Climate change - the basics

Climate change - the basics

By Ranting Panda, 23 October 2022

In understanding climate change and global warming, it may help to distil the issue down to the most fundamental components:

1. Hotter weather causes more severe storms. Warmer oceans tend to create stronger cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons. Heat fuels the intensity of bushfires. 
2. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas (GHG) and affects global temperatures. 

Neither of these points is disputed in modern science. It would be surprising to find a climate change denier who would actually dispute either of these points. 

The main dispute they have is whether the world is warming and whether humans are the cause of it. 

The fact that the world is warming has been quantified in numerous studies, which I'll cover in more detail below.

CO2 emissions have risen dramatically since the mid-20th century and are around 50% higher than they were prior to the Industrial Revolution. Humans are contributing around 36 billion tons per annum of CO2 and other GHG. By comparison, volcanoes contribute around 200 million tons per annum. To make things worse, deforestation is reducing carbon sinks, so less CO2 is absorbed. Agricultural practices release more carbon from the soil, while our heavy reliance on beef has seen a dramatic increase in cattle populations, which produce significant levels of methane, also a GHG. All of these activities are caused by humans and are within our power to control.

Climate deniers have some regular talking points for rejecting the science behind anthropogenic climate change.

They will say that it is part of the common cycles of the Earth, or that back in the day there were hot days, strong cyclones, bush fires etc. They seem to think that scientists aren't aware of previous weather events. However, scientists benchmark and peer review. That's what they do. They actually account for previous weather events and climate changes. Scientists are not stupid, nor are they ignorant. No scientist wants to be known for getting something wrong, so they will test and review their hypotheses ad nauseum before publishing them.

However, there are many who still dispute the very obvious evidence of anthropogenic climate change, so the following points challenge some of the false claims made by climate change denialists.

The world is not warming

The first thing that scientists do is benchmark things. They analysis data to benchmark the current climate and then analyse data to determine how current climate compares to years gone by. These analyses show that the climate is clearly warming. Nineteen of the 20 hottest years on record have occurred since the year 2000 (NASA n.d.[c]).

It is just part of the natural climate cycles of the Earth

Climate change needs to be forced by some external factor. In this case, it is the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Funnily enough, scientists are an inquisitive lot, so they have measured the current CO2 concentration and compared it to concentrations of years gone by, going back millions of years. They know that prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 concentrations were 280 parts per million and that today they are 400ppm.

We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means it acts as an insulator to retain heat in the world, somewhat like a doona or a big old blanket. This is not in dispute by any scientist. We know therefore, that increases in CO2 concentration will force the planet to warm.

Milankovitch cycles

Milankovitch cycles are essentially the angle of the earth's rotational axis. Funnily enough, the axis doesn't go straight through the north pole to the south pole. It's a little off-centre. Milankovitch cycles are comprised of three key elements:

• the shape of the Earth's orbit (eccentricity)
• the angle that the Earth's axis is tilted at (obliquity)
• direction Earth's axis of rotation is pointed (precession)

Eccentricity is on a 100,000 year cycle. Obliquity is on a 41,000 year cycle. Precession is on a 25,771 year cycle. On such long cycle times, insignificant changes to Milankovitch cycles over the last century cannot account for the dramatic increase in CO2, global warming or climate change (Buis 2020). 

Scientists are making it up

Yeah, but science! Climate is controlled by the laws of physics. Let me illustrate. Most people know that cyclones only form over warm water. Even the most ardent climate denier will agree with that. It is also known, that the warmer the water, the more intense the cyclone will be. Warm water helps create and intensify cyclones.

Ocean temperatures are increasing because of global warming, particularly because of the albedo effect. Albedo measures the ability of a body to absorb or reflect heat. Lighter bodies reflect heat, darker bodies absorb heat. The ocean is a dark body and has a low albedo. In other words, it absorbs almost all solar radiation and heat. Water expands as it heats, which is one of the causes of rising sea levels. As oceans warm, their ability to diffuse CO2 reduces, which means that more CO2 remains in the atmosphere. 

Ocean heat content (Kaufman n.d.)

Increased warming is also melting land ice, particularly the Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, both of which are already contributing to increased sea levels. Think this isn't a problem? The Antarctic ice sheet covers 14 million square kilometers and is on average around 2 kilometers thick, although is more than 4.7 km deep at its thickest. It has the ability to raise global sea levels by around 200 meters if it were to all melt.

 

Heat is also one of the key ingredients in the intensity of fire. The hotter the weather, the more intense the fires will be.

This is all basic and proven science. Scientists are not making this up.

It's all speculation and the 'other side' should also be taught

Ok, so what other side? That heat doesn't intensify storms, cyclones, hurricanes, or typhoons? That heat doesn't intensify fire, warm water or melt ice?

Scientists have quantified increases in CO2 concentrations. This is not in dispute.

Scientists have quantified that the world's climate is warming. This is not in dispute.

The only thing in dispute is whether anthropogenic carbon emissions are driving it. Scientists have run models showing what the climate would be like if there wasn't the increased anthropogenic carbon emissions. These models show that if there had been no change in anthropogenic carbon emissions since the industrial revolution, the world's climate would likely be in a cooling stage now.

Climate change deniers will often state that 3% of scientists dispute anthropogenic climate change. However, studies have found that the conclusions in those papers were faulty and unable to be replicated. Unlike the 97% of papers that found that global warming is real, is problematic and is largely caused by human activity. It should also be pointed out that of that 3%, not all of those scientists actually study climate in any form. This would be tantamount to asking everyone with a trade to comment on the effectiveness of electric vehicles compared to internal combustion vehicles. While some trades would be related, e.g. mechanics, auto-electricians, and even electricians installing EV charging stations, other trades wouldn't have a clue, e.g. butchers, bakers or carpenters. So when unrelated science fields are removed from the survey results and only climate scientists and associated scientists are included, more than 99% believe in anthropogenic climate change and 100% agree that humans are either primary or secondary causes of increasing CO2 emissions.

The sun is warming the planet

The Earth has seen a dramatic increase in warming and greenhouse gases. Yet, there has not been a corresponding change in solar irradiation or warming that would account for the dramatic changes experienced on Earth. The solar energy that Earth has been receiving has followed the natural 11-year cycles of the sun, with no significant changes over the last century that would explain Earth's global warming.

Perhaps the strongest indicator that the cause of Earth's warming is coming from the Earth itself, is that the surface atmosphere has warmed while the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) has been cooling. If the sun was causing global warming, then the stratosphere would also have warmed (NASA n.d.[b]). It is clear that the cause of warming is terrestrial and not solar. 

Solar irradiation cooling compared to global warming (NASA n.d.[b])

What about the Medieval Warm Period?

Again, science! Scientists do actually include such episodes in their research. Guess what? The world is warmer now than the Medieval Warm Period. So what caused the MWP? There was increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity and changes in ocean circulation that brought much warmer water into the North Atlantic, which caused increased temperatures in Europe. The MWP was largely confined to western Europe and Britain, while other areas of the globe experienced much cooler temperatures. 

This differs to today's warming trend, which is global and not simply confined to western Europe or other geographical areas.  

The hockey stick graph was fabricated

The infamous hockey stick graph. Perhaps the most controversial graph in modern history. 

The graph was a combination of raw instrumental data and proxy data, measuring temperatures from the year 1400 to 1998. The raw instrumental data (e.g. thermometers) was used to record temperatures since 1950. The proxy data was used for data prior to the 20th century. Proxy data is often used in scientific analysis as a substitute for raw measures when scientific instruments are not available. Proxies are generally a good substitute as they provide indications of the phenomena being studied. For example, tree rings are wider during years of higher temperatures and humidity. Ice core samples capture C02, which can indicate higher temperatures. Proxies used by Mann et al in preparing the hockey stick graph included ice core samples, ice melt, ice accumulation, coral growth, tree rings and tree growth trends. They took into account natural climate forcing factors, such as volcanic activity and solar irradiance. 

Original hockey stick graph showing temperatures from 1400 (Mann et al, 1998, p 783)

Some have queried the use of proxy data, however an analogy of the use proxies may assist. Dr Chris Cogswell runs a podcast called The Mad Scientist. When discussing proxies used for determining historical climate data, he provided an analogy to simply explain their effectiveness (Cogswell 2017). 

The analogy looks at measures of household income. We may have data from some households in which we know specifically how much they earn. This is similar to the modern temperature records where we know exactly what the temperatures have been over the last few decades. However, say we also want to measure wealth in areas where we don't know the actual income. The specific data shows that wealthier households also tend to have larger houses in more upmarket neighbourhoods, they have more holidays and vacation in expensive locations, they own more vehicles which are generally more expensive. These measures are proxy indicators of wealth. Applying those will provide a good estimate of household wealth. However, like any scientific study, the data needs to be calibrated for accuracy. In doing so, it may be determined that the amount of holidays does not necessarily indicate wealth. After all, it may be that executives are under great pressure and expectations, so end up holidaying less, while workers at lower levels in the organisation may have more opportunity to holiday. Of course, location of holiday could still be an indicator of wealth. The hockey stick report by Mann et all (1998) discussed calibration of its data as well.

