared responsibility to address climate change and sea level rise to achieve global wellbeing.
The message in a bottle being sent out by Tuvalu is not really about the possibilities of metaverse nations at all. The message is clear: to support communal living systems, to take shared responsibility and to be a good neighbour.
The first of these can’t translate into the virtual world. The second requires us to consume less, and the third requires us to care.
Since Jacinda Ardern described the state of world affairs as “bloody messy” earlier this year there have been few, if any, signs of improvement. Ukraine, China, nuclear proliferation and the lasting impacts of a global pandemic all present urgent, unresolved challenges.
For a small country in an increasingly lawless world this is both dangerous and confronting.
Without the military or economic scale to influence events directly, New Zealand relies on its voice and ability to persuade.
But by placing its faith in a rules-based order and United Nations processes, New Zealand also has to work with — and sometimes around — highly imperfect systems. In some areas of international law and policy the machinery is failing. It’s unclear what the next best step might be.
Given these uncertainties, then, where has New Zealand done well on the international stage, and where might it need to find a louder voice or more constructive proposals?
Confronting Russia Strength and clarity have been most evident in New Zealand’s response to the Russian attack on Ukraine. There has been no hint of joining the abstainers or waverers at crucial UN votes condemning Russia’s actions.
While it can be argued New Zealand could do more in terms of sanctions and support for the Ukrainian military, the government has made good use of the available international forums.
China and human rights This has been especially apparent in the debate about human rights abuses in China, and allegations of genocide made by some countries over the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang.
New Zealand and some other countries correctly avoided using the word “genocide”, which has a precise legal meaning best applied by UN experts, not domestic politicians. Instead, the government called on China to provide meaningful and unfettered access to UN and other independent observers.
While not perfect, the visit went ahead. The eventual report by outgoing UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet concluded that China had committed serious human rights violations, which could amount to crimes against humanity.
This should have forced the international community to act. Instead, 19 countries voted with China to block a debate at the UN Human Rights Council (17 wanted the debate, 11 abstained). The upshot was that China succeeded in driving the issue into a diplomatic dead-end.
Allowing an organisation designed to protect victims to be controlled by alleged perpetrators isn’t something New Zealand should accept. The government should make it a diplomatic priority to become a member of the council, and it should use every opportunity to speak out and keep the issue in the global spotlight.
Arms control Elsewhere, New Zealand’s foreign policy can arguably be found wanting — most evidently, perhaps, in the area of nuclear arms regulation.
Advocating for the complete prohibition of all nuclear weapons, as the prime minister did at the UN in September, might be inspiring and also good domestic politics, but it doesn’t make the world safer.
With the risk of nuclear conflagration at its highest since the Cuban missile crisis, a better immediate goal would be improving the regulation, rather than prohibition, of nuclear weapons. This would entail convincing nuclear states to take their weapons off “hair-trigger alert”.
The other goals should be the adoption of a no-first-use policy by all nuclear powers (only China has made such a commitment so far), and a push for regional arms control in the Indo-Pacific to rein in India, Pakistan and China.
Pandemic preparedness Finally, there is the danger of vital law and policy not just failing, but not even being born. This is the case with the World Health Organisation’s so-called “pandemic treaty”, designed to better prevent, prepare for and respond to the next global pandemic.
New Zealand set out some admirable goals in its submission in April, but these have been watered down or are missing from the first working draft of the proposed agreement.
This shouldn’t be accepted lightly given the lessons of the past two-and-a-half years. Transparency by governments, a precautionary approach and the meaningful involvement of non-state actors will be essential.
Similarly, improved oversight of the 59 laboratories spread across 23 countries that work with the most dangerous pathogens is critical. Currently, only a quarter of these labs score highly on safety. The proposed treaty does little to demand the kind of biosecurity protocols and robust regulatory systems required to better protect present and future generations.
As with the other urgent and difficult issues mentioned here, New Zealand’s future is directly connected to what happens elsewhere in the world. The challenge now is to keep adapting to this changing global order while being an effective voice for reason and the rule of law.
An alliance of climate action and environment groups have condemned the stepping up of police intimidation against activists in the lead up to IMARC. Isaac Nellist reports.
Ottawa, Ont. | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People –
Today, ahead of international climate negotiations, COP27, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change released new analysis looking at the world’s national climate plans. Though countries have made incremental progress, we’re still on track for 2.5°C of heating, which would be catastrophic for people and ecosystems around the world.
At last year’s climate negotiations, countries promised to come to COP27 with stronger plans for significant emissions reductions by 2030.
Canada is one of the largest contributors to the climate crisis – we must take responsibility for the harm we’re causing. Prime Minister Trudeau must show up to next month’s climate talks with a plan that actually fixes Canada’s track record.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Barbara Hayes, Environmental Defence, bhayes@environmentaldefence.ca
In one of its first moves after taking power Tuesday, Sweden’s newly elected right-wing government scrapped the country’s environment ministry, drawing outrage from opposition lawmakers who say the step threatens to undermine the nation’s chances of meeting its climate targets.
Per Bolund, the leader of the Swedish Greens, wrote on social media that the axing of the environment ministry shows “how little this government values the environment and the climate.”
“This is a historic decision with devastating consequences for environmental issues,” Bolund added, noting that Sweden will now be without a separate environment ministry for the first time in five decades.
Pär Holmgren, a Swedish meteorologist and member of the European Parliament, also expressed outrage on Twitter.
One of the first moves of the new rightwing gov in Sweden? Dismantling the Ministry for Environment!
They don’t care about our common future.
Expect huge cuts in green funding a devastating impact on climate policies that we, the Greens, worked so hard to put in place.
Following the change announced by right-wing Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, new environment minister Romina Pourmokhtari will work under the minister for energy, business, and industry, Ebba Busch.
Busch is the leader of Sweden’s Christian Democrats, part of the right-wing coalition now governing the country after winning a slim majority in September’s elections. The bloc includes the Sweden Democrats, a far-right xenophobic party.
