Posts Tagged ‘climate change’
Just a few thoughts on climate change and the obstacles…
There are people in the world, in their millions or billions, who know, with as much certainty they can have about anything, that their god or gods exist. Yet, since they don’t all believe in the same gods, they cannot, as a matter of logic, all be correct, and there’s a strong possibility that none of them are. That’s my belief, but is it just a belief?
But my intention here is not to go on about religion, I’m thinking more about knowledge or what people claim as knowledge. For example, and this is my real topic here, some people claim that climate change, or anthropogenic global warming, is a myth, a mistaken belief, or a plot of some sort – a plot developed by certain people who somehow stand to gain by pedalling misinformation. And some people claim this without really believing it, while others presumably believe in it to the point of refusing to examine the science, which they strongly suspect is just indecipherable gobbledygook.
This seems to be the case for many people on ‘the extreme right’, but what exactly is the extreme right?
I tend to consider extremists as people who believe without thinking. Certainly without trying to think carefully or deeply. Another term often used is ideologue. An ideologue is someone who is, in a sense ‘previously convinced’ and ‘thinks’ from that previously convinced perspective, which is generally drawn from strong family and/or cultural influences. I don’t believe however, that they’re hopeless cases, or I don’t want to believe it.
An ideology is often something you will adhere to especially if you are treated well within and feel you’ve benefitted from that family and cultural background. For example, if your parents are both devout Christians and have treated you with kindness and devotion, and you feel strongly that you’ve benefitted from their parenting, you’re likely to feel a strong urge to continue in their tradition and to see the world through that lens.
Climate change ‘skepticism’, however is a non-belief, and it’s often, but not always, connected to a general skepticism of science (I’ve heard tell of Nobel Prize winning scientists who don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming). There are many people who are very ‘turned-off’ by science – not so much clueless as totally uninterested in looking for clues. Science just doesn’t matter to them, again due to background influences. And a lot of such people are in high-level political positions, especially in the USA. Again this is often because they are preoccupied with other things, such as power, wealth or fame – the phenomenon known as ‘getting ahead’, or ‘getting on top’. It would be interesting to ask Donald Trump, or say Nigel Farage, or Australia’s Jacinta Price, to expatiate on their favourite science. Or perhaps not.
These are three people who, I suspect, have never given any thought to finding out about climate change. I mean, doing some very basic research on the subject. And this is largely incomprehensible to people who, when they don’t know much, or enough for their sense of self-pride, about a subject, make some effort at learning more about it – like how the adaptive immune system works, or how we discovered exoplanets, or what’s this thing about birds being dinosaurs. They’ve been encouraged, perhaps even without realising it, to wonder about such things.
One of the problems of our political systems, whether democratic or otherwise, is that we generally find ourselves being led politically, not by people who want to know or learn stuff, but by people who want to control stuff. People who are ambitious for themselves. Examples of such people are too numerous and obvious to mention. And of course the opposite is generally also true – people who want to ‘find things out’ aren’t so much driven by the lure of wealth, power and control.
In the case of climate change, which is much about what we are doing with our wealth, politics and science often clash. It is a fact that our planet is warming faster than at any point in human history, and this is clearly due to greenhouse gas emissions. China is the largest emitter overall, and the USA, second in overall terms, is the largest emitter on a per capita basis, of the world’s highly populated nations (per capita emissions in some Middle Eastern countries, and in Palau, are quite a bit higher). However, China’s total emissions are between twice and three times that of the USA. Its government accepts the facts about global warming and is apparently committed to ‘achieve carbon neutrality by 2060’, though this will be extremely difficult, to put it mildly, given its plans for economic growth. As to the USA, its target will no doubt vary depending on which monarch is on the throne. And please believe me, that isn’t a joke.
We need, of course, to look to the big emitters overall – China, USA, India and Russia, in that order – because we in Australia are minnows in comparison – interestingly, we’re 16th in both overall and per capita emissions. Still, it would be great if we could set an example.
According to the Worldometer website, which I hope is reliable, and which unfortunately only has data to 2022, CO2 emissions are still rising worldwide, though in some major emitting countries, such as China and Russia, they’re reducing slightly, while in other mostly developing countries, such as Indonesia, they’re rising fast.
There are other sources which give more recent data, but the overall picture is complex. Many regions are quickly developing alternatives to fossil fuels to supply their energy needs, but global consensus on the problem, and especially from major emitters, is essential for success – success being measured by keeping global average temperatures to, if possible, 1.5 degrees, or at most 2 degrees, above a baseline (the average between 1861 and 1890). Many have given up on the 1.5 target, and a 2024 poll found that only 12% of US ‘Republicans and Republican leaners’ considered climate change to be a major government priority. This is serious considering that Republicans will probably be in power there for the next 50 years or so, given current trends.
Interesting times….
References
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
the curbing emissions front 2- problems both environmental and political
Young people, indeed, all people, need to understand that they cannot solve the energy and climate problem without addressing the special interest problem in Washington.
James Hanson, climate scientist
There are wet and dry heat waves. The wet ones are also known as wet bulb events. Dry heat waves are generally driven by large high pressure systems. From Wikipedia,
High-pressure systems are frequently associated with light winds at the surface and subsidence through the lower portion of the troposphere. In general, subsidence will dry out an air mass by adiabatic or compressional heating. Thus, high pressure typically brings clear skies.
The wet bulb events are of most immediate concern. For example, Karachi in Pakistan experienced one in July 2015, with heat stroke killing some 1200 people in a 10-day ‘pressure cooker’. The wet bulb idea refers to the fact that in a humid environment our sweat has less chance of evaporating and cooling us down. It’s defined much more specifically, though – the wet-bulb temperature is ‘the lowest temperature that can be reached under current ambient conditions by the evaporation of water only.’ No, I don’t know what this means either. Apparently there’s such a thing as a wet-bulb thermometer, but that doesn’t help. What is adiabatic cooling? That’s when air is cooled by expansion without any heat exchange with the surrounding environment. Why do I even mention this? I do understand, I think, that when air, or anything, expands, it likely cools, just as when it’s compressed, it heats up. But this surely involves heat exchange. Or the heat ‘dissipates’, is less ‘concentrated’ as it spreads. I don’t know if this is heat exchange or not. I wish I’d never heard of wet bulb events, but I think I can understand that humid heat would be more harmful to humans than dry heat.
Changing the subject, ice is melting at the poles and sea levels are rising, and don’t forget ocean acidification. And the USA, perhaps the biggest national contributor to the problem, which under Trump is happy to exacerbate things (pity about a politico-social system more or less designed for dictators and their mega-wealthy enablers), is likely to do a lot of the irreparable over the next few years. But on sea level rise, many of our largest cities are essentially ports, including the USA’s oil ports, Houston and Galveston. Other threatened ports are in Saudi Arabia, China, South Korea and Russia. Singapore is also in the firing, or drowning line. And of course all of Australia’s major cities are by the sea.