In 1999, Mann produced a new report measuring temperatures from the year 1000. The revised graph is shown below. 

Revised hockey stick graph showing temperatures from 1000CE (Mann et al, 1999)

Although the original hockey stick graph was questioned at the time, there have been a multitude of studies since, which have used numerous other methods for reconstructing historical climate patterns. These reports have confirmed that there is a significant increase in temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels since the industrial revolution and in particular, since the mid-20th century (Skeptical Science, 2016). 

Further studies have considered data over much longer periods than Mann et al did. Current atmospheric CO2 concentrations are the highest they've been in around 1 million years.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are the highest they've been in around 1 million years (NASA n.d.[a])

Conclusion

Global warming is happening and it is forcing climate change. It is imperative that we reduce our carbon emissions to net zero as quickly as possible. The big concern is that we reach a tipping point, in which the world will continue warming under the weight of the increased atmospheric CO2 reservoir which will drive greater feedback, that is responses to warming, which in turn contribute to climate forcing factors that continue increasing GHG and forcing up temperatures. The tipping point is a point of no return, because at that point, our ability to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations will be outside our control and the world will continue warming uncontrollably. Sea levels will continue to rise, species will become extinct (as we are already starting to see), some plants will be unable to grow. All of this will affect our ability to continue an existence as we know it. 

Sources and references

Beernick, E, Lakey, A, Zarzuela, K, 2017, It was hotter in the Medieval Warming Period than today - brief responses to climate change denialism statements, 25 October, viewed 23 October 2022, CPSG 200 Science & Global Change Sophomore Colloquium, https://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc/elevator/elevator16.html

Benestad, RE, Hayhoe, K, Nuccitelli, D, Lewandosky, S, Hygen, HO, van Dorland, R, Cook, J, 2014, Learning from mistakes in climate research, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology.

Buis, A, 2020, Milankovitch (Orbital) cycles and their role in Earth's climate, 27 February, viewed 23 October 2022, NASA, https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

Cogswell, C 2017, Climate Change and Climate Denial, Episodes 20 and 21, 16 May, 31 May, The Mad Scientist Podcast, https://www.themadscientistpodcast.com/episode-20-climate-change

Deacon, B, 2022, Strong Antarctic polar vortex adds to south-east Australian rainfall and flood risk, BOM says, 23 October 2022, viewed 23 October 2022, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-23/antarctic-winds-drive-rain-south-east-australian-flood/101537816 

Earle, S, 2021, A Brief History of the Earth's Climate, New Society Publishers.

Kaufman, M, n.d., The carbon footprint sham, viewed 23 October, Mashable, 2022, https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham

Mann, ME, Bradley, RS, & Hughes, MK, 1998, Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries, 23 April, Nature, Vol 392, Macmillan Publishers Ltd 1998, http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf

Mann, ME, Bradley, RS, & Hughes, MK, 1999, Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millenium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations, 15 March, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 26, pages 759-762. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/1999GL900070

NASA, n.d. [a], Graphic: the relentless rise of carbon dioxide, viewed 23 October 2022, https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

NASA, n.d.[b], Is the sun causing global warming?, viewed 23 October 2022, NASA, https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

NASA, n.d.[c], Vital signs, viewed 23 October 2022, NASA, https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

NASA, n.d.[d], Evidence, viewed 23 October 2022, NASA, https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

National Science Foundation, n.d., Ice sheets, viewed 23 October 2022, https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/antarct/science/icesheet.jsp

Pearce, F, 2010, Controversy behind climate science's 'hockey stick' graph, 3 February, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hockey-stick-graph-climate-change

Romm, J 2018, Climate Change: What everyone needs to know, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, New York.

Saunders, T, 2022, A shift in wind direction across Sydney is behind the city's record wet year, 22 October, ABC News, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-22/sydney-record-wet-weather-2022-due-to-shift-in-wind-direction/101562826

Skeptical Science, 2015,  How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?, 7 July, viewed 23 October 2020, https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

Skeptical Science, 2016, What evidence is there for the hockey stick, 12 October, viewed 23 October 2022, https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

---0---

Michael Moore's Planet of the Humans - fact, fiction & the future

Michael Moore's Planet of the Humans - fact, fiction & the future

By Ranting Panda, 17 May 2020

American filmmaker, Michael Moore, has produced another controversial documentary. This one is called Planet of the Humans. Jeff Gibbs provides the dulcet narration.

The film makes several claims which have angered environmentalists and warmed the cockles of right-wing hearts across the globe. Many of those claims are false or misrepresentations. However, Moore also makes a number of claims which are spot on, but which his new-found friends of the right-wing conveniently ignore.

In summary, Moore claims that renewable energy, particularly solar, wind and biomass, are as damaging for the environment as coal-fired energy generation. He does make some good points, particularly around mining practices and slavery, as well as the fact that humans cannot continue exploiting the world's non-renewable resources. He correctly points out that current attempts by governments and industrialists to introduce renewable energy is aimed at continuing unsustainable and exploitative production practices in the name of consumerism and capitalism. However, much of his claims about the environmental costs of renewable energy are either false, reference old technology or lack consideration of life-cycle assessment.

Ronnie Brakels has provided an excellent critique of Moore's claim that renewables are as damaging as fossil fuels, by stating that it is tantamount to claiming that bicycles are as bad for the environment as cars (Brakel 2020). After all, bicycles are manufactured using coal, iron ore and environmentally damaging mining and production processes; bikes can only be ridden on sunny days for relatively short distances, so riders will often have a car as a back-up form of transport; and the people who ride bikes need food, which causes environmental damage through agricultural practices. Even the most sceptical anti-environmentalist would find it difficult to seriously argue that bikes are as environmentally damaging as cars, or that they produce as much pollution. Yet, this is the nature of Moore's claim when he states that renewable technologies consume iron ore and coal, and that they require existing electricity grids to supplement their usage on cloudy days.

Moore misses the point that while fossil fuels and mining may be involved in the production of renewable energy products, such as solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles, once they are in operation their consumption of fossil fuels is negligible compared to the operation of coal fired power plants and fossil-fuel powered cars; not dissimilar to the push-bike example provided by Brakels.

The key thing lacking in Michael Moore's argument is Life-cycle Assessment (LCA), which is a cradle-to-grave analysis of the environmental impact of a product. At its most basic, LCA calculates how much carbon is produced in the manufacture and operation of a product with the amount of carbon removed or offset by the product. Moore embraces the climate change denialist rationale that all green technology is claimed to be carbon-free, while failing to understand the basic concept of carbon neutral or carbon negative. That is, that green technology is not carbon free, but that the carbon dioxide emitted in its production and operation is much less than the carbon removed or offset by the product or the carbon-free energy generated over the life of the product, thus reducing the amount of electricity required to be produced by coal-fired power stations.

Moore makes the outdated claim that the energy generated by solar panels over their life-time does not cover the energy taken to produce them in the first place. He also argues that solar panels have a life expectancy of 10 years. Both of these claims are false. Solar panels have a life expectancy of up to 30 years, with an energy payback period of two years (Parkinson 2013). So it takes two years for a solar panel to recoup the energy taken to produce it, while then generating at least another 28 years of clean energy without further consumption of coal. How can that possibly be as bad as a coal-fired power plant that continues consuming coal and producing dirty energy for those 28 years? Many solar panel manufacturers offer 25 year warranties (Energy Informative n.d.). Even after 25 years, the panels' output is around 80% (Stahley 2019).

Solar panel payback period, life expectancy and energy output (Adapted from Parkinson 2013)

Moore tries to justify his inaccurate claims by highlighting a couple of concerts that promoted sustainability, yet ended up being powered by the coal-generated electricity grid. He seems to not grasp the concept that at this point, solar and wind are not yet capable of completely replacing coal-fired power stations ... but we are getting there. Moore has this short-sighted view that renewables will not replace coal, that they are always going to be dependent on coal for meeting demand. This is not true. Many countries and states are increasingly utilising renewable energy for electricity generation and greatly reducing their reliance on fossil fuels. Many countries have committed to 100% renewable energy for electricity generation by 2050, including Costa Rica, Denmark, Bangladesh, Kenya, Philippines, Portugal, Sri Lanka and Sweden (REN21 2019, pp 194-196). Scotland has achieved 98% use of renewables through wind power, while Uruguay is almost at 100% renewables, and Denmark is generating more than half its electricity from renewables (Climate Council 2019).