Bloomberg reported Tuesday that “Kristersson’s government is heavily dependent on the nationalist Sweden Democrats, the only party in parliament that doesn’t back the country’s target of having net zero emissions by 2045.”
“The four-party alliance that agreed on forming the new government last week said they would seek to lower fuel prices, partly by reducing the percentage of biofuels that has to be mixed into gas and diesel to the minimum level required by the European Union,” Bloomberg noted. “That would make it more difficult to reach a target of reducing transport emissions by 70% by 2030.”
Kristersson is also pushing for an expansion of nuclear power, aiming to reverse earlier efforts to dismantle the country’s reactors.
The Associated Press reported Tuesday that Kristersson said “Sweden’s goal on electricity production would change from ‘100% renewable’ to ‘100 percent fossil-free,’ which leaves room for nuclear energy.”
Award-winning University of the South Pacific student journalist Sera Tikotikoivatu-Sefeti says Pacific voices on the climate fight need to be amplified for big nations to notice and be accountable for their actions.
The final-year student recently won the top prize in the tertiary level journalism students category at the 2022 Vision Pasifika Media Award with her two submissions on the environmental impacts of Tonga’s volcanic eruption on villagers of Moce Island in Fiji, and declining fish populations on the livelihoods of Fijian fishermen in Suva.
Tikotikoivatu-Sefeti said she was “beyond humbled” to receive the award and expressed her gratitude to God for the opportunity to amplify Pacific voices on climate change.
Originally from Dravuni village on beautiful Kadavu island, Tikotikoivatu-Sefeti said Pacific Island countries contributed the least towards climate change and global carbon emissions — but were the most affected.
“We are known to have a close relationship to the land and sea. To have that severely affected by big world countries whose activities are a big cause of this is unacceptable,” said the student editor of Wansolwara, USP Journalism’s award-winning print and online publication.
USP student journalist Sera Tikotikoivatu-Sefeti lines up a shot while covering the impact of Tonga’s volcanic eruption on the villagers of Moce Island in Lau, Fiji. Image: Wansolwara
“I am passionate about environmental issues and human interest stories. I believe the Pacific stories should be ‘heard’ and ‘told’ from the Pacific Islanders’ perspective and words as it is a crisis they live by and survive every day.
“In Fiji, there aren’t enough journalists covering stories of the environment and how it’s affecting the people. I understand it can be a resource constraint and financially limited area.
Filling the gap
“I want to fill that gap in the industry and be able to do something I’m passionate about because it’s incredibly important to tell our people’s story.”
Tikotikoivatu-Sefeti dedicated her award to her family, USP Journalism students, staff, peers and indigenous women.
“So many times, we limit ourselves to what others perceive us, and it will take you to step out of your comfort zone to be able to experience your full capabilities,” said Tikotikoivatu-Sefeti, who was also a recipient of the EJN story grant for indigenous reporting.
She was recently one of the first recipients of the Native American Journalists Association and the Asian American Journalists Association (NAJA-AAJA) Pacific Islander Journalism Scholarship.
The Pacific Regional Environmental Programme’s (SPREP) acting communications and outreach adviser, Nanette Woonton, reaffirmed that SPREP recognised the critical role of all media in disseminating public information, education and influencing behaviour for the better.
“At the secretariat, we are excited to be able to offer the opportunity through these awards to honour and recognise the hard work by our media colleagues in protecting our people and the environment,” she said.
Vision Pasifika Media Award
The 2022 Vision Pasifika Media Award was facilitated through a collaboration between the SPREP, Pacific Islands News Association (PINA), Internews Earth Journalism Network (EJN), and the Pacific Environment Journalists Network (PEJN), with financial support from Aotearoa New Zealand.
The award comprised five categories — television news, radio production, online content, print media, and tertiary-level journalism students.
Other category winners were: Fabian Randerath (television news), Jeremy Gwao (online content) and Moffat Mamu (print). Randerath was also named the overall winner for his story “Rising Tides – Precious Lives” on Fiji Broadcasting Corporation (FBC).
Akansha Narayan is a final-year student journalist at USP’s Laucala campus, Suva. USP and Wansolwara collaborate on Pacific stories, and for several years USP and the AUT’s Pacific Media Centre collaborated on a joint Bearing Witness climate journalism project.
As if two years of a pandemic weren’t enough, we now have to deal with an affordability crisis. This has been exhausting and stressful for most of us. In an attempt to exploit our concerns, Canada’s oil and gas industry would like us to believe this terrible inflation means we need to throw all caution to the wind, forget about climate action and double down on fossil fuel production. This could not be further from the truth. Not only is investing in more fossil fuels not a solution to today’s problems, it actually will lock us into more turbulence for decades.
The biggest polluters are profiting from this crisis
The costs of producing oil and gas in Canada have not changed much this year, but prices at the pump went way up, mostly because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. If production costs stayed still but prices went up, where did all the extra cash go?
Cenovus, Suncor, Imperial Oil and CNRL — Canada’s four largest oil companies — raked in more than $12 billion last quarter, nearly three times more than the same quarter in 2021. Oil and gas CEOs and shareholders are making historic profits without lifting a finger. Meanwhile, 56% of Canadians can’t keep up with the rise in cost of living. The largest polluters are not only taking away our chance of a safe future: they are now messing with our immediate standard of living. Instead of choosing to keep prices low for their fellow Canadians, they let prices skyrocket and even asked for more public dollars, dollars which they seem to have got. This is already Canada’s second-highest year for subsidies to the oil and gas industry – $15.4 billion.
In short, the companies making money from this crisis are insisting we should trust them to get us out of it, by giving them more money for fossil fuel production.
This is our chance to get out of the boom-and-bust nightmare, for good
We can’t keep fighting fire with fire. The ups and downs of oil and gas prices bring us wars and economic crises. Wouldn’t we rather rely on the ever-shining sun, the predictable wind, or the reliable geothermal forces of nature to fuel us?