Rising ocean levels are of course long-term (and likely permanent) stuff. In the short-term, that’s to say right this minute, England and western Europe is experiencing a heat wave, and Alaska has recently received a heat advisory for the first time in its history. And we’re not long into summer, and if I’m not mistaken there will be another summer next year, and so forth. Meanwhile the Joke Bogans and their supporters, the one-winged neoliberal ‘think tanks’ with their deep pockets and narrow self-serving concerns, are spruiking denialism and disinformation at every opportunity. Unsurprisingly, much of this disinformation is manufactured and consumed in the USA, as Wikipedia reports:
A 2022 study found that the public in many countries substantially underestimates the degree of scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change. Studies from 2019–2021 found scientific consensus to range from 98.7–100%. Research found that 80–90% of Americans underestimate the prevalence of support for major climate change mitigation policies and climate concern. While 66–80% Americans support these policies, Americans estimate the prevalence to be 37–43%. Researchers have called this misperception a false social reality, a form of pluralistic ignorance.
This, I feel, is due to the noise made by vested interests, which many wrongly believe to be about genuine climate change scepticism rather than business-as-usual cynicism. A major perpetrator of this cynicism here is Sky News Australia, and the oligarchs who fund it, and of course there are plenty of others. Gina Rinehart, Campbell Newman, Colin Boyce and Hugh Morgan are some of the culprits, but there are many others. Some even try to claim that we’ll be saved by ‘the next ice age’. They can’t effectively deny the current record-breaking temperatures so they try the ‘scientific’ line that it’s part of a natural cycle, somewhat like the Milankovich cycles I’ve written about previously, or the solar magnetic cycle, an 11 year cycle in which the magnetic poles of the sun reverse. This cycle does affect the amount of solar radiation we receive, but only slightly. But we know that temperatures are currently rising even when the energy received from the sun is reduced – the greenhouse effect, in effect. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have in the deep past been effective in ‘releasing’ the planet from ice-bound states.
The Keeling Curve, which has been measuring CO2 in the atmosphere for decades, has it currently at 429.03 ppm, from 315 ppm at its first measurement in 1958, and the increase is accelerating. It’s currently at the highest level for the last million years or so. We know this from measuring bubbles in Antarctic ice cores. Scientists can also distinguish atmospheric CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, as it has a different chemical signature from naturally occurring CO2. This is rather amazing, and I’m not sure how they know this, but if it identifies the culprit, that’s all to the good. Maybe I’ll write about this in the future, if the chemistry isn’t too complicated.
So I think that’s enough for now….
References
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
The Keeling Curve
the curbing emissions front, part the first
Stepping away from global political shenanigans as well as much more horrific stuff re drones and missile strikes, I’m writing now about something I’m not sure I’ve ever written about before, at least in any sustained way – global greenhouse gas emissions and how we’re going re reduction, alternatives and such. A rather huge issue so I suppose I’ll just be scratching the surface.
This post will largely be a self-education. Carbon dioxide (combustion of fossil fuels inter alia), methane (gas and coal production, landfill etc etc), nitrous oxide (agricultural and industrial activities ad nauseum) and synthetic chemicals (hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons et al) are perhaps the biggest problems, but there are plenty of others, most of which, of course, are human beings. Some gases are more potent in terms of their heat-absorbing capacities, for example sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), a molecule of which has 1000 times the capacity to absorb heat than a molecule of CO2. It’s used pervasively in the electrical industry. Water vapour and ozone also trap heat in the atmosphere.
Ozone’s an interesting one. Here’s some of what the USA’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has to say about it:
Changes in ozone and climate are directly linked because ozone absorbs solar radiation and is also a greenhouse gas. Stratospheric ozone depletion leads to surface cooling, while the observed increases in tropospheric ozone and other greenhouse gases lead to surface warming. The cooling from ozone depletion is small compared to the warming from the greenhouse gases responsible for observed global climate change.
So it’s that absorption of solar radiation (by ozone, O3) that reduces the amount of ultraviolet B reaching the Earth’s surface (from the stratosphere), so protecting us against skin cancers, as well as from developing cataracts, apparently. Tropospheric ozone, however, is a small but still significant contributor to global warming, at approximately 0.23%.
So what are the major contributors? According to the USA’s Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, CO2 contributes around 76%, methane CH4, around 16% and nitrous oxide N2O around 6%. There’s also water vapour, which is complicated…
This has little to do with the abundance of such gases in the atmosphere, as, for example, N2O is some 270 times more potent than CO2 in terms of atmospheric warming.
And according to the same organisation, the current top emitters over all are China at around 26% of the total, followed by the USA at 13.4%, the EU at 7.6% and India at 6.5%, with Russia not far behind. In terms of cumulative emissions, though, the USA is ahead with around 25% followed by the EU at 22% and China at around 15%, which tells a fascinating story of industrialisation over the decades and centuries. They also present a graph of decade-by-decade global emissions (CO2 only) going back to the mid 19th century, which shows that these emissions, already very much on the rise, began to rise steeply after WW2, from some 5 million tonnes annually in the 40s and 50s to about 33 million tonnes in the 2020s. And there’s currently no real sign that these emissions are reducing. Australia’s CSIRO has an article from the end of last year the title of which, ‘Global carbon emissions inch upwards in 2024 despite progress on EVs, renewables and deforestation’, says it all.
I’ve noted that there’s a bit of a minor clash about nomenclature – is it climate change or global warming? I’ve tended to favour the latter, as it’s the warming that’s creating the change, right? But then, consider ocean acidification. Scientists have quite recently found that our oceans are becoming more acidic at an alarming rate. This is due to the interaction of CO2 with seawater. Currently, seawater has a pH of around 8 (pH actually means ‘potential of hydrogen’), on a scale that ranges from 0 to 14. The higher the number, the more alkaline, or ‘basic’, the environment, with 7 considered as neutral. Since the industrial revolution, the oceans’ pH has fallen by about 40%. That’s to say, they’re becoming more acidic. It’s estimated that, at current rates, the increase will be some 150% by the end of the century. The implications for our sea creatures are enormous, and of course there will be flow-on effects.
It seems to me that the battle to convince the general public that anthropogenic climate change is a real and serious problem has largely been won, but we have to guard against vested interests and their greenwashing, so there are still plenty of battles to be fought. And carbon emissions are still increasing. The UN has a ‘Net Zero Coalition’ together with a happy optimistic slogan ‘Net Zero: It’s possible’, and its website gives this explanation:
Put simply, net zero means cutting carbon emissions to a small amount of residual emissions that can be absorbed and durably stored by nature and other carbon dioxide removal measures, leaving zero in the atmosphere.