Raconteur (2018)

One thing of crucial importance that Moore did identify, was the matter of unethical mining practices. The world is currently experiencing more people in slavery that at any time in history, with more than 40 million people in slavery and more than 150 million exploited through child labour (International Labour Organization 2017). Moore's documentary does show that mining is an industry that has significant levels of slavery in it. This is an issue that must be addressed regardless of whether the products manufactured from it are solar panels, components in coal-fired power stations, batteries, cars or mobile phones. Every supply chain is at risk of modern slavery and there are efforts underway to address this.

Moore does make a good point about bio-mass, however, not all bio-mass comes from living trees; some of it is from waste wood that is decaying and therefore, releasing carbon anyway. Nonetheless, wood chipping forests as a form of renewable energy is not sustainable, as plants and forests absorb carbon. While biomass is not an acceptable form of renewable energy, Moore's focus on it blows it way out of proportion. In 2019, biomass accounted for 1% of the United States energy mix and 5% of Europe's energy mix (Yale Climate Connections 2020). If the world wishes to continue using biomass and biogas, it can be done far more efficiently with less environmental damage, through the use of hemp. This is a crop that is fast growing, requires less land, causes less environmental damage and yields up to 120% more energy than other forms of biomass (Prade et al 2011).

For all of its hyperbole, the doco provides little in the way of alternative solutions. In relation to energy alternatives, it seems to suggest continuing the use of fossil fuels. The world is being destroyed by the use of unsustainable fossil fuels, and Moore appears to advocate for continuing these practices.

One thing that Moore does get right is the need to reduce consumption. Capitalist economies are driven by consumerism, at the expense of other people and the environment. Slavery is the worst it has ever been as capitalists pursue excessive profits at the expense of the world's most vulnerable, through ever-increasing consumerism that is driven by greed for unnecessary products designed for short life expectancy through obsolence or perceived obsolence.

By the year 2000, consumption of iron ore had increased more than 1000% over the previous 100 years. In the first, 20 years of the 21st century, it increased a further 2000% (Callier 2018). During this time, carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 1500%, while water use, coal production and crop harvests increased between 500% and 1000%. These increases are unprecedented in history. Apart from increasing waste and environmental degradation, the dramatic increase in demand for raw materials is likely to result in resource scarcity, resulting in conflict and war (Callier 2018).

Callier (2018)

Some may see the documentary as championing fossil fuels, discrediting renewable technology and
justifying climate change denialism. However, the documentary's criticism of unfettered consumerism demonstrates the need for the planned international economy envisioned by Karl Marx. Our modern society has more knowledge of people's needs than ever before. Big data combined with artificial intelligence can be used to forecast production requirements to address everyone's needs and temper excess consumption. Robotics and additive manufacturing can produce those requirements efficiently using green technology. While robotics and additive manufacturing could cost jobs, ultimately, people will not need to work in such a world where their needs are forecast and met. This will fulfil another of Marx's ideas around a planned economy not requiring money. Yes, we could provide everyone a minimum living wage, however, this would just be a step on the path to doing away with money altogether. Why have money when our needs are already met through the power of big data, AI and robotics.

Moore states that renewable technology will not save the world. He is correct: renewable energy alone will not save the world, however, renewables must replace fossil fuels and be coupled with managing demand and reducing excessive consumption to ensure that the world remains liveable for future generations.

The world cannot continue exploiting people or the environment. It cannot continue using fossil fuels, which are limited resources, damage the environment and drive climate change through carbon emissions. The documentary may have been music to the ears of industrialists, climate change denialists and fossil fuel warriors, however, the puerile claim that renewable energy is as environmentally damaging as fossil fuels is naive and ignorant.

The world must continue developing and improving renewable technology to reduce social and environmental impacts, while society needs to reduce demand for unnecessary products that drive environmental degradation through their production and waste. At the same time, we must address abusive labour practices, in which more than 40 million people are in modern slavery, more than 150 million in child labor, and millions more exploited for low wages and horrendous working conditions.

References

Brakel, R 2020, 'Michael Moore attacks renewable industry by detonating his own credibility', Solarquotes Blog, 1 May, viewed 3 May 2020, https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/planet-of-humans-review/.

Callier, V 2018, 'The quickening pace of global metabolism', Knowable Magazine, 29 June, viewed 16 May 2020, https://www.knowablemagazine.org/article/sustainability/2018/quickening-pace-global-metabolism.

Climate Council 2019, '11 countries leading the charge on renewable energy', 13 January, viewed 11 May 2020, https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/11-countries-leading-the-charge-on-renewable-energy/.

Energy Informative n.d., 'The real lifespan of solar panels', viewed 16 May 2020, https://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/.

International Labour Organization 2017, '40 million in modern slavery and 152 million in child labour around the world', 19 November, viewed 4 May 2020, https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_574717/lang--en/index.htm.

Parkinson, G 2013, 'Graph of the Day: Myth of solar PV energy payback time', Renew Economy, 15 March, viewed 10 May 2020, https://reneweconomy.com.au/graph-of-the-day-myth-of-solar-pv-energy-payback-time-22167/.

Prade, T, Svensson, S, Andersson, A, Mattsson, JE 2011, 'Biomass and energy yield of industrial hemp grown for biogas and solid fuel', ScienceDirect, Biomass and bioenergy vol 35 (2011) 3040 e3049, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251627798_Biomass_and_energy_yield_of_industrial_hemp_grown_for_biogas_and_solid_fuel/link/5ac3287aaca27222c75d317a/download.

Raconteur 2018, 'Energy Transition', Raconteur, viewed 16 May 2020, https://res.cloudinary.com/yumyoshojin/image/upload/v1/pdf/responsible-business-2018.pdf.

REN21 2019, 'Renewables 2019 - Global Status Report', viewed 11 May 2020, https://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/gsr_2019_full_report_en.pdf.

Stahley, B 2019, 'Commercial solar panel degradation: What you should know and keep in mind', Sunpower, 1 August, viewed 16 May 2020, https://businessfeed.sunpower.com/articles/what-to-know-about-commercial-solar-panel-degradation.

Yale Climate Connections 2020, 'Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary attacks climate solutions', Ecowatch, 1 May, viewed 3 May 2020, https://www.ecowatch.com/michael-moore-climate-denial-2645892109.html.

COVID-19 Stimulus shows that Socialism is gazing at us from all windows of capitalist society

COVID-19 Stimulus shows that Socialism is gazing at us from all windows of capitalist society

By Ranting Panda, 11 April 2020

Ronald Reagan stated that 'the most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help'. Reagan is the grandfather of neo-liberal economics that aims for small government, to minimise government intervention.

So, it's kind of funny to see neo-liberals calling for greater government intervention to provide public health services and to support people who've lost their jobs. They are lauding Keynesian economics, while criticising the very capitalism that has caused much of the issues the world is now facing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Neo-liberal voters bagged the heck out of the 2008 Rudd/Swan stimulus package that saved more than 500,000 jobs and prevented Australia sinking into recession during the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, while many other first-world countries adopted austerity measures, that destroyed jobs and sunk their economies into recession. Now, many of these neo-liberal voters are lauding Morrison for his $300 billion stimulus package, which will plunge Australia into recession and likely result in significant tax increases: the very things that these voters feared that Bill Shorten would have done had he won the 2019 federal election. Morrison is looking for the Australian government to take over a portion of private hospitals, he is looking to garner support from banks to delay mortgage repayments, to have electricity companies reduce prices ... in other words, he is looking to nationalise many of these services. This is an endorsement of the importance of socialism and a discrediting of capitalism and the neo-liberal concept of small government.

Will all those retirees who are championing this stimulus and who voted to keep their franking credits in the 2019 election, now give them up to help pay for the stimulus that they claim to support? You know those franking credits on which no tax is effectively paid ... (it's paid by the company, who then pay a dividend to retirees, who pay no tax on the dividend, so the government gives these retirees a tax return when they've paid no tax ... yeah, not a bad rort huh? How good is it to get a tax return on dividends that you didn't pay any tax on? Contrast this with how franking credits are supposed to work: Company pays tax, then pays dividend to the shareholder, who also pays tax, so the government refunds the shareholders tax to avoid double taxation). Funnily enough, many of those retirees are quick to criticise welfare recipients for being a drain on the economy, while putting their hands out for unwarranted franking credits to the tune of $12 billion at a time when the government is releasing the biggest public spending program in Australia's history in an attempt to protect the economy.

Morrison's stimulus package is not predominantly aimed at supporting workers who have lost their jobs. When will workers realise that their continued support of neo-liberal politicians is in fact-anti-worker? After all, it's not like Morrison is reviving the economy and protecting workers in order to establish a worker-friendly state. He is only using some elements of socialist economics to shore up the economy so Australia can continue as a capitalist nation, empowering big business to exploit workers and reduce worker pay and conditions. As the leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese pointed out in an address to Parliament on 8 April 2020, Morrison's stimulus package is based on the 'structure of the business, not the needs of the workers'. So workers will be treated differently, depending on their employer.