Investing today in new oil and gas projects makes no strategic, nor economic, sense. Firstly, the new infrastructure they want to build will take years to come online, meaning it is not a solution to our current problems, but would be a current drain of our public dollars, which are much needed elsewhere, for example in programs supporting families struggling with rising heating or food bills. Secondly, modern, clean energy systems are already being built by those who currently need our fossil fuels. Whatever the oil and gas industry is planning on building won’t be useful by the time it is ready.
This is why to address our current energy affordability and reliability issues, we should work to accelerate the building of this clean energy system. If we are going to go that way anyways, why not accelerate the transition to benefit from it sooner?
We do not need to choose between savings and a safe future
We know it, winter is approaching. So are higher heating bills. Combined with the already painful prices at the pump, it’s clear something has got to give if we are to make it to spring. Whatever that is, though, it should not be climate action, because many climate solutions are actually the way to cheaper energy and commuting bills.
It will take a whole of government effort to bring Canada on the path of sustainable and affordable energy, but governments should start by:
Stopping all subsidies to the oil and gas industry and redirecting those funds to speed up the transition to clean, local, abundant energy.
Putting a special tax on the exceptional profits oil and gas companies are making right now to pay for immediate relief programs for families who need it to heat their homes and pay for food.
Ensuring polluters pay their fair share of carbon pricing, while continuing to provide a rebate to Canadian families. Remember, while we pay the tax directly at the pump, almost all of us get back more than we gave out. The government estimates an average yearly cost of $564 in 2022 for a household in Ontario, for example, and that same household will receive a total of $697.
Setting up a task force that guarantees our homes stay warm while our gas bills don’t go through the roof. The taskforce for would provide a Canada-wide energy savings program by giving households the tools and means to getting their furnace serviced, insulate their attic and get a heat pump. That would require a combination of grants, zero-interest loans, controlled rates to avoid contractors from hiking prices, and managing landlord-tenant relations so everyone does their fair share.
Creating rapid public transit corridors on the most frequent commuting routes of the country, which take up most of people’s commute budget, while requiring car manufacturers invest in the production of zero-emissions vehicles, which would lower their price and make them more widely available.
We have gone through incredibly difficult times in the past two years, and some private interests are trying to convert our legitimate concerns into profits for a small number of shareholders. I know I’d do anything just to have a few normal, stable years. That is why we need to get away from oil and gas’ – the future the industry offers us is one of economic rollercoasters, dependency, and climate insecurity.
The Anthony Albanese Labor government is holding a parliamentary inquiry into how Australia decides whether or not to go to war. Why not let the people decide? Peter Boyle asks.
Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Jeremiah Manele says the country joined an agreement with the United States only after changes to wording relating to China.
He said the country did not want to be forced to choose sides, and the Pacific should be seen as a region of peace and cooperation.
Manele was in Wellington today for an official meeting with his New Zealand counterpart Nanaia Mahuta, and was welcomed to Parliament with a pōwhiri today.
Solomon Islands has been a central focus in discussions over partnerships and security in the region after it signed a partnership agreement with China in April.
After a draft of the agreement was leaked in March, New Zealand had described it as “gravely concerning”, but the full text of the final document has never been made public.
The US has been working to contain China’s growing influence with Pacific countries, and last week brought leaders of 12 Pacific nations to Washington DC for two days with the aim of finalising a new Pacific strategy with a joint declaration of partnership.
Decision clarified Manele clarified that decision when questioned by reporters this afternoon.
“In the initial draft there were some references that we were not comfortable with, but then the officials under the discussions and negotiations … were able to find common ground, and then that took us on board, so we signed,” he said.
Asked what specifically they were uncomfortable with, he confirmed it related to indirect references to China.
“There was some references that put us in a position that we would have to choose sides, and we don’t want to be placed in a position that we have to choose sides.”
He said the Solomons’ agreement with China was domestically focused and did not include provision for a military base.
“My belief … and my hope is this — that the Pacific should be a region of peace, of co-operation and collaboration, and it should not be seen as a region of confrontation, of conflict and of war,” he said.
“And of course we are guided by the existing regional security arrangements that we have in place — and these are the Biketawa declaration as well as the Boe declaration.
US re-engagement welcomed
“We welcome the US re-engagement with the Pacific and we look forward to working with all our partners.”
A pōwhiri for Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Jeremiah Manele at Parliament today. Image: Samuel Rillstone/RNZ
Manele said he was “delighted” to be in Aotearoa for the first time in about eight years, after his previous plans to visit two years ago were put on hold by the covid-19 pandemic.
He thanked New Zealand for support in helping manage and contain the virus, including with vaccines and medical equipment.
Manele said the discussion between the ministers covered the RSE scheme, the need to review the air services agreement, the 2050 Blue Pacific strategy, and maritime security.
He was keen to stress the importance of increased flights between New Zealand and Solomon Islands.
“I think this is important, we are tasking our officials to start a conversation, we’ll be writing formally to the government of New Zealand to review the air services agreement that we have between our two countries,” he said.
Boost for business, tourism
“This will not only facilitate the RSE scheme but I hope will also facilitate the movement of investors and business people and general tourism.”
The country was also hopeful of more diplomatic engagement with New Zealand.
“Not only at the officials level but also at the ministerial level and at the leaders level, and your Prime Minister has an invitation to my Prime Minister to visit New Zealand in the near future, and my Prime Minister is looking forward to visiting.”
New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta welcomes Jeremiah Manele at Parliament today. Image: Samuel Rillstone/RNZ
Increased engagement would be required, he said, from all Pacific Island Forum partners, including Australia and New Zealand, to tackle climate change in line with the Blue Pacific Continent 2050 strategy agreed at the most recent Forum meeting in Fiji.