Yes, put simply. The Paris Agreement, reached back in December 2015, called for keeping the global temperature down to no more than 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. At that time, warming was already 1.2 degrees above those levels, and calculations have it that ’emissions need to be reduced by 45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050′. We’re now five years away from 2030 and, of course, emissions are rising. Meanwhile, France (and much of Europe) is experiencing a weather situation ‘de plus en plus étouffant‘ according to Le Parisien. Good for bathing in the cleaned-up Seine, apparently, but swimmable waterways are not a solution, I’m told. The fact is that the speed of climate change on this planet has never been known to be as rapid as it is now – at 0.7 degrees celsius per century for the past couple of centuries.
This was all largely caused by our exploitation of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – to power the new machine age. They’re called fossil fuels because they’re the product of dead, energy-dense carbonaceous plant matter transformed over millions of years of pressure and heat. This energy source has been recognised and utilised for centuries – the Romans used coal to heat their baths – but the big breakthrough of the 18th and 19th centuries was to turn that chemical energy into mechanical energy, first through burning the coal to boil water, creating steam, the pressure of which can move pistons or turn turbines. This was what created the industrial revolution – more or less. It transformed industry, farming and transportation systems, effectively the whole basis of our ‘industrial world’. We have become blindly reliant on fossil fuels to build and maintain our modern civilisation, including, of course, the ubiquitous plastics in which we contain and preserve so much of our food and drink.
So this all just introductory, the next thing to explore is why we’re nowhere near meeting our emission reduction targets for 2030, 2050 and beyond. I have a feeling that the term ‘neoliberalism’ will be implicated in this exploration, but we’ll see…
References
https://www.cleanairfund.org/news-item/greenhouse-gas-tropospheric-ozone/
Global Emissions
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2024/november/global-carbon-emissions-up-2024
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/net-zero-coalition
aspects of climate change – Milankovic cycles
from Wikipedia
I’m currently reading A brief history of the Earth’s climate, by Steven Earle, a Canadian geologist, who provides summaries of the various internal and external forces affecting our planetary atmosphere’s composition and temperature over its history. It’s all very sciencey, which is of course good, but not so good for dumb-funks like me, who have to put it into their own words to get a proper handle on it. So that’s why this piece is on Milankovic cycles, about which I know next to nothing.
In 1941 Milutin Milankovic completed a book entitled Canon of insolation and the ice-age problem, in which, according to Earle,
he argues how the natural variations in the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the sun and in the tilt of the Earth’s rotational axis played a critical role in the timing of glaciations over the past two million years.
A brief history of the Earth’s climate, p63
Insolation is defined as ‘the strength of sunlight shining on the various surfaces of the Earth’, bearing in mind that dark surfaces, such as the oceans and densely vegetated regions, absorb sunlight while ice and snow reflect it. Milankovic’ work went largely unrecognised in his lifetime but he was the first to ‘calculate the effects of insolation and to accurately determine the periods during which those changes would be most likely to contribute to the growth [or shrinkage] of glaciers’.
These periods have everything to do with the Earth’s eccentric (but not too eccentric) orbit, and its wobbling tilt, vis-à-vis its orbital plane. That orbit is elliptical, and the Sun is not at the centre, so the Earth’s distance from the Sun varies seasonally. Most people know this, I hope, but they may not know that the shape of Earth’s orbit varies over time, from slightly elliptical to even more slightly elliptical. But we’re talking about very long periods of time, many thousands of years, between the most and least elliptical orbits. When the orbit is most elliptical, the difference between the Sun at its closest and its farthest from Earth is, of course, greatest. It should be obvious, from what we know of the Sun as essentially our only heat source, that these differences will have a climatic impact.
Now to the wobbling tilt, or the Earth’s obliquity, relative to the plane of its orbit. This tilt is presently 23.5 degrees from vertical, and the degrees vary from 22.1 to 24.5 over a period of about 41,000 years. It basically defines our seasons, as the Northern Hemisphere tilts towards the Sun when the Southern Hemisphere tilts away from it, and vice versa. And the variation in that tilt, the wobble, creates greater or lesser variation between summer and winter seasons.
And now back to Milankovic. He, along with a few colleagues including Alfred Wegener of continental drift fame, made observations about the formation and growth of glaciers:
glaciers grow best at temperate latitudes – in fact at around 65 degrees north or south – and can start growing only on land.
There is in fact relatively little land at 65 degrees in the Southern Hemisphere, but plenty in the north, so that was where Milankovic focussed. He also focussed on the summer insolation, as cooler summers are more a factor in glacier growth than cold winters. As Earle explains, when the summers are cooler, there’s less melting of snow and ice, and when winters are colder, they’re also drier, and less snow falls.
So Milankovic based his cycles on three variables – eccentricity, tilt angle and tilt direction.
Eccentricity, which varies on a 100,000-year cycle, determines the distance between Sun and Earth. A high eccentricity (a greater distance), in conjunction with tilt direction, ‘provides a greater opportunity for the Earth to be pushed from a non-glacial state to a glacial state or vice versa’ (Earle).
Tilt angle, which has a 41,000-year cycle, affects seasonal differences. ‘A lesser tilt angle leads to cooler summers and warmer winters, and that favours the growth of glaciers’.
Tilt direction, which has a 23,000-year cycle, determines which hemisphere, north or south, points to the Sun when the Earth is farthest away from it. ‘Glaciation is favoured when the Earth-Sun distance is greatest during the northern hemisphere summer, leading to cool summers with less melting’.
When Milankovic died in 1958 his insolation theories were far from being accepted by mainstream science. This was largely because, though it was known that glaciers enlarged and reduced over millennia, the timing of these ebbs and flows was much of a mystery. Better measurement techniques were required to verify the Milankovic hypotheses. These came in the sixties and seventies with sea-floor and later ice core samples, as well as measurement of isotopic variations in the history of marine mammals, and their relation to temperature, culminating in a key paper published in 1976, at the end of which the authors wrote:
It is concluded that changes in the Earth’s orbital geometry are the fundamental cause of the succession of Quarternary ice ages.
It’s important to note that these orbital changes were not the cause of the ice ages, it simply explained their timing. The cause was a period of atmospheric cooling over 50 million years until recently, geologically speaking. That atmospheric cooling I’ll (try to!) explain in a follow-up post.
From the 70s onwards, ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica have been able to be correlated with variations in surface temperatures over 250,000 years, based on measurements of the ratios of hydrogen isotopes in the water molecules from the ice at those sites. To quote Earle:
The correlation between the temperature record and the July insolation levels is reasonably clear. The third-last interglacial, extending from 245,000 to 235,000 years ago, corresponds with a period of high insolation. The following very low insolation initiated the beginning of the second-last glacial period. That was followed by a very high insolation period (at around 220,000 years ago, which led to significant warming but wasn’t enough to break the glacial cycle. Glacial conditions then intensified over the next 90,000 years.