Morrison's stimulus package does not cover every worker in Australia. There are more than one million Australian workers not covered by the Jobkeeper stimulus (Taylor 2020). Further, there are more than one million migrant workers in Australia, who Morrison has explicitly stated will not be eligible for either job-seeker or job-keeper benefits (Pupazzoni 2020). That's more than two million people who lost their jobs and have no income whatsoever. How are they expected to buy food, pay rent, or pay energy bills? The reason that so many are missing out on government support is because Morrison's stimulus is based on the business structure, not people's needs. It is estimated that it would cost a further $25 billion to extend the Jobkeeper program to cover casual and migrant workers (Duke & Bagshaw 2020). That equates to a further 20% increase to the current $130 billion Jobkeeper program. Sound like a lot? Consider the cost of not supporting these people as this crisis drags on. Australia is facing a humanitarian crisis if 2 million people are unable to afford food, accommodation and electricity.

In relation to migrant workers, conservatives have argued they should not have access to the same benefits as Australian citizens. Yet, Australia has been happy to take the $34 billion a year that international students pay for education (Tehan 2019). That amount already outweighs the $25 billion billion increase required to JobKeeper. Australia has been happy to employ migrant workers in jobs in which they are often underpaid and overworked, many receiving less than half the minimum wage (Davey 2018). We've been happy to take their taxes. But now, when the going gets tough and we should be showing compassion to international students and migrant workers, Australia is kicking them into the streets to starve, to suffer from illnesses that they are unable to have treated in Australian hospitals because they can't access Medicare. Morrison has stated that they should just return home if they can't support themselves. Really? If they can't afford to buy food or pay rent, they certainly can't afford a plane ticket. Additionally, many countries have now banned international travel, so how are migrants supposed to return to their country of origin? Morrison stated that international students are required to have the capacity to support themselves for 12 months. Yet, they have lost the jobs they rely on and some of their financial support comes from their families overseas, who are facing the same circumstances of job losses and lack of government support in their own nations.

Is Australia really the country of the fair go?

In the meantime, Melbourne City Council is looking to provide support for the 200,000 international students in Melbourne (Topsfield 2020). Further, the International Education Association of Australia is calling for a hardship fund to help students, with the fund to take contributions from universities and all levels of government. Hopefully, these programs will be established very quickly, because many international students are facing homelessness within weeks (O'Brien 2020).

A stimulus program is necessary, but Morrison's is not comprehensive enough and is not directed at the real needs of many people. Australia is facing a major crisis of poverty, homelessness, starvation and the subsequent social, crime and health issues this causes. Then there are the issues with social isolation, which if it continues too long, will result in civil disobedience and mental health issues as people become more frustrated and desperate to return to a normal life.

And this is just the situation in Australia.

The bigger issue is not just how Australia cares for its own people, but how developed nations look after people in developing countries who do not have the ability to provide welfare as Australia or the UK or New Zealand have. More than one million garment workers in Bangladesh have lost their jobs and now face extreme poverty and starvation (Frayer 2020). Thousands of call centre workers in the Philippines have lost their livelihoods and face extreme poverty. Researchers at UNU-WIDER estimate that the global effects of economic shutdowns could lead to a further half a billion people living in poverty (Sumner, Hoy & Ortiz-Juarez, 2020). They found that most of the poverty will be concentrated in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, with significant increases in the Middle East, North Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. They further conclude international fiscal support is necessary for these countries to provide health services and avoid poverty, starvation, homelessness, and the subsequent issues this leads to.

There is also the risk that with such a huge increase in poverty, there will be a corresponding increase in slavery. Currently, there are more than 40.3 million people enslaved globally, but this is anticipated to increase significantly, because of poverty and opportunism (Smith & Cockayne 2020). With both workers and business-owners losing livelihoods, there will be an increase in the numbers of desperate people vulnerable to exploitation, and of course, an increase in business-owners willing to exploit them to recover their own losses during and following this crisis. With education systems closed down, there is an increased risk of child labour and trafficking. COVID-19 restrictions have disrupted anti-slavery efforts, so there is less monitoring and response efforts to combating slavery.

For people in developed nations, deaths in developing nations often mean very little. But let's bring this home for a minute. During the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, neo-liberal governments implemented austerity measures. Australia did not. Australia's Labor government ran with a stimulus package, as it's conservative government is now. This saved hundreds of thousands of jobs and prevented Australia from recession. In contrast, the austerity measures implemented by the UK resulted directly in the deaths of more than 130,000 people (Helm 2019). Those are preventable deaths, some of whom died because the austerity policies cut funding to health services. Now, just three weeks into the lockdowns in the UK, reports are emerging of millions of people facing a hunger crisis, with more than 1.5 million having already gone a full day without food (Lawrence 2020). And the lockdowns are expected to last months! This is not going to end well.

It is tragically ironic that in countries such as Australia, the UK and the USA, the population is expecting public health services to treat COVID-19 cases, to save people's lives, and yet much of the population has supported the neo-liberal policies that have gutted funding of public health in favour of privatised, user-pays systems. In the UK, Prime Minister Boris Johnson contracted COVID-19 and was admitted to an Intensive Care Unit for treatment. Meanwhile, for years, both Labour and Tory governments in the UK stripped funding from the National Health Service (Pilger 2020).

The United States under Donald Trump, specifically dismantled Obamacare, which would have helped cover the costs of treatment, now patients are left to pay their own way. In developing countries, such as the Philippines, people are expected to pay immediately for their health treatment, yet many people are too poor to, and now that many workers have lost their jobs because of COVID-19, there are even more people unable to pay for health treatment, risking the likely spread of the virus and increasing death rates.

It is clear from this crisis, that there needs to be socialised medicine. There needs to be socialised welfare systems to protect the unemployed from poverty and homelessness. Energy companies need to be nationalised as many once were. There needs to be socialised education systems, so that anyone can afford a good education, not just the rich. It is clear that privatising essential services and utilities has increased the risk of failure of all these systems during the COVID-19 crisis. The very companies that these services have been outsourced to are now putting their hands out for government subsidies and support. Clearly, this shows the failure of neo-liberal economics.

It is clear that capitalism is just window-dressing for a degenerate society that glorifies wealth accumulation built on a foundation of social inequality and extreme exploitation. But ... when the going gets tough, capitalism is a dismal failure that screams for socialist intervention.

Lenin stated, '... socialism is now gazing at us from all the windows of modern capitalism; socialism is outlined directly, practically, by every important measure that constitutes a forward step on the basis of this modern capitalism' (Lenin 1917).

Socialism is gazing at us from all the windows of our modern capitalist society. Socialism is a necessity. Society cannot be run by the anarchy of the market. Socialism requires an international effort to combat global wealth inequalities, exploitation, and poverty.

Exacerbating the issues in the US, is the feckless President Donald Trump, who essentially requires states to beg him for ventilators. In the worst example of public corruption and moral abandonment, Trump is only dispatching life-saving ventilators, medicines and masks to loyalists, to those who suck up to him, rather than distributing them based on needs ... he even instructed the head of the Coronavirus Task Force, Mike Pence, 'not to call governors in states that are not appreciative'. (Denver Post 2020). Trump has led a bungled response to the crisis, not just in America, but globally. After a 2018 warning that a pandemic was the biggest security threat to the US, Trump dismantled the world's best global pandemic response system because it was set up by Obama (Shesgreen 2020). In China, he removed an expert from the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), who would have helped in advising on the containment of the virus (Derysh 2020). In this context, it is not surprising the USA has the world's highest number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 (Smith 2020) and the world's highest death toll (Maxouris & Andone 2020). Professor Bandy Lee of Yale University, is leading the World Mental Health Coalition, who is calling for Trump's removal on the grounds that he is not psychologically fit for office. They argue that he is battling reality, rather than the virus. The group has stated that, 'We have a presidency that is incapable of protecting lives but is making a global pandemic worse — not just through incompetence and ignorance, but through a dangerous detachment from reality, a need to convey false information, and other symptoms' (Derysh 2020).

The world will recover from COVID-19, however, it isn't the world's first pandemic and it won't be the last. As with any disaster, the recovery stage will take much longer than the response stage. The recovery stage will require addressing the global tragedy of poverty and all the consequences of that, which will include homelessness, starvation, sickness and death. Not to mention, increased crime as desperate people try to feed themselves and their families. The world, more than ever, must work together to address this tragedy. While this will impact developing countries more, it will also have a significant impact in developed countries as described earlier.

Ironically, we've seen some benefits from this crisis. With fewer people travelling, there has been a reduction in pollution and carbon emissions (Gardiner 2020). Many workers have been fortunate enough to keep their jobs and work from home. Once the crisis is over, telecommuting practices should be adopted permanently by businesses. Even if their staff telecommute a couple of times a week, this would dramatically reduce carbon emissions. The world must reconsider its consumption of unnecessary products, the destruction of habitats, its renewable energy mix. Because if these things continue unabated, then so will climate change. Just because the world's recent focus has been on the immediate impacts of COVID-19, doesn't meant that the existential threat of climate change has ceased. All that's happened is that we now have a bigger societal issue to contend with in the form of significant increases in unemployment and poverty.