Both Manele and Mahuta highlighted climate change as the greatest threat to security in the region.
He was to attend a roundtable discussion with New Zealand business leaders this evening.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The bot automatically posts on Twitter all recent instances of oil and gas companies lobbying politicians in the Canadian government. In many of these meetings, these companies are trying to block climate action and get more subsidies.
Let’s look at what lobbying is and why it’s important, then at how this bot works and what it tells us.
What is lobbying, and why does it matter?
Lobbying is when someone employed by a company meets with government officials to try to influence policies, government programs, funding decisions, or the awarding of government contracts. Often, it is a company trying to influence the government in order to benefit that company. (See the Government of Canada’s full definition here.) However, organizations like Environmental Defence also lobby the government to improve rules and policies. So not all lobbying is bad.
Politicians can choose who they will accept meetings with. They are under no obligation to meet with and listen to lobbyists.
Oil and gas companies are extremely active lobbyists. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) lobbied the federal government a whopping 118 times between January and July of this year, according to The Hill Times. That’s on top of the hundreds of lobbying meetings of individual oil and gas companies over that same time. One group of researchers found that from 2011 to 2018 there were “11,452 lobbying contacts with government officials. This amounts to just over six contacts per working day.” Environmental NGOs (non-governmental organizations) lobbied around one-fifth as much in those years, including on topics related to other matters than oil and gas.
Most people and organizations don’t have the resources to lobby at the industry’s pace, nor does the government give most organizations so much access.
How has oil and gas lobbying shaped Canadian climate policy?
These lobbyists often push against policies which would limit their ability to pollute. And they consistently lobby for more subsidies. Oil and gas lobbyists have been able to delay, weaken or kill every environmental policy. In fact, big oil is the biggest barrier to climate action in Canada.
In addition to being in the ear of politicians and government staff for decades, constantly providing their perspective and trying to drown out climate activists, industry lobbyists have been especially bold during the pandemic. A secret memo from CAPP to the federal government in March 2020 was leaked, revealing how the industry association wanted all sorts of rules and regulations dropped or delayed, including environmental monitoring and new protections for workers in the industry.
How the lobbying bot works
The Federal Oil & Gas Lobbying Bot tweets out each time there is a meeting between Canadian government officials (including civil servants, Cabinet Minister, Members of Parliament and Senators) and representatives of a long list of oil and gas companies as well as their industry associations. The data comes from the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada.
There is around a two month delay from the date of the lobbying meeting and when the bot tweets it out, as the information takes time to be posted.
The bot doesn’t tell us the exact content of those meetings. In Canada, what is said in lobbying meetings does not need to be reported. Lobbyists only need to note which general topics they discussed.
What the bot’s tweets tell us
With this bot, we see which companies are active, and who they are targeting.
If a company is proposing a new offshore oil project requiring federal approval, and we see the company is meeting repeatedly with federal ministers like Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada Steven Guilbeault, we get a sense of how they are trying to influence the government.
The bot also shows which elected officials and parts of the civil service are willing to meet with these companies.
Journalists, activists, researchers, and organizations seeking more information and access to the full data set, please be in touch with me at dgray-donald@environmentaldefence.ca.
While the argument was being conveniently used to avoid legal obligations in a climate court case with seven youth, it also exposes the fact that Ontario doesn’t take climate action seriously, at all.
The latest example of Ontario playing pretend on climate action came just over a week ago, when the province submitted an updated Emissions Performance Standard (EPS) proposal to the Federal government. The EPS is Ontario’s approach to reducing climate impacts from large industrial emitters. If it’s to stand in place of the federal program, Ontario’s plan has to meet requirements set by the “Pan-Canadian Approach to Carbon Pollution Pricing”.
While on the surface, Ontario’s new plan appears to comply with the increased Federal price on carbon for large industrial polluters, upon closer examination, it’s apparent that the price won’t apply to a big chunk of Ontario’s industrial emissions.
There are complex calculations that excuse various industrial polluters like refineries, smelters, and petrochemical manufacturers from paying for their full emissions. In fact, they may end up paying very little.
In the case of fossil gas plants, for example, a facility can pollute up to 310 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per gigawatt hour (t CO₂e/GWh) before it has to pay the carbon price. This is a problem because the average gas turbine in Ontario pollutes at 415 t CO₂e/GWh. That means only about 25 per cent of the emissions from an average gas plant will be charged the carbon price.
Shockingly, Ontario’s updated EPS proposal may get accepted by the Federal government later this month because country-wide guidelines are so weak. The Canadian model was recently updated, raising the percentage of priced emissions for most industries from 70 per cent to 80 per cent of a sector’s average greenhouse gas emissions. But it leaves room for provinces to determine their own thresholds for each industrial sector and timelines for their implementation.
These lax federal guidelines shouldn’t let Ontario off the hook. As Canada’s second largest polluting province, Ontario should be doing everything it can to help meet our global climate commitments. It’s utterly irresponsible that the only plan the Ontario government has is a “glossy brochure”.
The Australian Greens, with their biggest ever parliamentary caucus, are laying out plans for progressive change. Alex Bainbridge and Pip Hinman report.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has promised to renew Australia’s standing in the region at the Pacific Islands Forum in Fiji, however Australia has not been a good Pacific neighbour on climate and other fronts. Peter Boyle reports.
Reducing food waste is the single best solution to the climate crisis, a recent study claims. Project Drawdown identified the strategy as having the most tangible potential to reduce emissions. It is not the first time that an adaptation to consumer habits and mindsets has been highlighted as the key to future food security and climate-positive action.
The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states that creating change at a consumer behaviour level could result in greenhouse gas emission reductions of up to 70 percent. The figure was floated alongside a projected completion date of 2050. Positive habit changes were cited as including walking instead of driving, reducing the heating temperature in domestic buildings and reducing food waste.
Photo by Joshua Hoehne at Unsplash.