Another period of very high insolation, culminating at around 120,000 years ago, was able to break the cycle, leading to the second interglacial, which lasted from about 127 to 90 thousand years ago. That was followed by a similar cycle of increasingly cold climates and strong glaciation until around 20,000 years ago, when the glacial cycle was again broken by a period of strong insolation.
As Earle further points out, methane levels from the same ice cores are even more closely correlated with the insolation pattern. And there are other positive feedback processes that ‘amplify Milankovic forcing’, as Earle puts it, including carbon dioxide levels and the albedo effect of accumulated ice and snow during cooling periods.
Our recent greater understanding of Milankovic cycles allows us to predict their effect on the future climate. We’re entering a period of low ellipticity in the Earth’s orbit, meaning that insolation levels won’t vary much for the next 50,000 years. This means we will have an ‘interglacial’ climate for a long long time to come. So, no cyclical glaciation will arrive any time soon to rescue us from anthropogenic global warming. Add that to the forlorn hopes about other processes touted by climate change skeptics/deniers, such as sunspots and a sudden upsurge of vulcanism….
References
Steven Earle, A brief history of the Earth’s climate: Everyone’s guide to the science of climate change, 2021
global warming or climate change? Does it matter? More importantly, how are we going in dealing with it?
…climate change (now interchangeably, albeit inaccurately, called global warming)….
Vaclav Smil, How the world really works, pp 168-9
Man-0-man-o-man-o-man-o-man-o-man….
I was a bit miffed by this slight put-down, because for some time I’ve been insisting (as if anybody noticed) on using the term ‘global warming’ in the face of what I’ve considered a move towards the ‘climate change’ term. In other words my subjective impression has been that ‘global warming’ is being replaced by ‘climate change’, a less urgent term to my way of thinking. I suspect this impression has come from my listening to expert podcasts and videos from New Scientist and other scientific sources, and it seems to me that some agreed-upon descriptor has come down from the Scientists on High, which of course stirs my anti-authoritarian blood.
My semi-informed view is that, yes, the climate is changing due to ‘greenhouse’ gases, by-products of our industries, particularly carbon dioxide, methane and water vapour, accumulating in the atmosphere, creating a greenhouse effect which is essentially a warming effect. And heat is energy, creating volatility and unpredictability. And the water vapour in particular, evaporating from the oceans, is broadening the tropical belt, causing storms, floods, lightning and fire. Of course there are countervailing factors – ice melt from the poles cools the oceans, adding to the volatility.
So I’ll go online to explore this rather minuscule issue, in my minuscule way. The US Geological Survey (USGS) has this to say:
Although people tend to use these terms interchangeably, global warming is just one aspect of climate change. “Global warming” refers to the rise in global temperatures due mainly to the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. “Climate change” refers to the increasing changes in the measures of climate over a long period of time – including precipitation, temperature, and wind patterns.
That tells me it’s all much of a muchness, and the climate change we’re concerned about today is a product of greenhouse gas concentrations and the warming this is creating. So I’ll continue to use the global warming term, which isn’t at all inaccurate, because for me at least, it’s clear that the climate changes we’re experiencing stem from this warming, which is why experts like to connect our planetary future to 1.5 degrees, or 2, or 3 degrees, etc. Having said that, I’m more than impressed by Vaclav Smil’s analytical approach to the Big Issues of our modern world, and by his work ethic, which of course puts me to shame (he has written 36 books on energy, food, technology and other key aspects of human civilisation). He can be pedantic, but in a useful way, for example in pointing out that the ‘greenhouse effect’ isn’t really about how greenhouses work:
Labelling this natural phenomenon as the ‘greenhouse effect’ is a misleading analogy, because the heat inside a greenhouse is there not only because the glass enclosure prevents the escape of some infrared radiation but also because it cuts off air circulation. In contrast, the natural ‘greenhouse effect’ is caused solely by the interception of a small share of outgoing infrared radiation by trace gases [water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide].
V Smil, How the world really works, p178
Yeah, we kind of knew that, Vaclav, but thanks for the detail. What’s more interesting in his book is the detail of the challenges we face, and how we’re actually facing them. And one of the critiques he makes, what with all these COP meet-ups and IPCC projections, is the lack of detail and realism in dealing with these enormously complex issues faced by diverse states at varying levels of development, with competing needs, resources, issues and challenges. Our environmental footprint is embiggening, though its embiggening rate is reducing, in much the same way as our global population is, and our continued reliance on the Big Four, cement, steel, plastics and ammonia, to maintain our civilisations, means that fossil fuel emissions and global temperatures will continue to rise in coming decades. Moreover, as Smil points out, predictions about the growth in EV sales haven’t panned out in the last decade or so, and many other prognostications, especially about the future, have fallen flat, such as global supersonic flight, the population bomb, peak oil (I once read a book on that one), nuclear energy (for air travel and for uncovering natural gas fields, and some even nuttier schemes, such as creating ‘instant harbours’!), synthetic life forms (good-looking, hopefully), the 2000 tech-meltdown, and so on.
We seem often to underestimate our genius for surviving – and to overestimate our tendency to fuck things up. Which isn’t to say that we always get things right, or foresee the results of our manipulations of the so-called natural world. Smil is undoubtedly a good skeptic in this area, although I do find him something of an aloof overseer, unlike, for example, Gaia Vince, an intrepid traveller, moving from coal-front to coal-front, befriending and interviewing movers and shakers in the field, from the Sahel to the Columbian mines and the disappearing Himalayan glaciers. Both individual types help us to view the world richly, from individual and global perspectives (and it’s interesting, and unsurprising, that the overseer is male, and the engager is female).
Another problem preventing us from facing the real issues is the petty but mass-murderous ambition of the Putins and Xi Jinpings of the world and their horrific concepts of nationalism and power. The WEIRD world needs to reach out to the suffering peoples of these countries – especially the Chinese, a smart, industrious, ambitious and forward-thinking people who would thrive under a democratic regime (the Russians, by contrast, seem more cowed by their centuries of horror). This raises the question of how we deal with a country like China. My approach would be to maintain relations as much as possible while promoting better, more inclusive forms of government. Raise again and again the lack of women in government. Ask why this is so. What is the justification for an all-male politburo? How can they (the tiny governing minority) pretend that women in power is ‘Western’ and anti-Chinese? Isn’t the generally more collaborative approach of women a boon at a time when we face global crises needing global, collaborative solutions? Doesn’t the drumbeat of war, in these times, sound jarring and out of tune?