Using cleaner energy would have saved lives during the COVID-19 crisis. COVID-19 is a respiratory illness. Analysis has shown that there is a link between air pollution and increased death rates. This includes in northern Italy and New York, where high death rates correlate with higher air pollution (Carrington 2020).

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have been worsened because of pollution and social inequality. Prior to COVID-19, pollution was killing up to seven million people a year, including more than 100,000 in the United States (Gardiner 2020). Yet, ignorantly, the United States government is using the pandemic as justification to roll-back pollution reduction policies and Obama-era policies on auto-mileage standards (Gardiner 2020). New York in particular, has exposed its inherent social inequalities, with most victims coming from poorer communities, which are predominantly African-American or Latino (Pilkington & Rao, 2020). One poignant observation about the reason for this is from urgent care physician, Uché Blackstock, who states, 'This pandemic is laying bare the inequities that have always existed in New York City ... We don’t invest in people, we don’t invest in neighborhoods, and this is what we get'.

There are three key priorities over the short-term, medium-term and long-term, which require an international response supported by sharing of wealth, putting people and environment ahead of wealth accumulation and exorbitant profits. The short-term priority is addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. The short to medium term priority is addressing the economic and social issues from shutting down economies globally in response to COVID-19. The long-term priority is to address climate change, which will continue unabated, posing an existential threat to society as we know it if we do not stop the waste, the emissions, and the exploitation of people and natural resources.






References

Carrington, D 2020, 'Air pollution linked to far higher Covid-19 death rates, study finds', The Guardian, 8 April, viewed 9 April 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/07/air-pollution-linked-to-far-higher-covid-19-death-rates-study-finds.

Davey, M 2018, 'A third of Australia's foreign workers paid less than half minimum wage – study', The Guardian, 29 October, viewed 13 April 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/29/a-third-of-australias-foreign-workers-paid-less-than-half-minimum-wage-study.

Denver Post Editorial Board 2020, 'Editorial: Trump is playing a disgusting political game with our lives', The Denver Post, 9 April, viewed 11 April 2020, https://www.denverpost.com/2020/04/09/coronavirus-editorial-trump-gardner-polis-supplies/.

Derysh, I 2020, 'Yale psychiatrist: Trump endangers lives by waging war on reality, not the coronavirus', Salon, 2 April, viewed 11 April 2020, https://www.salon.com/2020/04/02/yale-psychiatrist-trump-endangers-lives-by-waging-war-on-reality-not-the-coronavirus/.

Duke, J & Bagshaw, E 2020, 'Expanding JobKeeper to visa workers, casuals could cost $25 billion', Brisbane Times, 12 April, viewed 13 April 2020, https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/federal/expanding-jobkeeper-to-visa-workers-casuals-could-cost-25-billion-20200412-p54j50.html.

Frayer, L 2020, '1 Million Bangladeshi Garment Workers Lose Jobs Amid COVID-19 Economic Fallout', NPR, 3 April, viewed 11 April 2020, https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/03/826617334/1-million-bangladeshi-garment-workers-lose-jobs-amid-covid-19-economic-fallout.

Gardiner, B 2020, 'Pollution made COVID-19 worse. Now, lockdowns are clearing the air', National Geographic, 8 April, viewed 11 April 2020, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/04/pollution-made-the-pandemic-worse-but-lockdowns-clean-the-sky/.

Helm, T 2019, 'Austerity to blame for 130,000 ‘preventable’ UK deaths – report', The Guardian, 2 June, viewed 10 April 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/01/perfect-storm-austerity-behind-130000-deaths-uk-ippr-report.

Lawrence, F 2020, 'UK hunger crisis: 1.5m people go whole day without food', The Guardian, 11 April, viewed 12 April 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/11/uk-hunger-crisis-15m-people-go-whole-day-without-food.

Lenin, VI 1917, 'The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It: Chapter 11 Can We Go Forward If We Fear To Advance Towards Socialism?',     https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm

Maxouris, C & Andone, D 2020, 'The United States is reporting 20,000 coronavirus deaths, more than any other country', CNN, 11 April, viewed 12 April 2020, https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/11/health/us-coronavirus-updates-saturday/index.html.

O'Brien, A 2020. 'Australia's international students are 'weeks away from homelessness' due to coronavirus', SBS News, 10 April, viewed 10 April 2020, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-s-international-students-are-weeks-away-from-homelessness-due-to-coronavirus.

Pilger, J 2020, 'EP.867: John Pilger-What Governments Aren't Telling You About the Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19)', Going Underground, 8 April, viewed 11 April 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt58it26jCs&fbclid=IwAR39L_BmCIPt8DIwancTu58mjvkoWcGwmGv5pd5tWpMQeXDuyepTO8Ilh1I.

Pilkington, E & Rao, A 2020, 'A tale of two New Yorks: pandemic lays bare a city's shocking inequities', The Guardian, 10 April, viewed 11 April 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/10/new-york-coronavirus-inequality-divide-two-cities.

Pupazzoni, R 2020, 'Calls for migrant workers to be included in JobKeeper subsidy amid coronavirus crisis', ABC News, 8 April, viewed 8 April 2020, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-08/migrant-workers-are-struggling-due-to-coronavirus-jobseeker/12129798.

Shesgreen, D 2020, ''Gross misjudgment': Experts say Trump's decision to disband pandemic team hindered coronavirus response', USA Today, 18 March, viewed 16 April 2020, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/03/18/coronavirus-did-president-trumps-decision-disband-global-pandemic-office-hinder-response/5064881002/.

Smith, A & Cockayne, J 2020, 'This is the impact of COVID-19 on modern slavery', The Mandarin, 8 April, viewed 13 April 2020, https://www.themandarin.com.au/130272-this-is-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-modern-slavery/.

Smith, D 2020, 'US surpasses China for highest number of confirmed Covid-19 cases in the world', The Guardian, 27 March, viewed 10 April 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/26/coronavirus-outbreak-us-latest-trump.

Sumner, A, Hoy, C & Ortiz-Juarez, E 2020, Will COVID-19 lead to half a billion more people living in poverty in developing countries?, United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research, viewed 8 April 2020, https://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/will-covid-19-lead-half-billion-more-people-living-poverty-developing-countries. Note, that the full paper is available at https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/Publications/Working-paper/PDF/wp2020-43.pdf.

Taylor, J 2020, 'The workers shut out of jobkeeper: 'I've lost 100% of my business'', The Guardian, 9 April, viewed 10 April 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/09/the-workers-shut-out-of-jobkeeper-ive-lost-100-of-my-business.

Tehan, D 2019, 'https://ministers.dese.gov.au/tehan/continued-growth-international-education-sector', Ministers' Media Centre, Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 5 February, viewed 13 April 2020, https://ministers.dese.gov.au/tehan/continued-growth-international-education-sector.

Topsfield, J 2020, 'Melbourne City Council pledges financial support for foreign students', The Age, 8 April, viewed 10 April 2020, https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/melbourne-city-council-pledges-financial-support-for-foreign-students-20200408-p54i63.html.

Climate change - 4 factors of the apocalypse

Climate change - 4 factors of the apocalypse


There are several factors associated with climate change, but sceptics often confuse their disagreement with one to deny the veracity of others; essentially throwing the baby out with the bath water. These four key factors are interrelated, but also unique. Each is associated with climate change, but should be considered individually.

The four key factors are:

• Climate change
• believe it or not?
• Causes of climate change
• anthropogenic or natural?
• Long-term impact
• apocalypse or survivable?
• mitigate or adapt?
• Renewable energy versus fossil fuels
• infinite & clean or limited & polluting?

Why do these need to be considered separately? Because, those who disagree with anthropogenic causes of climate change, its long-term impacts and renewable energy, argue as though climate change is not occurring. They will often deny anthropogenic causes and long-term impacts to argue against both climate change and the need to divest from fossil fuels.

Climate strikes

On 11 September 2019, Greta Thunberg, a Swedish climate change activist was interviewed by Trevor Noah on The Daily Show while she was in the United States for a climate change summit. Noah asked Thunberg, 'Do you feel a difference in the conversation, travelling from Sweden to America? Is there a different feeling around climate change?' Greta answered poignantly, 'I would say yes. Because here (America), it is discussed as something whether you believe in or not believe in, and where I come from it's more like "it's a fact" '.

Greta's activism started with a solo protest in 2018 and has inspired millions of people to turnout across the globe to protest against inaction on climate change. Some people criticised the students who attended these strikes, saying they should have stayed in school, but this is part of their education. Schools will often arrange excursions to parliament house so students can learn about democracy and government. The protests could be considered a school excursion where students gain practical experience in exercising democratic rights, freedom of speech and campaigning for the Earth. Funny that those who tell them to stay in school, deny the very science the students are learning about climate change.