Reduce food waste now for food security later
The U.N. Environment Programme’s Food Waste Index highlights that 17 percent of all food available to consumers ends up in the bin. 60 percent of all food waste comes from domestic homes. This represents at least 8923 million tonnes of usable food being wasted and sent to landfill, where it breaks down and releases emissions during the process. Therefore, the importance of making food waste socially unacceptable cannot be overestimated.
With food security becoming a concern for more nations, in the face of global conflicts and rising costs of living, negating waste equals more mouths fed. That it can also actively reduce greenhouse gas emissions makes the issue critical.
New World Resources Institute (WRI) data suggests that making food waste socially unacceptable, through appropriate messaging, will make the problem a priority that more consumers want to solve. In research conducted, it found that when people were told about others making an effort to reduce their own food waste, it raised awareness, encouraged dialogue and incited a change in attitude. The overarching conclusion was that changing societal norms is an effective way to encourage habit evolution.
Photo by Elevate at Unsplash.
Adapting behaviour through suggestive expectations
WRI claims that shifting social norms will motivate people to change their habits. This can, the organisation claims, be used to encourage less energy and water use, motivate consumers to choose plant-based foods or nudge people to waste less food. It used an example of the practice in action:
“Hotels, for example, have encouraged guests to reduce water use by including social norms messages on door hangers that mention how other guests reuse their bath towels (rather than send them to be washed every day). The implication is that new guests should do the same.”
The result, in this instance, was a reduction in laundry demand. WRI set out to test the theory specifically in connection to reducing food waste. It conducted two research projects to test whether social norms messaging is effective enough to put a stop to household waste.
Photo from Pexels.
What makes consumers choose less waste?
WRI’s studies concluded that messaging alone is not enough to inspire behavioural change. When combined with multi-pronged attacks, however, they can be very effective.
In the first study, 250 Washington households were observed. They were split into three groups. One had no waste intervention, another received standard educational materials about food waste and the third received educational information, plus social norms messages. These took the form of sentences such as “More than three-quarters of DC residents report storing food properly to maximize its shelf life”. The control group wasted 25 percent more food than those subject to relevant information and messaging. Though the social norms statements were not considered effective in reducing food waste, above the standard information, they did alter consumer behaviour in terms of at least trying to meal plan.
The second study looked specifically at the effectiveness of transmitting social norms messages via social media, specifically Facebook. Ads were placed, containing three styles of messages, to identify which were the most successful. Location played a part, with participants responding differently in Germany and the U.K. Overall, dynamic messaging, which talks about what other people are doing to change their behaviour, was considered most encouraging. This has paved the way for future research.
WRI concluded that including social norms messages in standard educational campaigns is a viable plan. It claims that they are a low-cost, low-risk way to emphasise the topic of food waste.
Product photo by PurePlus.
Feeding people with food waste
As food waste continues to gain traction as an important endeavour, companies are increasingly seeking to tap into the commercial potential that it offers. A number of startups are now producing snacks made from food industry by-products or imperfect ingredients. PurePlus is one of them, taking surplus wonky fruits and veggies and converting them into ‘climate candy’. Its consumer-facing brand, Faves, launched in 2021, debuting its sustainable alternative to Starburst chews. The startup claims that every pack contains one full serving of fruit and veg and prevents countless produce from entering landfills.
Protesters forced oil giant Shell to pause its annual general meeting.
Chairman Andrew Mackenzie asked police to clear the room at Central Hall in Westminster, central London. This was after members of the audience repeatedly interrupted him.
The protesters stated that the oil company profits from carbon-emitting products which contribute to climate change.
Demonstrators outside Central Hall in Westminster, where Shell was holding its annual general meeting (Stefan Rousseau/PA)
‘We will, we will stop you’
“Shell must fall,” the demonstrators repeatedly chanted during the meeting.
They sang “We will, we will stop you” to the tune of the Queen’s ‘We Will Rock You’ as Mackenzie looked on in silence.
After some time, the chairman said:
OK, thank you. I would like to carry on with the meeting if I may.
He was, however, prevented from doing so by the protesters. Before being interrupted again, he managed to say:
That was an interesting start to our annual general meeting. I have listened to you for 15 minutes, could you…
I do not want to get to this, but if necessary I will ask you to leave the meeting so we can continue with the annual general meeting.
Protesters accused Shell of profiting from carbon-emitting products that contribute to climate change (Stefan Rousseau/PA)
Disruption
A little later, Mackenzie said:
I regret this deeply, but, because you refuse to stop, I have now asked for the police to come and allow us to restore order as part of this annual general meeting.
The meeting was paused after around half an hour, as Mackenzie said police would need 20 minutes to clear the room.
The protesters came from several different groups, including Money Rebellion, Extinction Rebellion, Christian Climate Action, Fossil Free London, Shell Must Fall and Stop Ecocide.
They claimed that around 80 demonstrators were in the meeting hall.
— Fossil Free London (@fossilfreeLDN) May 24, 2022
‘Shell is standing in the way’
Joanna Warrington, from Fossil Free London, said:
We can tackle the climate crisis and the cost-of-living scandal, but Shell is standing in the way.
It’s pushing ahead with reckless oil and gas projects that would take us far beyond safe climate limits, like the controversial Jackdaw gas field.
As millions of people struggle to pay bills, Shell rakes in record profits by keeping energy prices high and paying zero tax on its UK oil and gas.
This Government should be turbocharging investment in renewables and insulation, not handing whopping tax breaks to companies that burn our future for profit.”
On election eve, more than 50 people gathered on Rundle Mall for a snap protest against the Coalition government’s inaction on climate change. Renfrey Clarke reports.
Critics of New Zealand’s new $4.5 billion global warming plan to help New Zealanders into electric vehicles and hybrids say a significant cheque for the Clean Car programme is sending the wrong message about the role cars play in the country’s future.
Victoria University of Wellington’s environmental studies Professor Ralph Chapman said — electric or not — cars were still heavy on the wallet and on the environment.