A greater internationalism is upon us, and more of it will be forced upon us as we face a global warming issue that will worsen in coming decades, without any doubt. Nationalism tends to get in the way of responses to international crises, as happened with the recent global pandemic. We tend to live in the moment, an eternal present, and we don’t realise, most of us, that if we were born a couple of centuries ago, we could travel throughout much of the world without crossing a border, without having to produce a passport or a visa, and without having to prove our ‘legality’. And we certainly can’t predict what systems will pertain in a couple of centuries from now, but they’re surely more likely to promote communication, co-ordination and exchange rather than isolation. I can only thank the writers and communicators that I’m able to plug into for helping me to focus on the future – my own and beyond – with as much realism and positivity as can reasonably be mustered.
References
How the World Really Works: A Scientist’s Guide to Our Past, Present and Future, by Vaclav Smil, 2022
Adventures in the Anthropocene; Transcendence; Nomad Century, by Gaia Vince, 2018 – 2021
a shallow dive into economics, and the discovery of a (possible) heroine
Shemara Wikramanayake, speaking at the G20 International Conference on Climate
Don’t know much about economics, to put it mildly, being constitutionally work-shy and generally impoverished in a rich country, so it seems absurd for me to occasionally buy and try to make sense of Britain’s internationally focussed mag, The Economist. To be fair to myself, it does have many interesting articles on international politics, reminding me that the bizarreries of the USA and our domestic difficulties re housing and mortgages (in Australia) are far from the most-life threatening issues on the planet. But when it comes to bond markets, IPOs, floaters, monetary policy and the like, I defer to the cognoscenti while suffering a touch of FOMO.
So, with all that, I’m going to present here an almost incomprehensible (to me) letter to the editor from the August 26 2023 issue, entitled ‘Do we need banks?’
I’m not sure what part of David Apgar’s piece on narrow banking was the most entertaining (‘By Invitation’, August 12). The idea that the ‘Chicago Plan’ was conceived with ‘the Depression fresh in mind’ must be viewed as quite original. However, almost equally amusing was Mr Apgar’s suggestion that bank lending ‘fuels credit to enterprising businesses’, when he realises that the problem with Silicon Valley Bank was that it had invested an awful lot of money in notes issued by the Federal Reserve, supposedly also to fuel commerce (and thus revealing the mockery underlying quantitative easing).
None of this has anything to do with supporting ‘enterprising businesses’ that increase prosperity. Banking is doing something else. Banks should go out and make money from the people who deposit money, assuming that they will keep it safe. Instead they are admonished to multiply paying services offered to those who trust them, and still go bankrupt. Do we need the banks or do the banks need us? And if the latter, then why do we need the banks?
I can’t really make sense of much of this, but the writer’s final ‘killer punch’ is surely ridiculous. We needed and used banks in the past because it was unsafe to keep our money ‘under the bed’ or stuffed in oversized wallets. Nowadays WEIRD society is pretty well cashless and we pay with cards or phones electronically connected to our bank accounts. How would we manage without this? And banks need us to pay for their staff, their buildings etc. Think mutual providence(?).
Of course, as someone who has never taken out a loan in my life, I was clueless about how banks make profits. And the fact is, some banks make eye-watering profits. The CEO of the ‘Macquarie Group’ (whatever that means, but I presume it includes the Macquarie Bank which I think is an investment bank, meaning it has nothing to do with me), one Shemara Wikramanayake, earned just under $24 million in the 2022 financial year, presumably due to the profitability of the ‘Group’ she heads. This is an obscene amount of money, and I find it hard to believe she lives on the same planet as myself. Her Wikipedia profile presents her and her ‘Group’ as a heavy hitter in the financing of low carbon emissions technologies, which is great, but I just don’t understand such super-massive wealth disparities…
Having said all that, my hope in starting this piece was to try and understand the concept of quantitative easing, without the apparent cynicism of the letter quoted above (its author tells us that banking ‘is doing something else’ other than supporting enterprising businesses, inferring of course that ‘banking’ is out to make money for itself, which of course is necessarily true, otherwise it wouldn’t have the funds to continue supporting other enterprising businesses). Here’s how Forbes puts it:
Quantitative easing—QE for short—is a monetary policy strategy used by central banks like the Federal Reserve. With QE, a central bank purchases securities in an attempt to reduce interest rates, increase the supply of money and drive more lending to consumers and businesses. The goal is to stimulate economic activity during a financial crisis and keep credit flowing.
Which leads me to further questions – what’s a ‘central bank’, what are ‘securities’, and what is monetary policy’? I’m sure I’ve heard somewhen that it’s the opposite of fiscal policy but that don’t help much.
I’m guessing that the ‘Federal Reserve’ is the USA’s equivalent of our RBA (the Reserve Bank of Australia):
‘We conduct monetary policy, determine payments system policy, work to maintain a stable financial system, issue the nation’s banknotes, operate the core of the payments system and provide banking services to the government’.
Looks like it’ll take me a while to get to QE, but safly safly catchee monkey. Here’s the RBA again:
In Australia, monetary policy involves influencing interest rates to affect aggregate demand, employment and inflation in the economy. It is one of the main economic policies used to stabilise business cycles.
Of course, I’ve heard of the RBA raising/lowering interest rates, and this affects both savings and loans, obviously. But why does this have to be fixed nationally, why can’t banks fix their own rates and let the customer decide which bank to go with? And is it necessary for private banks to follow the RBA’s decisions? (From what I’ve gleaned they don’t have to but generally keep close to the RBA’s settings). And how do interest rates affect ‘aggregate demand’ (defined as ‘the total demand for goods and services within a particular market’)? Does anybody really understand all this – apart from the magnificently named Shemara Wikramanayake?
I must admit to having only a modicum of interest (careful with that word) in the minutiae of economics, but at least my teeny research has brought to mind Ms Wikramanayake as a rare female in the world of financial movers and shakers. She’s Australia’s highest paid CEO due to the profitability of the Group she heads. Obviously I can’t speak to the economics of that, or any attached ethical issues relating to such massive profits, but these profits appear to be related largely to industries and start-ups in the field of renewable, clean energy. In a world of too many macho anti-feminist thugs like Putin, Xi and those who govern Iran, Burma and too many other countries, we need more positive, future-facing, can-do types like her.
I might actually return to trying to understand QE, corporate bonds and the like, in later posts, but maybe not.
References
The Economist, 26/8 – 1/9/2023
How are the Maldives faring under global warming?
Lily Beach Spa and Resort, Maldives. Book Now!
Jacinta: So we’re reading Adventures in the Anthropocene, by science writer and intrepid traveller Gaia Vince, which we picked up at Adelaide Writers’ Week earlier this year. She was a speaker, probably from a remote location, but I didn’t hear her talk….