It is a sad indictment that those who are trying to do the right thing by people and the planet are criticised by those who refuse to believe the science, who refuse to improve the planet or help others, and who are lost in their own greed, selfishness and ignorance. Sceptics shoot the messenger instead of listening to the message. They would rather criticise others than take real action to reduce human damage to the planet.

It's better to be a do-gooder, than to be a do-nothing.

Greta Thunberg's solo protest in 2018 led to millions campaigning across the globe in 2019
(McFall-Johnsen 2019)

Scottish comedian, Frankie Boyle, also known for his ascerbic and pithy commentary, tweeted an interesting observation about the climate strikes. His tweet stated, 'That kids have got to take time out of their childhoods to explain climate science to us should be a matter of profound shame'.

Trawling through social media and it is evident that conservatives have adopted a common theme. They will claim that Greta and the other school kids are being manipulated into rehashing leftist propaganda. There was a time when scientists were revered as experts in their field and any child who could understand the science was lauded for their intellectual prowess. Now conservatives are happy to dumb-down the education system so that children simply parrot the ignorant drivel of the right-wing as it pushes a neo-liberal agenda to continue the exploitation of the earth and its inhabitants.

My personal favourite squawking point of conservatives though, is the one that says 'kids should be kids' and not be raised to have this 'indoctrinated' fear of an apocalyptic future. I find this particularly ironic when it's parroted by the religious right ... remember Sunday School and the threats of eternal hell and damnation for those who failed to bow the knee to the God of love? It wasn't just the threat that the poor child might burn for eternity in Stygian darkness where there was wailing and gnashing of teeth, but that their godless family would too. Yeah ... let kids be kids ... it's ok to indoctrinate them with lies of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, to convince them of being eternally tortured by demons in the fires of hell, but God forbid that children study science and, like the prophets of old, warn the world of the dire consequences of inaction. As an afterthought, what would be the carbon emissions from hell? Any chance it could use some offsets and be carbon neutral? Burn in hell or burn in a warming world ... one of these choices is supported by science and the other by ancient ignorance fuelled by fear to control populations. It isn't Greta Thunberg who is being manipulated, it is the conservatives who refuse to accept the science.

Climate change

Climate change is occurring. This is indisputable. Whether you believe that the cause is part of Earth's natural cycles or caused by human factors is irrelevant. Quantifiable evidence proves that the world's climate is the warmest it has been in millennia. The planet's average temperature is around one degree warmer than it was 100 years ago, with much of the increase occurring in the last 35 years (NASA n.d.). To argue that we've always had hot summers or severe weather events, shows extreme ignorance of scientific research, because scientists do actually research and compare historical data.

The key word in 'climate change' is climate. Despite this, sceptics will often confuse climate and weather. If they experience a cold day or a cold winter, they'll laugh at any claim of a warming planet. Climate is the average weather pattern over a long period of time. Weather is the state of the atmosphere at any given point in time. Weather is a physical phenomenon. For example, hot air has lower pressure than cold air because the molecules are not as densely packed. This lower pressure can affect the flow of cold air as higher pressure areas flow into lower pressure areas. A warming climate causes change in weather conditions. For example, scientists have found that warmer conditions in the Arctic result in more severe winters across Europe and and North America (Gibbens 2019).

The planet is warming. Some people will say this is merely part of the normal cycles of the Earth, while others will state that humans are contributing to it through excessive emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon.

But right there we have agreement: the world is warming. Regardless of the cause, the climate is warming on a global scale.

The cause is increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. But why the focus on CO₂? After all, there are other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. CO₂ affects the global warming in a unique way. CO₂ is responsible for around two-thirds of the world’s total energy imbalance because it absorbs less heat than other greenhouse gases (Lindsay 2019), which means it traps more heat, somewhat like a doona.

It may help to understand how much of the atmosphere is comprised of green-house gases before trying to understand the impact that human-induced carbon emissions has on global warming. The atmosphere is comprised of 78% oxygen and 21% nitrogen, totalling 99%. Neither of these are green-house gases. The remaining one percent includes various trace gases and the dominate green-house gases CO₂, H₂0, CH₄ (methane) and N₂0 (nitrous oxide). These gases are what keep the world warm. Before the industrial revolution, these gases comprised 300th of one percent of the atmosphere (OSS n.d). Because we are dealing with such miniscule concentrations to keep the Earth warm, relatively small changes can have a significant impact.

Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is the highest it’s been in more than five million years. For 10,000 years, CO₂ concentrations ranged from 280 to 290 parts per million (ppm), but over the last 150 years, CO₂ concentrations have increased to 400ppm (Chang 2020). Where CO₂ was 280th of one percent of the pre-industrial atmosphere, it is now 400th of one percent. This is a 43% change in the atmospheric CO₂ concentration in 150 years!

It isn’t just the impact on the atmosphere that CO₂ increases are a concern, it also the impact on the ocean. CO₂ reacts with water molecules to produce carbonic acid, which lowers the ocean’s pH levels, thus increasing ocean acidification. The ocean’s pH level has dropped from 8.21 to 8.1 since pre-industrial times. This may not seem much, however, changes in pH levels have an exponential impact: a reduction of 0.1 in pH results in a 30% increase in acidification (Lindsay 2019). One impact of this is reduction in the ability for marine life to extract calcium from the water, which they need for building their shells or skeletons.

Methane is another green-house gas. Global warming is already causing Arctic permafrost to melt. There is a substantial quantity of methane stored beneath the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, which is already leaking into the atmosphere (Black 2010). As temperatures continue to rise, more of the methane will be released, increasing the greenhouse effect.

But are humans causing this increase in greenhouse gases?

Causes of climate change

This is really the main issue that sceptics have. If they separate this from climate change, they will usually admit that the planet is hotter than it has been for thousands of years; they will admit that they do not disagree with global warming, just the causes of it. So now we're making progress. Most people do believe in global warming. Yay!

Comprehensive studies have found that more than 97% of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic causes being the major factor in climate change (Nuccitelli 2019). Sceptics have tried to argue against this by citing articles that are usually not published by climate scientists or which haven't been peer-reviewed. One favourite is to refer to a petition that sceptics claim was signed by dozens of leading scientists opposing Canada's commitment to the Kyoto protocol, yet most of those who signed were not climate scientists and some were journalists (Le Page 2007a).

Carbon dioxide emissions are often referred to as pollution. Some sceptics argue that carbon dioxide is not pollution. Who cares what it is called, carbon dioxide is a green-house gas, and green-house gases warm the planet. That is without dispute.

So have people contributed to warming of the planet? Well, we live in a highly industrialised society of 7.5 billion people who are pumping out green-house gas emissions, including carbon dioxide among others, on a scale never before seen in recorded history. It should be kept in mind that scientists are not saying that the world's natural cycles are no longer in existence. They are saying that human factors have contributed to climate change and are exacerbating its effects. The following chart shows that atmospheric CO₂ is the highest its been for more than 800,000 years, spiking from 1950 onwards. Can this really be blamed on natural climate cycles? As stated above, atmospheric CO₂ concentration has increased by 43% since pre-industrial times.

Atmospheric CO₂ (NASA n.d.)

Arguments against anthropogenic factors will often make comparisons to other events, for instance the Medieval Warming Period between 800CE and 1300CE. Scientists were criticised for their 'hockey stick graph' published in 2001, that showed a dramatic increase in global temperatures over the last 1000 years. The following is the original hockey stick graph (Le Page 2007b).

Sceptics claim that this model was fabricated, that scientists deliberately lied about the rise in temperatures. However, this isn't true. It is probably not a surprise, but there were no temperature records kept 1000 years ago. The original hockey stick model was based on modelling and assumptions regarding indicators of temperature, such as data from tree rings, coral, ice cores and historical records. While some of these assumptions have been corrected over time, scientists still conclude a significant increase in global temperatures over the last 1000 years. The following graph compares current research to the original hockey graph, showing that while it was over-stated, it wasn't that far off (Le Page 2007b). Ah, the benefits of peer-reviewed research ... as compared to those so-called scientists who publish articles that haven't been peer-reviewed..

Another argument is that volcanoes put out much more green-house gases than humans do. Funnily enough, scientists are an inquisitive lot and have researched this. Volcanoes (both on land and undersea) emit around 200 million tons of carbon per year (EarthTalk 2009). Whereas burning of fossil fuels emitted more than 36 billion tons in 2018 (Harvey 2018). Busting out the calculator we can see that volcanoes account for around half of one percent of the emissions of fossil fuels. The following chart is based on data from NASA and models emissions from volcanoes since 1880 against industrial carbon emissions ('What's really warming the world' 2015). So if people are willing to assign partial blame for climate change to volcanoes, why can't they accept emissions from fossil fuels must carry some blame too? After all, emissions from fossil fuels are 180 times that of emissions from volcanoes ... as of 2018. If we don't reduce these emissions, they will increasingly dwarf volcanic carbon emissions.