“The sheer carbon emissions associated with running cars, the life cycle of a car and all the infrastructure that goes with it — like highways and more spread-out infrastructure for water and waste water … when you start to add it all up, cars are pretty much a disaster.”
Professor Chapman said there were still carbon emissions that went into making EVs and the like, as well as the emissions involved in importing them to New Zealand.
“The whole model has to change, rather than just encouraging people to go to a slightly more efficient car.”
Professor Chapman said the alternative option of scrapping an old car in return for money towards buying a bike or using public transport was a good move.
Free Fares lobby disappointed
Free Fares, which is lobbying the government to make all public transport free, is also disappointed in the scheme.
A spokesperson for the group said the wider Emissions Reduction Plan was “a continuation of an individualised culture and a focus on car ownership” rather than public transport, “which is what we need”.
Low-income families who scrap their old car will get funding to buy a low-emitting vehicle in a $569 million scheme, one of the big-ticket items in the government’s first Emissions Reductions Plan.
The money will not just be for electric vehicles – it could also help buy an e-bike or could be in the form of public transport vouchers.
But there was very little detail released about the scheme, such as who exactly will be eligible and – critically – how much financial help they would get.
New Zealand’s first Emissions Reduction Plan. Video: RNZ News
A pilot will be rolled out for 2500 households first, before an expansion of the scheme in about two years’ time.
Climate Change Minister James Shaw yesterday said it would follow a similar scheme which was introduced in California.
“Notoriously challenging” says MIA
But even if a similar discount was offered here, it would still be costly, and “notoriously challenging”, the Motor Industry Association (MIA) said.
Chief executive David Crawford said the cost of new EV imports started at $40,000 and went upwards of $80,000, whereas used models started at about $20,000.
“If it is a new EV, their prices are quite high; would [eligible people] be able to afford debt servicing the difference? The price gap for a new EV can still be big,” Crawford said.
New Zealand has many old cars still being driven around; they pollute more and aren’t as safe so the MIA said it was supportive of moves to get more of them off the road.
The Motor Trade Association (MTA), which represents mechanics and repair shops, wants the government to go further than the $569m scheme, and roll out a scrappage model for everyone.
Its energy and environment manager Ian Baggott said it would be a challenge for the government to determine the criteria for scrappage.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Ontario’s chosen experts question basic climate science and dismiss Ontario’s responsibility to lower emissions
Toronto | Traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Anishnaabeg, Haudenosaunee, Chippewas and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation – The Ontario government solicited expert testimony from a known climate change denier to defend its poor record on climate action, in a court challenge brought from seven Ontario youth.
The youth are arguing that the Government of Ontario violated their charter rights when it rolled back targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The provincial government also solicited evidence from an economist who believes that Ontario’s actions have little to no impact on Canada’s overall emissions and, therefore, the province bears no responsibility for the damages caused by climate change.
“This Ontario government has been playing pretend on climate for years, and now we know why. The government is apparently not convinced by the scientific consensus on climate change, or that Ontario has a role to play in reducing Canada’s or the world’s greenhouse gas emissions,” said Keith Brooks, Programs Director for Environmental Defence. “The delusional arguments put forward by the province’s hand-picked expert witnesses could well explain why Ontario’s climate plan never stood up to scrutiny and never went anywhere.”
Ontario sought out William van Wijngaarden and Philip Cross to present expert affidavit opinions pertaining to climate science and climate economics, respectively.
William van Wijngaarden is a member of the CO2 Coalition, whose stated purpose is to “provide facts, resources and information about the vital role carbon dioxide (CO2) plays in our environment” and provide education “about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy.” In his affidavit, Van Wijngaarden suggests that atmospheric CO2 levels are saturated and increasing concentrations of CO2 will not cause rising temperatures or lead to more extreme weather. He also states that CO2 is plant food and “very beneficial.”
Philip Cross argues that “Emissions from Ontario do not have a decisive impact” on whether Canada will meet its climate targets (which is demonstrably untrue). He argues at length that “Ontario is an insignificant portion of global emissions…,” an argument designed to excuse Ontario of responsibility to address climate change. He also argues that energy transitions take a long time, implying that trying to reach Ontario’s, Canada’s, or even global climate targets is futile. These arguments are sometimes referred to as “the new climate denialism.”
“The provincial government may say that they care about climate change, and may even claim to be on track to reach its target to reduce emissions, but the choice of expert witness reveals a fact that should be shocking to Ontarians: our government doubts the science on climate change and doesn’t really believe that the province has a responsibility to act. This is profoundly worrisome given that scientists tell us we’re in a critical decade for climate action, and the window to limiting warming to 1.5 degrees is rapidly closing,” added Brooks.
The affidavits by William van Wijngaarden and Philip Cross can both be found here.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Sue Bolton, Socialist Alliance candidate for Wills, said kicking the Scott Morrison government out is critical, but going soft on Labor won’t help the workers’ movement. Jacob Andrewartha reports.
This is why it is absolutely necessary that we elect a legislature that will ensure Ontario does its part to bring down greenhouse gas emissions, especially because it’s the second largest polluting province in Canada.
But Ontario has been going in the opposite direction. After having phased out coal and successfully decreased pollution between 2005 and 2017, emissions started to rise again in 2018 – when the current government came into power. And its policies since have not helped to turn the tide.
The current Ontario Government’s record
The Goreway Power Station in Brampton uses polluting fossil gas to generate electricity. The current Ontario government plans to increase the use of gas plants so that polluting emissions rise 600% by 2040.
One of the first things the current government did when it took office was rip up 758 renewable energy contracts including wind and solar projects that were already under construction. That renewable energy could have helped reduce the province’s greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, emissions increased.
A year ago the government further deprioritized renewable energy with a bill that made it harder for green energy projects to get built.