Canto: Yes, but we’re certainly interested in the topic – global warming, problems, possible solutions, and the female and male heroes trying to effect those solutions. We bought two of Vince’s books – Adventures in the Anthropocene, published in 2014, and Transcendence, in 2019. And at last we’ve gotten round to reading them, in order of publication. We’re about halfway through the first book, which is divided into sections of concern and interest. The first section, “Atmosphere”, deals with the cause of the problem, human changes to our atmosphere, increasing CO2, methane, chlorofluorocarbons and such. The next sections, “Mountains”, “Rivers”, “Farmlands” and “Oceans” treat of glacial melting, dammed, over-fished and polluted rivers, drought-affected and nutrient-depleted soils, and rising sea levels, among other things…
Jacinta: Which brings us to the Maldives, a group of numerous tiny-teeny low-lying tropical islands in the north Indian Ocean, between the Arabian Peninsula and India, regarded as ‘canaries in the coalmine’ for global warming. The smallest and most geographically dispersed nation in Asia, it’s apparently been a getaway place for the super-rich, but most of the local population are dirt poor, and heroin addiction is rife, or at least was ten years ago. Vince met with the island nation’s then President, Mohammed Nasheed, a climate activist who’d taken over from some more or less corrupt characters, and was soon to be ousted by same. My further reading tells me that he’s still active in Maldivian politics, in spite of its brutal nature – corruption in the country has drawn criticism from human rights organisations, and caused its withdrawal from the Commonwealth of Nations in 2016. It has since been reinstated…
Canto: Yes, the Maldives is surely the oddest nation on earth. It has about half a million inhabitants (tiny for an Asian country – if that’s what it is), spread over a territory of 90,000 square kilometres, of which only 300 square kilometres is land! It features a vast mountain range, entirely under water, and overall it’s the world’s most low-lying nation. Apparently the tiny islands are separated by large distances, but navigation between them is near-impossible due to all the coral reefs surrounding them. The marine ecosystems there are among the richest and most diverse on the planet.
Jacinta: Politically it’s been very up and down. It’s a Moslem nation, and to be honest, there haven’t been too many Moslem nations with great democratic, open-society credentials. Wikipedia relates plenty of cloak-and-dagger stuff, with timely, or untimely, depending on perspective, intervention from India.
Canto: It was part of the British Empire/Commonwealth for a period, after colonising efforts from the Dutch and the Portuguese. Their National Day relates to the extirpation of the Portuguese, who’d tried to impose Christianity on the islands. The Brits agreed to a protectorate system which allowed for Home Rule, apparently.
Jacinta: In 1953 one Mohamed Amin Didi became the Maldivian President. He was a progressive, who promoted the education of women, and tried to deal with addiction issues on the islands. He was more or less beaten to death for his efforts.
Canto: Yes, the history of the region is a sorry saga, but let’s focus more on the present. There are various predictions as to when the islands will disappear completely under rising seawater, and this will of course depend on the rate of warming, as well as mitigation processes on the islands themselves.
Jacinta: Yes, it seems that Maldivians are at the mercy of the rest of the world’s emitters. But here’s an interesting quote from Wikipedia:
In 2020, a three-year study at the University of Plymouth which looked at the Maldives and the Marshall Islands, found that tides move sediment to create a higher elevation, a morphological response that the researchers suggested could help low lying islands adjust to sea level rise and keep the islands habitable. The research also reported that sea walls were compromising islands’ ability to adjust to rising sea levels and that island drowning is an inevitable outcome for islands with coastal structures like sea walls.
Canto: Hmm, I can visualise that idea of tides moving sediments to build up the land – more than receding tides might remove sediments – but I can’t imagine it making a big difference. But what would I know?
Jacinta: Yes, and as to sea walls, they’re of course an artificial solution – which isn’t necessarily all bad, but they’re generally seen as short-term solutions, designed or financed by the rich to keep their coastal properties intact. I believe the most recent IPCC report, every word of which seems to be scrutinised and questioned by various governments, refers to some proposed solutions as ‘maladaptations’ without being too specific. In any case, natural solutions such as mangroves don’t work everywhere…
Canto: And rising sea levels cause other problems, such as contamination of underground aquifers in low-lying islands and coastal areas.
Jacinta: Representatives from these regions – the Maldives and the Marshall Islands for example – are arguing that, for the foreseeable, there’s no alternatives to sea walls, and they should be paid for largely by the world’s principal emitters, which sounds reasonable to me.
Canto: There’s another issue – the concrete generally used to build these walls also contributes to global warming. So here’s an apparent solution, or at least a partial one. Cement, the essential binding ingredient of concrete, is made from clinker, ‘a residue produced by firing limestone and clay in a furnace heated to 1,450°C’, a temperature achieved by burning fossil fuels. Cement-making causes about 7% of annual CO2 emissions. According to the PreventionWeb site, there’s a solution:
One of the biggest challenges facing the construction sector is reducing concrete’s carbon footprint while keeping the benefits of a cheap and durable building material. One way to achieve this is by replacing cement with recycled industrial waste, such as granulated slag from steelworks and pulverised ash from coal power plants (essentially, the residue that can be scraped out of the bottom of furnaces).
Our newly designed low-carbon concrete mixes use both of these recycled materials. In fact, it was possible to use up to 60% steel furnace waste in the mixes without the concrete losing its compressive strength, which is crucial for ensuring the structure holds up. The resulting mixes had a 40% smaller carbon footprint than traditional concrete.
Jacinta: Not bad. And I suppose engineering solutions, if that’s what this is, are important for mitigation while we tackle the actual emissions problem.
Canto: Well this is tackling the emissions problem too, kind of. Anyway lots of piecemeal solutions do add up.
Jacinta: Hmmm. And apparently they’ve been building new islands in the Maldives and elsewhere. Not floating islands, that would rise with the tides, which some enterprising individuals have created, but massive things upon which to build new tourist resorts and high-rise buildings. Lots and lots of sand apparently. It’s already happening. Oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
References
Gaia Vince, Adventures in the Anthropocene, 2014
Gaia Vince, Transcendence, 2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldives
Scientists warn seawalls can make rising waters worse in the long run
Maldives’ man-made islands offer answer to sea-level rise
climate change – we know what we should be doing
Here in Australia we have a national government that hates to mention human-induced climate change publicly, whatever their personal views are, and clearly they’re varied. I’ve long suspected that there’s a top-down policy (which long predates our current PM) of not mentioning anthropogenic global warming, lest it outrage a large part of the conservative base, while doing a few things behind the scenes to support renewables and reduce emissions. It’s a sort of half-hearted, disorganised approach to what is clearly a major problem locally and globally. And meanwhile some less disciplined or less chained members or former members of this government, such as former PM Tony Abbott and current MP for Hughes, Craig Kelly, are ignoring the party line (and science), and so revealing just how half-arsed the government’s way of dealing with the problem really is. The national opposition doesn’t seem much better on this issue, and it might well be a matter of following the money…
So I was impressed with a recent ABC interview with Australian climate scientist and leading member of the IPCC, Professor Mark Howden, also director of the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University, who spoke a world of good sense in about ten minutes.