Compare this to green-house gas emissions, where there has been a 40% increase since 1750 (Bloomberg Business Week 2015).

Obviously, volcanoes are only one of the natural sources of CO₂ and other greenhouse gas emissions. When compared to all sources of greenhouse gases, industrial sources contribute about 5% of total global emissions. This may not sound like much, but there are a number of issues with this. Prior to about 1750, CO₂ emissions were roughly in balance with the absorption of CO₂ in heat sinks, which include the ocean, soil and forests. As human population has grown, there has been an increasing amount of deforestration and land conversion which has reduced the amount of heat sinks available to absorb CO₂. The ocean absorbs some of these natural emissions that are no longer sequestered by land and forests, as well as some anthropogenic emissions. In doing so, there is increasing acidification of oceans, causing damage to ocean ecosystems, including reefs, fish and other ocean life. Around 40% of anthropogenic emissions are absorbed by heat sinks, while the rest remains in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. The following image compares natural and anthropogenic production of CO₂, (note, that this shows 2004 emissions, whereas 2018 emissions are 36 gigatons, a 27% increase in 14 years).

Carbon dioxide sources and sinks
(Brahic 2007)

The IPCC predicts that there are irreversible long-term effects of anthropogenic CO₂ emissions, including the very likely continuation of increasing ocean acidification throughout the remainder of the century as oceans continue absorbing atmospheric CO₂, which is also rising because of land clearance and fossil fuel emissions (IPCC 2013, p. 469).

One argument against climate change is that it is a myth propagated by scientists seeking funding for research. Believe it or not, climate change is not the only show in town. Scientists get research funding for all manner of things, not just climate change. If there was no such thing as climate change, scientists would continue to be funded for other research.

Severity of impact

Just how serious will the impact of climate change be? Sceptics often carry on as though there will be no impact, however, some of that impact is being felt right now. Pacific Island nations are being affected by rising sea water, while the world is experiencing extreme weather events associated with the warmer climate.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts the planet will be largely unlivable by 2100. A paper published by the Breakthrough National Centre (BNC), an Australian think-tank, predicts that if carbon emissions are not reduced by 2050, there is a 'high likelihood of human civilisation coming to an end' (Ahmed 2019). Retired Admiral Chris Barrie, who now works for the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University in Canberra, believes that much of the knowledge provided to governments is too conservative, so existential risks are not identified or addressed (Ahmed 2019).

As mentioned earlier, climate change isn't the only show in town. Overpopulation and over-consumption are destroying forests and habitats, polluting air and water resources, and causing defaunation (the extinction of animal species and populations).

While not solely caused by climate change, defaunation is a major concern which has scientists suggesting that the world may be experiencing the sixth mass extinction event. Over the last century, we have witnessed the extinction of more than 200 species of animals and more than one billion animal populations, as a result of anthropogenic causes associated with key drivers of overpopulation and over-consumption, including over-exploitation of natural resources and habitats, pollution, toxification and climate disruption (Gerardo, Ehrlich & Dirzo 2017). These population decreases are a prelude to species extinction. Conservative estimates conclude that up to 50% of individual animals have been lost, with forecasts that this will worsen over the next couple of decades, threatening the future of both animal and human life (Gerardo, Ehrlich & Dirzo 2017). In Germany, more than 77% of insects have disappeared since 1989, while in North America, there's 2.9 billion fewer birds than in 1970, approximately a 29% reduction (Kilvert 2019). This impacts ecosystems, as birds and some insects pollinate crops, distribute seeds, may be predator or prey and perform many other ecosystem functions. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) estimates that of the eight million species of animals, around one million are threatened with extinction within the next few decades (Sustainable Development Goals 2019). Climate change will impact ecosystems as animals struggle to survive. Those that adapt to warming will still be impacted because of the loss of other animals that their food chain is reliant on. If a predator adapts, but their prey doesn't, the predator will suffer as well.

The anthropogenic causes of defaunation, are also contributing to global warming. Deforestation for instance, results in the production of less oxygen, thus changing the atmospheric balance in favour of carbon dioxide, which is exacerbated by human overpopulation and industrialisation producing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Ironically, two of the world's largest carbon emitting countries are also responsible for reducing the impact of global warming by planting almost one third of all new trees and plants on Earth over the last 20 years. While this greening helps the Earth, NASA believes that it does not offset the damage done to rainforest clearing in places such as the Amazon Basin, Democratic Republic of Congo and Indonesia. Some of this greening is because of agricultural industries which have converted native habitats into farms, which further drives defaunation and deforestation.

While some forecasts of the severity of climate change over the next few decades may seem alarmist, the concern is not just the impact of carbon emissions, but that it is coupled with other human-related environmental impacts. When sceptics state that 1000 years ago, the earth experienced this level of warming, they ignore the fact that people were not contributing to it through mass deforestation, defaunation, water scarcity, soil depletion, toxification, pollution of air and water, and excessively high and constant carbon-emitting industrialisation.

Climate change predictions are that more crops will fail, creating food shortages, while rising sea temperatures will reduce ocean productivity, impacting more than 20% of the world's population who rely on the ocean for food (McNutt 2013).

The mining and production of fossil fuels causes significant environmental damage through land clearance, pollution, and mineral run-off into rivers and seas. Investment in renewables and sustainable production will reduce carbon emissions, have less environmental damage and improve human health.

Global warming is contributing to rising sea levels in two ways: melting of land-based ice and thermal expansion of oceans because water expands as it warms (NOAA 2019). Approximately 10% of land on Earth is covered in ice, such as in glaciers and ice sheets which store around 69% of the world's fresh water (NSIDC n.d.). Land-based glaciers are mainly located in Greenland and Antarctica, but also found on most continents, including areas such as North America, Central Asia, North Asia, Africa and New Zealand. Rising sea-levels will create havoc for many of the world's major cities that are built close to coastal areas. This may result in the relocation of more than one billion people in the second half of this century (Spratt & Dunlop 2019, p. 13).

Some people are predicting apocalyptic scenarios caused by global warming. Others do not agree with the end of the world prognosis. Petteri Taalas, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization has rebuked climate alarmists, stating that it is not going to be the end of the world. Taalas isn't saying that global warming is not a problem, but he is saying that 'we should stay calm and ponder what is really the solution to this problem' (Pentchoukov 2019). He acknowledges that there will be significant problems for some parts of the world, but that people can survive harsh conditions. Taalas isn't the only one who agrees with anthropogenic climate change, but who doesn't believe its impact will be as severe as some are claiming it will be.

Regardless of the causes or severity of climate change, what we do know is that the world is warming, is over-populated and people are over-consuming natural resources.

Renewable energy versus fossil fuels

Climate change activists are criticised for travelling in planes and cars emitting carbon, yet, how else are they going to travel. If anything, this is the very reason why climate change activists are campaigning for renewable energy. This criticism merely serves to make the case that activists are trying to make; that we need to invest in alternative and renewable sources of energy.

Economically, it makes far more sense to replace fossil fuels with renewables. For instance, the world is at the behest of major oil producing countries and organisations, such as OPEC. Recent drone strikes on two of the world's largest oil installations in Saudi Arabia are likely to result in higher oil prices globally (Hubbard, Karasz & Reed 2019). If nations were not importing their oil, but were able to produce their own energy, then there would be less risk of external actions threatening their energy supply and economies.

In Australia, the government has been attacking renewables and praising coal for years. This is extremely short-sighted because many nations are increasing their investment in renewables and divesting from coal and other fossil fuels. Yes, at the moment, there is a global reliance on coal, but many nations are increasing their investment in renewables. Conservative commentators like to claim that nations such as India and China are continuing to build coal-fired power stations. This is only half the story. These power stations are to meet immediate need, yet both nations are investing in renewables and divesting from coal as they plan for the future. India is one of the world's largest producers of renewable energy and over the last three years, has invested more in solar energy then in fossil fuels (Cockburn 2019). By 2024, India plans to reduce its coal imports by at least a third, and by 2030 it is estimated that coal's share of India's energy generation will reduce from 72% to 50% (Singh 2019).

In April 2019, the United States produced more renewable energy than coal-generated energy (Milman 2019). Production of renewable energy is becoming cheaper than coal as investment shifts to more sustainable and cleaner energy sources. On the back of investment, India produces the world's cheapest solar energy (Wood 2019).

Coal accounts for only five percent of the United Kingdom's energy mix and will be phased out entirely be 2025 (Thomas, Hook & Tighe 2019). This has occurred while the UK continues to have a strong economy.

Conclusion

Of the four factors above, we can conclude that climate change is occurring, most climate scientists believe in anthropogenic causes, the world is slowly increasing its use of renewables although over-consumption and over-population are contributing to climate change and driving other environmental risks, while there is some disagreement over the severity of climate change effects.