Immediately after getting into office, the government scrapped Ontario’s cap-and-trade system which was supposed to incentivize companies to decrease their emissions. The province then fought against the Federal carbon price for industry (and lost) and developed its own weaker carbon pricing model.
You may recall that the government also canceled the Drive Clean Program, the mandatory test that ensured vehicle emissions weren’t going through the roof.
Instead of trying to limit emissions from vehicles, the government has been promoting new mega highways like Highway 413 which would add 17 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (and not even resolve congestion).
Late last year the government suddenly changed its mind and announced funding to support the installation of charging stations. But in the absence of provincial EV incentives to help make them more affordable, it will take a long time for EVs to become the dominant vehicle in Ontario.
Climate Change has led to more flooding in Ontario.
The result of these policy choices is that the province is far from meeting its own meager climate target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent by 2030 (below 2005 levels). Let’s remember that the Federal target is a 40-45 percent reduction, and that what we actually need is closer to a 60 per cent reduction to do our share to avoid global catastrophic climate change.
This is totally doable. Ontario could dramatically reduce emissions by:
Phasing out gas plants
Investing in renewable energy projects
Canceling destructive mega highways
Expanding public transportation
Bringing back energy efficiency programs and funding
Strengthening the pollution price system for big industry
We reached out to the major parties to ask about their commitments to these types of policies. You can check out our voting for environment website to see their positions and decide for yourself which party will deliver the climate policies we urgently need.
Aotearoa New Zealand’s new NZ SeaRise website, designed to show how the country’s coastline will be affected by rising sea levels and land subsidence, has been hit by a cyber attack.
Project co-leader and Victoria University of Wellington earth sciences Professor Tim Naish said the website went live this morning at 5am, and since then it had been getting 10,000 hits per second which had ”just killed” the website.
”We’re trying to get it back up and running,” he said.
”The guess is that these are anti-climate change people or the Russians — who knows.
”We don’t know for sure, but we think they’re using an autobot. They’re coming from an overseas IP address.
”It’s just hitting us with thousands of hits and our website can’t cope.”
It was frustrating because local government mayors were being asked to comment on the website, but were unable to because it was inaccessible at the moment, he said.
Frustrating for residents
It was also frustrating for residents interested in what was going to happen on their own land.
The NZ SeaRise website shows location-specific sea level rise projections to the year 2300, for every 2km of the coast of New Zealand.
Climate change and warming temperatures are causing sea levels to rise by 3.5mm a year on average, but until now, the levels did not take into account local vertical land movements.
Professor Naish said continuous small and large seismic events were adding up to cause subsidence in many parts of New Zealand, and the new projections showed the annual rate of sea level rise could double.
Project co-leader and GNS Science associate professor Richard Levy said the team had connected vertical land movement data with climate-driven sea level rise to provide locally-relevant sea level projections.
“Property owners, councils, infrastructure providers and others need to know how sea level will change in the coming decades so that they can consider how risks associated with flooding, erosion and rising groundwater will shift,” he said.
”We have estimated future sea levels for 7434 sites around our coastline. The largest increases in sea level will occur along the southeast North Island along the Wairarapa coast.
Land subsidence rates are high
”Here, land subsidence rates are high and sea level could rise by well over 1.5m by 2100 if we follow the least optimistic climate change scenario.
”In contrast, land is rising near Pikowai, in the Bay of Plenty, and uplift rates may keep pace with climate change-driven sea level rise, causing a small fall in sea level if we follow the most optimistic climate scenario.”
Dunedin and Invercargill were not likely to be any closer to inundation by the sea than had already been predicted, because ground movement in the South was ”quite stable”, he said.
Based on present international emissions reduction policies, global sea levels were expected to have risen about 0.6m by 2100, but for large parts of New Zealand that would double to about 1.2m because of ongoing land subsidence.
”We know that global sea-level rise of 25cm-30cm by 2060 is baked in and unavoidable regardless of our future emissions pathway, but what may be a real surprise to people is that for many of our most populated regions, such as Auckland and Wellington, this unavoidable rise is happening faster than we thought.”
Vertical land movements mean sea level changes might happen 20-30 years sooner than previously expected.
For many parts of New Zealand’s coast, 30cm of sea-level rise is a threshold for extreme flooding, above which the 100-year coastal storm becomes an annual event.
Climate change adaptation options
Joint Otago Regional and Dunedin City Councils’ South Dunedin Future group programme manager Jonathan Rowe welcomed the new information and said it would feed into many aspects of the councils’ work, particularly that relating to the South Dunedin programme which was considering climate change adaptation options.
ORC operations general manager Gavin Palmer said the information would also feed into flood protection planning to mitigate the impacts of sea level rise in other parts of coastal Otago, such as the Clutha Delta and the Taieri Plain.
Rowe said for South Dunedin, the new data confirmed previous guidance, that further sea level rise of 24cm-35cm was predicted by 2050-60, and up to 112cm by 2100, depending on global emissions.
A climate change adaptation plan would be presented to both councils in June, he said.
Climate Change Minister James Shaw said the findings were “sobering” and the government’s first plan to cut emissions in every part of New Zealand, would be published later this month.
The website appeared to be accessed normally later today with an earlier notice saying “The NZ SeaRise maps are down temporarily for maintenance” having been dropped.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. It was first published on the Otago Daily Times website.
Explosive new data shows the sea level is rising twice as fast as previously thought in some parts of Aotearoa, massively reducing the amount of time authorities have to respond.
The major new projections show infrastructure and homes in Auckland and Wellington — as well as many other places — risk inundation decades earlier than expected.
For example, in just 18 years parts of the capital will see 30cm of sea level rise, causing once-in-a-century flood damage every year.
Previously, councils and other authorities had not expected to reach this threshold until 2060 — halving the time to plan for mitigation or retreat.
The new information comes from a programme comprising dozens of local and international scientists called NZ SeaRise, which also includes GNS Science and Niwa.