The interview was preceded by the statement that the government is holding to its emission reduction targets – considered to be rather minimal by climate change scientists – while possibly ‘tweaking’ broader climate change policy. This is another example of ‘don’t scare the base’, IMHO. It was also reported that the government felt it might reach its Paris agreement without using ‘carry-over credits’ from the previous Kyoto agreement.
The issue here is that our government, in its wisdom, felt that it should get credit for ‘more than meeting’ its Kyoto targets. As Howden pointed out, those Kyoto targets were easy to meet because we’d have met them even while increasing our emissions (which we in fact did). Spoken without any sense of irony by the unflappable professor.
There’s no provision in the Paris agreement for such ‘carry-over credits’ – however the government has previously relied on them as an entitlement, and in fact pushed for them in a recent meeting in Madrid. Now, it’s changing its tune, slightly. The hullabaloo over the bushfire tragedies has been an influence, as well as a growing sense that reaching the Paris targets without these credits is do-able. Interestingly, Howden suggests that the credits are important for us meeting our Paris commitments up to 2030, as they make up more than half the required emissions reductions. So, if they’re included, we’ll need a 16% reduction from here, rather than a 26 – 28% reduction. But is this cheating? Is it in the spirit of the Paris agreement? Surely not, apart from legal considerations. It certainly affects any idea that Australia might play a leadership role in emissions reductions.
So now the government is indicating that it might scrap the reliance on credits and find real reductions – which is, in fact, a fairly momentous decision for this conservative administration, because the core emissions from energy, transport, waste and other activities are all rising and would need to be turned around (I’m paraphrasing Howden here). So far no policies have been announced, or are clearly in the offing, to effect this turnaround. There’s an Emissions Reductions Fund, established in 2014-5 to support businesses, farmers, landowners in reducing emissions through a carbon credit scheme (this is news to me) but according to Howden it’s in need of more public funding, and the ‘carbon sinks’ – that’s to say the forests that have been burning horrifically in past weeks – which the government has been partly relying upon, are proving to be less stable than hoped. So there are limitations to the government’s current policies. Howden argues for a range of additional policies, but as he says, they’ve rejected (presumably permanently) so many options in the past, most notably carbon pricing, that the cupboard looks pretty bare for the future. There’s of course a speedier move towards renewables in electricity generation – which represents about 30% of emissions, the other 70% being with industry, agriculture, transport and mining (see my previous piece on fracking, for example, a practice that looks to be on the increase in Australia). Howden puts forward the case that it’s in this 70% area that policies can be most helpful, both in emissions reduction and jobs growth. For example, in transport, Australia is well behind other nations in the uptake of EVs, which our government has done nothing to support, unlike most advanced economies. Having EVs working off a renewables grid would reduce transport emissions massively. Other efficiencies which could be encouraged by government policy would be reducing livestock methane emissions through feed and husbandry reforms, such as maintaining shade and other stress-reducing conditions. This can increase productivity and reduce per-unit environmental footprint – or hoofprint.
As to the old carbon pricing argument – Howden points out that during the brief period that carbon pricing was implemented in Australia, core emissions dropped significantly, and the economy continued to grow. It was clearly successful, and its rescinding in around 2015 has proved disastrous. Howden feels that it’s hard to foresee Australia meeting its 2030 Paris targets without some sort of price on carbon – given that there won’t be any deal on carry-over credits. There’s also an expectation that targets will be ramped up, post-2030.
So, the message is that we need to sensibly revisit carbon pricing as soon as possible, and we need to look positively at abatement policies as encouraging growth and innovation – the cost of doing nothing being much greater than the costs involved in emissions reduction. And there are plenty of innovations out there – you can easily look them up on youtube, starting with the Fully Charged show out of Britain. The complacency of the current Oz government in view of the challenges before us is itself energy-draining – like watching a fat-arsed couch potato yawning his way towards an early death.
References
https://iview.abc.net.au/show/abc-news-mornings
https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/emissions-reduction-fund/about
fracking hell
the SUV abomination, or when will we reach peak SUV?
I was amused by a recent rant from Robert Llewellyn of the highly-recommended Fully Charged vodcasts, regarding the rise and rise of petrol and diesel-fuelled SUV sales in this period of carbon emission concern and climate change. So I have to share an anecdote.
As a young perennially poor person in the seventies I hitch-hiked quite a lot. Hitch-hiking is barely a thing nowadays, and I suspect the hitch-hiking experience I’m about to describe, sometime in the eighties, was my last. It often comes back to annoy me.
I was picked up by an overweight middle-aged woman with a blaze of dyed blond hair and a dire Aussie accent, in an SUV. Obviously, it was a kind gesture.
This was my first experience of being in an SUV, and I’ve had very few since. It felt strange to be looking down at other cars on the road. I wondered if this created psychological effects. The woman, I think, tried to elicit conversation but I’m very shy with strangers and pretty hopeless at small talk. So she made her own, which soon developed into a rant against ‘small cars’, which she seemed to regard as death traps and a form of road litter. Certainly there was a strange, disproportionate rage that got to me, as I nodded with an air of non-committal sagacity.
At that point in my life I’d never driven a car – I didn’t get my licence until my late thirties – but I knew the kind of car I wanted to drive, and it was the precise opposite of an SUV, a ridiculous vehicle that was just starting to pollute city streets at the time of this awkward incident. Of course the environment was already a major public issue in the eighties, so I naively thought this woman was on the wrong side of history. The SUV would surely go the way of the dinosaur, in somewhat less than a couple of hundred million years.
But SUV sales are soaring worldwide, in spite of a greater recognition of climate change and anthropogenic global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. I suppose there’s some excuse for them in Australia, this land of sweeping plains (and sleeping brains), but given our apparent indifference to the EV revolution and the phobia re climate change issues of our federal government, we’re just going to have to put up with these tanks continuing to proliferate in our suburbs. And it’s going on everywhere – there’s currently a huge spike in SUV sales worldwide. I mean, WTF?
So, instead of a pox on SUVs, how about a tax on them? It worked with cigarettes here….
Of course I’m joking. Western governments are more likely to subsidise the manufacture of SUVs than to tax them. This US business website presents in graphic detail the surge in SUV sales:
48% of car sales in the United States last year [2018]’were SUVs, which was the highest percentage worldwide, but other countries are catching up. Large cars can be seen as a status symbol, and sales are rising in countries like China and India where the middle class is growing.
The website cites a study which found that the number of SUVs on the road has increased about six-fold since 2010, and SUVs alone were the second largest contributor to the global increase in carbon emissions during that period. So, I wonder, when will we reach peak SUV?
fish deaths in the lower Darling – interim report
Jacinta: We wrote about this issue in a piece posted on February 11, so it’s time to follow up – an interim report came out on February 20, and a final report is due at the end of March, but my feeling is that the final report won’t differ much from this interim one.