Actions to address climate change generally fall into two areas: adaptation and mitigation. Adaptation requires adjusting to changing conditions, perhaps through relocation of communities, types of crops grown and taking advantage of longer growing seasons. Mitigation involves reducing green-house gas emissions through replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, and enhancing areas of sequestration, such as oceans, forests and soil.

Both sceptics and those who dismiss the apocalyptic forecasts prefer adaptation, because they believe it is more practical and less damaging economically. Meanwhile, mitigation is the main area of focus by activists.

Por que no los dos?

Adaptation is essential because mitigation is not going to dramatically reduce carbon emissions quickly enough to have a significant impact in the short-term. However, ong-term change will only be effected by adopting mitigation strategies now.

Many Australians, including some of its politicians, don't believe that Australia needs to take action because its contribution to global carbon emissions is tiny compared to much larger nations. Yet, at only 1.19% of the global total, Australia was the 16^th largest producer of fossil fuel emissions in 2018. That leaves a further 205 countries with lower emissions than Australia. The consolidated emissions from Australia and these other 205 countries totals almost 25% of the world's fossil fuel emissions (Global Carbon Atlas 2019). Australia, as a developed western nation, must set an example for these nations in taking action to reduce carbon emissions. Every little bit helps. An astute, and somewhat cynical contributor to a local paper observed, his minuscule use of water compared to the larger total meant that he shouldn't have to comply with Sydney's water restrictions because it would make no difference based on Australia using the same reasoning to justify its reluctance to comply with carbon emission targets ... of course, if everyone thought like that ...

Let's assume that fossil fuel emissions are not contributing to the planet. Is it really such a bad thing to have cleaner energy. Apart from improved environmental outcomes, it would improve energy security. Imagine not being at risk of oil shortages because of war in the Middle East. Australia holds around three weeks worth of fuel in reserve, posing a significant risk to our economy, lifestyles and industry if there's war or other external security factors threatening it (McCutchan 2018).

With a population of almost eight billion people, the world cannot afford for us to continue consuming natural resources at the rate that we are. While there are some natural resources we still need to mine, for example, cadmium, zinc and other metals used in the goods we require, we can look at how we power those mines and the logistics used in transportation, storage and manufacturing. We can improve reverse logistics, to enhance recycling, reusing or repurposing of components and products. We can ensure mining is done sustainably to minimise environmental impacts, pollution, and run-offs into waterways. Meanwhile, mining of coal and extraction of other fossil fuels can be reduced and replaced in the long-term by production of cleaner, more sustainable, renewable energy. We could consider other resources for manufacturing products. Hemp, for instance, can be used in place of textiles, wood, plastic and so on. It is far more sustainable and presents massive environmental benefits.

What's the worst that could happen if governments and businesses reduce carbon emissions and embrace renewable energy? We end up with cleaner air, cleaner water, energy independence and security, healthier planet and people, improved liveability, food security, and sustainable industries that benefit people and the environment.

References

Ahmed, N 2019, 'New report suggests 'high likelihood of human civilization coming to an end' starting in 2050', Vice, 4 June, viewed 20 September 2019, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/597kpd/new-report-suggests-high-likelihood-of-human-civilization-coming-to-an-end-in-2050.

Black, R 2010, ‘The history of air', Smithsonian Magazine, 18 April, viewed 27 January 2020, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-history-of-air-21082166/.

Brahic, C 2007, 'Climate myths: Human CO₂ emissions are too tiny to matter', New Scientist, 16 May, viewed 24 September 2019, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/.

Ceballos, G, Ehrlich, P & Dirzo, R 2017, 'Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,  Vol. 114, No. 30, pp. E6089-E6096.

Chang, C 2020, ‘The science behind climate change and its impact on bushfires’, The Courier Mail, 25 January, viewed 26 January 2020, https://www.couriermail.com.au/technology/the-science-behind-climate-change-and-its-impact-on-bushfires/news-story/72de9c9ac880e98cb6c7fd14bfd6e509.

Cockburn, H 2019, 'India investing more money in solar power than in coal for first time', The Independent, 20 May, viewed 15 September 2019, https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/india-coal-solar-power-investment-money-climate-change-iea-a8921961.html.

Dunne, D 2019,  'One-third of world’s new vegetation in China and India, satellite data shows', Carbon Brief, 12 February, viewed 16 September 2019, https://www.carbonbrief.org/one-third-worlds-new-vegetation-in-china-and-india-satellite-data-shows.

EarthTalk 2009, 'Are volcanoes or humans harder on the atmospher', Scientific American, 11 February, viewed 20 September 2019, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/.

Gibbens, S 2019, 'Why cold weather doesn't mean climate change is fake', National Geographic, 23 January, viewed 15 September 2019, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/climate-change-colder-winters-global-warming-polar-vortex/.

Global Carbon Atlas 2019, CO2 emissions website, viewed 28 December 2019, http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions.

Harvey, C 2018, 'CO₂ emissions reached an all-time high in 2018', Scientific American, 6 December, viewed 20 September 2019, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-emissions-reached-an-all-time-high-in-2018/.

Hubbard, B, Karasz, P, Hubbard B 2019, 'Two major Saudi oil installations hit by drone strikes, and US blames Iran', New York Times, 14 September, viewed 15 September 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-refineries-drone-attack.html.

IPCC 2013, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp., https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.

Kilvert, N 2019, 'Bird populations are collapsing, and it's a sign of a bigger problem', ABC News, 20 September, viewed 20 September 2019, https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-09-20/birds-collapse-us-bees-ecology-environment/11520008.

Le Page, M 2007a, 'Climate myths: Many leading scientists question climate change', New Scientist, 16 May, viewed 15 September 2019, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11654-climate-myths-many-leading-scientists-question-climate-change/.

Le Page, M 2007b, 'Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong', New Scientist, 16 May, viewed 15 September 2019, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/

Linsday, R 2019, Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 19 September, viewed 26 January 2020, https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.

McCutchan, E 2018, 'Fact check: Does Australia have 3 weeks of petrol in reserve?', ABC News, 12 July, viewed 21 September 2019, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-23/fact-check-jim-molan-fuel-security/9687606.

McFall-Johnsen 2018, '2 striking photos taken just over a year apart show how Greta Thunberg's climate strike inspired millions', 21 September, viewed 21 September 2019, https://www.businessinsider.com.au/2-photos-show-how-greta-thunbergs-climate-strike-inspired-millions-2019-9.

McNutt, M 2013, 'Climate change impacts', Science, Vol. 341, No. 6145, pp. 435.

Milman, O 2019, 'US generates more electricity from renewables than coal for first time ever',  The Guardian, 27 Jun, viewed 14 September 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/26/energy-renewable-electricity-coal-power.

NASA n.d., Climate change: How do we know?, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, viewed 21 September 2019, https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/.

NOAA 2019, Is sea level rising, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, viewed 20 September 2019, https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

NSIDC n.d., Facts about glaciers, National Snow and Ice Data Centre, viewed 21 September 2019, https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/information.html.

Nuccitelli, D 2019, 'Millions of times later, 97 percent climate consensus still faces denial', The Bulletin,15 August, viewed 14 September 2019, https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/millions-of-times-later-97-percent-climate-consensus-still-faces-denial/.

OSS n.d., Atmospheric composition, OSS Foundation, viewed 27 January 2020, http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/atmospheric-composition.

Pentchoukov, I 2019, 'Chief of World Meteorological Organization castigates climate alarmists', The Epoch Times, 8 September, viewed 14 September 2019, https://www.theepochtimes.com/chief-of-world-meteorological-organization-castigates-climate-alarmists_3073666.html.

Roston, E & Migliozzi, B 2015, 'What's really warming the world?' Bloomberg Businessweek, 24 June, viewed 15 September 2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/?.

Singh, RK 2019, 'India, world's No. 2 coal buyer, plans to cut imports by a third', Bloomberg, 1 August, viewed 14 September 2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-01/india-world-s-no-2-coal-buyer-plans-to-cut-imports-by-a-third.

Spratt, D & Dunlop, I 2019, The Third Degree: Evidence and implications for Australia of existential climate-related security risk, Breakthrough - National Centre for Climate Restoration, https://www.breakthroughonline.org.au/papers.

Sustainable Development Goals 2019, UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating, United Nations, 6 May, viewed 20 September 2019, https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/.

Thomas, N, Hook, L, & Tighe, C 2019, 'How Britain ended its coal addiction', Financial Times, 1 October, viewed 27 December 2019, https://www.ft.com/content/a05d1dd4-dddd-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc.

Wood, J 2019, 'India is now producing the world's cheapest solar energy', World Economic Forum, 28 June, viewed 14 September 2019, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/06/india-is-now-producing-the-world-s-cheapest-solar-power.


Updated 27 January 2020