It combines data about where land is sinking with the latest international sea-level rise projections.
The new information is a game changer, and will likely have serious consequences for climate adaptation planning, and could impact property prices.
Globally the sea level is expected to rise about half a metre by 2100 — but for large parts of New Zealand it could more than double that because of land subsidence.
Victoria University of Wellington professor and SeaRise programme co-leader Dr Tim Naish said: “We have less time to act than we thought.”
Queens Wharf, Wellington … a one-in-100 year storm which closes the roads and damages infrastructure could happen every year. Image: RNZ/123rf.com
Wellington: Just 18 years or less before serious effects Dr Naish said he was surprised how soon impacts would be felt in parts of Auckland and Wellington.
Some areas are sinking 3mm or 4mm a year — about the annual rate at which the sea is rising.
“[This] doubles the amount of sea level rise and it halves the time … you thought you had to deal with the sea-level rise that was in the original guidance documents that councils were using.”
Dr Naish described a case study of the road connecting Petone and Eastbourne in Lower Hutt, which would see 30cm of sea level rise by 2040.
This threshold is important because at that level a one-in-100 year storm which closes the roads and damages infrastructure could happen every year.
He said local and regional councils have been making plans for this threshold to be reached in 2060, giving 20 fewer years to plan and adapt accordingly.
Other places on Wellington’s south coast such as Ōwhiro Bay, Lyall Bay, Seatoun among others are also subsiding.
“You are going to see the impacts of quite damaging sea level rise much sooner than we thought …. roads and properties inundated.”
He said road and rail infrastructure on State Highway 2 at the Korokoro interchange in Petone is another highly vulnerable area.
The largest overall increases in the whole country are on the southeast North Island along the Wairarapa Coast.
Here, the sea level could be be up well over one and a half metres by 2100.
About 30cm of sea level rise is unavoidable because of the amount of climate gases already in the atmosphere.
Downtown Auckland … vulnerable places include the waterfront around the bays, Tamaki Drive, and the Viaduct. Image: Simon Rogers/RNZ
Homes and crucial infrastructure in Auckland in the firing line Dr Naish said vulnerable places in Auckland included the waterfront around the bays, Tamaki Drive, the Viaduct, areas around the Northwestern Motorway at Point Chevalier, St Heliers and Mission Bay.
He said many of these places already have issues during king tides, are close to sea level, and are sinking.
At the Viaduct the land is sinking about about 2.5mm a year.
“That almost doubles the rate of expected sea-level rise and halves the time you have.
“The city council, [and] the port authority are all going to have to start looking closely in terms of their future activities at this new information.”
He said in many parts of Auckland the sea-level would rise 30 to 50 percent faster than what was previously thought.
Meanwhile, he said parts of Thames township is also very vulnerable, and the sinking happening in the Hauraki plains means the stopbanks there have a shorter lifespan than previously thought.
Nelson waterfront … a major worry is the suburb of Richmond and nearby parts which are subsiding at about 5mm a year. Image: Tracy Neal/RNZ
Richmond in Nelson a hotspot A major worry is the suburb of Richmond and nearby parts in the Nelson area which is subsiding at about 5mm a year.
“That whole area there has been a lot of development, new subdivisions, housing … the airport is very exposed, and that road around [the coast to Richmond] is vulnerable,” Naish said.
He said local and regional councils in the region have known for a long time there could be issues there with sea-level rise.
“There is going to be some really big challenges for that region.”
Online tool lets residents, authorities check New Zealanders will soon be able to see for the first time how much and how fast sea-level will rise along their own stretch of coast.
The entire coastline has been mapped down to a 2km spacing.
The new advice combines data about where land is sinking with the latest international sea-level rise projections.
It will be an major new tool for councils, businesses and homeowners to assess risk from erosion and floods.
New data shows that sea levels are rising twice as fast as expected in New Zealand https://t.co/TUj5Vdr4nk
‘Information is power’ Dr Naish said the new data was important information and people should try not to be too overwhelmed.
“Information is power, so don’t be afraid of it.
“We still have time … but we don’t have time to sit on our hands anymore.
“If you’re a [council representative] or you’re a developer, or you’re a decisions maker in the coastal areas of New Zealand you need to start thinking right now what the plan is for adapting to that sea-level rise.
“Yes, it is a bit terrifying but there is still time and I think that is the way to look at it.”
It asks for public input on the plans, and on so-called ”managed retreat’” – abandoning areas where it is not possible or financially viable to live any longer.
Uncertainty about predictions laid out in tool
Dr Naish said uncertainty about the predictions were clearly laid out in the tool — but he said there was no question that there would be a response from property owners, the insurance and banking sectors to the new information.
GNS Science Environment and Climate Theme Leader Dr Richard Levy said until now, the risk from sea-level rise has been quite poorly defined for New Zealand.
“Current sea-level projections in the Ministry for the Environment coastal hazards guidance do not take into account local vertical land movements.”
Most of the information about sea-level rise was more or less extrapolated out from the global average.
NZ SeaRise is a five-year research programme comprising local and international experts from Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington, GNS Science, NIWA, University of Otago and the Antarctic Science Platform.
It is funded by the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment.
Climate change and warming temperatures are causing sea levels to rise, on average, by 3.5 mm per year.
This sea level rise is caused by thermal expansion of the ocean, by melting land based glaciers, and by melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Dismantling the Ministry for Environment! 
a devastating impact on climate policies that we, the Greens, worked so hard to put in place.
The latest example of Ontario playing pretend on climate action came just over a week ago, when the province submitted an updated Emissions Performance Standard (EPS) proposal to the Federal government. The EPS is Ontario’s approach to reducing climate impacts from large industrial emitters. If it’s to stand in place of the federal program, Ontario’s plan has to meet requirements set by the “Pan-Canadian Approach to Carbon Pollution Pricing”.
_Extinction_Rebellion_Protest_Tower_Hill.jpg){kind=link}