"Fossil fuels are not only dangerous for our planet but to those working in the industry itself. It’s beyond time for a #RenewableRevolution. (via The Years Project)"
video, fossil fuel subsidies, workers, jobs, global corruption, corporategreed, #jailclimatecriminals,
Scientists have repeatedly warned that the effects of climate change would include more extreme weather.(Supplied: Gena Dray)
Scientists have warned us about the dangers of 2 degrees of warming — at the moment, we're heading for more than that.(ABC News: Jordan Hayne)
'Scientists
have spelt out this out repeatedly for 30 years, and environmental
groups have championed the cause. But both made mistakes.
For
too long, scientists believed that the facts spoke for themselves, that
all they had to do was get them out there. And the NGOs had a tendency
come across as self-righteous, or guilt-trippy.
I was already on board — with me they were preaching to the choir — but I don't think they pulled in enough other people.
Climate Action Now
But
here we are. After years of drought at home, and increasingly extreme
weather all over the world, polling shows that most of us get it enough
to think climate change is a problem and that we should do something
about it.
And yet we've done very little. I want to know why. That's why I've made this series.
And yes, part of it turns out to be the fossil fuel industry.
Part of it turns out to be that change is hard, and that it's been
easier for politicians to do little, especially when they are themselves
divided.
Not that it can't be done — and there is hope. We'll get to that too. I hope you'lljoin me for Hot Mess."'
By Richard Aedy for Hot Mess
Richard Aedy has been a journalist for more than 30 years. He's been concerned about climate change for most of that time. He's been at Radio National since 1998.
The Guardian reveals the 20 fossil fuel companies whose relentless exploitation of the world’s oil, gas and coal reserves can be directly linked to more than one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions in the modern era. Global environment editor, Jonathan Watts, explains how they have continued to expand their operations despite being aware of the industry’s devastating impact on the planet.
Besides being stupid and greedy, we are
genetically handicapped to deal with this situation. We simply don’t
live long enough to plan ahead. By “planning ahead” I don’t mean
decades. I mean centuries. The reason is that people with money and
power, the people with the means to do something, just don’t care. They
would have to give up some of that money and power to change things.
They figure they won’t be around to suffer the consequences of climate
change anyway, so they just don’t give a damn. It would require
Biblically long lifetimes to plan ahead for the human race. For now and
the near future we can, at most, hope to live to a hundred, not the 969
years of Methuselah. If you were going to be around for the consequence of your actions or inaction for as long as he was, you would care."
The oil industry is still spending heavily against
policies to address climate change and in support of efforts to
promote fossil fuel consumption. These days, however, the messaging and
efforts seem to be moving away from Heartland-style denial attacks on
climate science and tuned more toward PR
campaigns promoting the idea that oil and gas companies accept climate
change is happening and are doing their part to address it.
That's likely driven in part by the fact that public awareness of and concern about climate change has significantly increased since 2008.
The industry's new approach appears focused on selling the idea that natural gas is “clean” and that fossil fuels are the future — even a “solution” to climate change. Meanwhile, across the U.S., coal plants are closing, the gas industry is a financial disaster, and renewables are growing rapidly and in many cases can provide electricity more cheaply than gas power plants.
The Cato Institute,
another free market think tank that for years pushed climate science
denial and received funding from the fossil fuel industry, dropped its climate denial program earlier this year. Cato was founded by the petrochemical billionaire Charles Koch.
Will Heartland follow a similar path to attract broader appeal and fossil fuel industry funding?"
"Switching just some of the huge subsidies supporting fossil fuels to
renewables would unleash a runaway clean energy revolution, according to
a new report, significantly cutting the carbon emissions that are
driving the climate crisis.
Coal, oil and gas get more than $370bn (£305bn) a year in support,
compared with $100bn for renewables, the International Institute for
Sustainable Development (IISD) report found. Just 10-30% of the fossil fuel subsidies would pay for a global transition to clean energy, the IISD said."
"Each year, the Australian government spends billions of dollars of
your money on programs that encourage more coal, gas and oil to be
extracted and burned. Market Forces estimates that tax-based fossil fuel subsidies cost almost $12 billion a year federally. This includes subsidies that support both the production and use of fossil fuels.
But tax-based subsidies aren’t the only government financial backing for fossil fuels. Direct handouts and contributions to the industry are doled out at both federal and state levels.
On top of this,public money
is used to finance fossil fuels through our national export credit
agency EFIC, as well as our involvement with international financial
institutions. Australia has built a bad reputation as one of the world’s biggest
backers of the dirty fossil fuel industry, a stance made clear at the
2015 Paris climate talks when it refused to sign an agreement that would phase out fossil fuel subsidies.
"Governments argue that fossil fuel subsidies are designed to help the
poorest members of society, however, this is not borne out by the
research. The true beneficiaries of these subsidies are wealthier
people and wealthier nations not the poor.
According to an IEA report,
more than 85 percent of these subsidies go to middle and higher end
income earners while only 8 percent of the aid is reaching the poorest
20 percent. These subsidies encourage energy consumption as people with
the lowest incomes tend to be lower energy users and rarely drive.
"Fossil-fuel subsidies as presently constituted tend to be regressive,
disproportionately benefiting higher income groups that can afford
higher levels of fuel consumption," the report said. 'Social welfare
programs are a more effective and less distortionary way of helping the
poor than energy subsidies.' "
"The federal Coalition government has delivered its last budget before
the May poll, and pretty much finished the way it started in government
nearly six years ago: Long term climate and clean energy policies and
technologies are ignored, and the focus is on trinkets and handouts.
Don’t worry about climate, or even any other “assets” and themes that
have long-term value, such as education and research, seems to be the
message. Instead:Look, money!
And it’s mostly awarded to people who
probably don’t need it.
The cynicism is revealed in both the climate and the energy
Australian Treasurer Josh Frydenberg
announcements. In climate, the Coalition appears to have given up all
pretence that it is taking its own mediocre policies seriously."
"Creating a renewable economy that tackles climate change, creates jobs, makes bills cheaper and energy more reliable.
As
one of the sunniest countries on earth, Australia can lead the world by
rapidly transitioning to renewable technology, protecting our planet
from the threat of climate change and creating the jobs of the future.
"In short, despite recent fluctuations, I remain optimistic that China remains on the path toward meeting its Paris target of capping carbon emissions by 2030 and deriving 20 percent of its energy from sources other than oil, gas and coal.
Despite the recent setbacks, the most likely scenario is that China’s emissions will peak before 2030. How quickly they might decline after 2030 is not yet clear.
This is not to say China is doing everything it can to combat climate change.
But given the pace of its economic growth, China’s accomplishments to date are notable. As the Center for American Progress,
a think tank, found, if regulatory trends continue, by 2020 no American
coal plants would meet China’s carbon emission standards.
That is a good reminder that the whole world, and not just China, needs to do more if we are to be spared from the worst impacts of climate change.
An analysis of the size of the US green economy shows that despite the subsidies to the oil and coal industry
by the world’s most vocal denier of the climate emergency, sales and
employment figures for the 24 economic subsectors that make up renewable
energies, environmental protection and the provision of low-carbon
goods and services, represent more than $1.3 trillion dollars in turnover, and is growing by around 20% annually, and employs some 9.5 million people, giving it a much greater economic impact than the entire fossil fuel industry.
"The federal Coalition government has delivered its last budget before
the May poll, and pretty much finished the way it started in government
nearly six years ago: Long term climate and clean energy policies and
technologies are ignored, and the focus is on trinkets and handouts.