Canto: Yes I get the feeling that these experts have largely known about the situation for a long time – unusual climatic conditions plus an increasing lack of water in the system, which would make the remaining water more susceptible to extremes of weather.
Jacinta: So here’s some of what they’re saying. There were three separate events; the first on December 15 involved tens of thousands of fish deaths over a 30km stretch of the Darling near Menindee, the second on Jan 6-7, over 45kms in the same area, involved hundreds of thousands of deaths, even millions according to some residents, and the third on Jan 28, with thousands of deaths. Likely effects on fish populations in the Darling will last for years.
Canto: And they warn that more deaths are likely to occur – though no major events have been reported since – due to low inflows and continued dry conditions in the catchment area. Monitoring has shown that there are problems of low dissolved oxygen and ‘high stratification’ at various points along the river. I presume ‘high stratification’ is self-explanatory, that the water isn’t mixing due to low flows?
Jacinta: Yes, but I think the issue is thermal stratification, where you have a warm surface layer sitting above a cooler, oxygen-depleted sub-surface layer. These are excellent conditions for algal blooms apparently. And the low flows are a natural feature of the Darling. It’s also very variable in flow, much more so than the Murray, due to its low relief, the more variable rainfall in the region, and the tributaries which create a large catchment area. I don’t know if that makes sense.
Canto: Neither do I. I note that they’ve been carefully critical of the NSW government’s ‘Barwon-Darling Water Sharing Plan 2012’, because between the draft and final implementation of the plan the number of high-flow Class C shares was reduced and the number of Class A (low flow) and Class B (medium flow) shares increased, which meant more extraction of water overall, and at lower flows. They recognise that there have been recent Federal moves to reverse this, but clearly they don’t consider them sufficient.
Jacinta: Yes and the problem goes back a way. They refer to an analysis from almost two decades ago:
The flow regime in the lower Darling has changed significantly since the completion of the Menindee Lakes storage scheme in 1968, and as a result of abstractions in the Barwon–Darling and its tributaries. It is estimated that the mean annual flow in the Darling River has been reduced by more than 40% as a result of abstractions in the Barwon–Darling (Gippel & Blackham, 2002).
Presumably ‘abstractions’ means what I think it means – though elsewhere they use the term ‘extractions’ which is confusing.
Canto: We should point out the immense complexity of the system we’re dealing with, which we can see from detailed maps that accompany the report, not to mention a number of barely comprehensible charts and graphs. Anyway the effect of ‘water management’ on native vegetation has been dire in some regions. For example, reduced inundation of natural floodplains has affected the health of the river red gums, while other trees have been killed off by the creation of artificial lakes.
Jacinta: And returning to fish deaths, the report states that ‘the influence of upstream extractions on inflows to the Menindee Lakes is an important consideration when assessing the causes of fish deaths downstream’. What they point out is that the proportion of extractions is higher in times of lower inflow, which is intuitively obvious I suppose. And extractions during 2017-8 were proportionally the second highest on record. That’s in the Northern Basin, well above the Menindee Lakes.
Canto: And the extractions have been mainly out of the tributaries above the Barwon-Darling, not those principal rivers. Queenslanders!
Jacinta: No mention of Queenslanders, but let’s not get bogged down..
Canto: Easily done when there’s hardly any water…
Jacinta: Let’s go to the provisional findings and recommendations. There are 18 briefly stated findings in all, and 20 more expansive recommendations. The first two findings are about extreme weather/climatic conditions amplified by climate change, with the expectation that this will be a continuing and growing problem. Findings 3 and 4 focus on the combined effects of drought and development. There’s a lack of updated data to separate out the effects, but it’s estimated that pre-development inflows into the Menindee Lakes were two or three times what they are now. Further findings are that the impact of diversions of or extractions from flows are greater during dry years, that extractions from tributaries are more impactful than extractions from the Barwon-Darling Rivers.
Canto: The findings related directly to fish deaths – principally findings 10 through 15 – are most interesting, so I’ll try to explain. The Menindee Lakes experienced high inflows in 2012 and 2016, which caused greater connection through the river system and better conditions for fish spawning and ‘recruitment’ (I don’t know what that means). So, lots of new, young fish. Then came the bad 2017-8 period, and releases from the Menindee Lakes were less than the minimum recommended under the water sharing plan, ‘with the intent to prolong stock and domestic requests to meet critical human needs’. So by the end of 2018, the high fish biomass became trapped or restricted between weirs, unable to move upstream or downstream. As the water heated up, significant algal blooms developed in the areas where fish had accumulated. Thermal stratification also occurred, with hypoxic (low oxygen) or anoxic (no oxygen) conditions in the lower waters, and algal blooms proliferating in the surface waters, where the fish were forced to hang out. Then conditions suddenly changed, with lower air temperatures and stormy conditions causing a rapid destratification. The low oxygen water – presumably more voluminous than the oxygenated water – dominated the whole water column and the fish had no way out.
Jacinta: Yes, you can’t adapt to such sudden shifts. The final findings are about existing attempts at fish translocation and aerating water which are having some success, about stratification being an ongoing issue, and about lack of knowledge at this preliminary stage of the precise extent of the fish deaths.
Canto: So now to the 20 recommendations. They’re grouped under 3 headings; preventive and restorative measures (1-9), management arrangements (10-13), and knowledge and monitoring (14-20). The report noted a lack of recent systematic risk assessment for low oxygen, stratification and blackwater (semi-stagnant, vegetation-rich water that looks like black tea) in the areas where the fish deaths occurred. There was insufficient or zero monitoring of high-risk areas for stratification, etc, and insufficient planning to treat problems as they arose. Flow management strategies (really involving reduced extraction) need to be better applied to reduce problems in the lower Darling. Reducing barriers to fish movement should be considered, though this is functionally difficult. Apparently there’s a global movement in this direction to improve freshwater fish stocks. Short term measures such as aeration and translocation are also beneficial. Funding should be set aside for research on and implementation of ecosystem recovery – it’s not just the fish that are affected. Long-term resilience requires an understanding of interactions and movement throughout the entire basin. Fish are highly mobile and restriction is a major problem. A whole-of system approach is strongly recommended. This includes a dynamic ‘active event-based management’ approach, especially in the upper reaches and tributaries of the Barwon-Darling, where extraction has been governed by passive, long-term rules. Such reforms are in the pipeline but now need to be fast-tracked. For example, ‘quantifying the volumes of environmental water crossing the border from Queensland to NSW…. would increase transparency and would help the CEWH [Commonwealth Environmental Water Holdings] with their planning, as well as clear the path to move to active management in Queensland’.
Jacinta: Right, you’ve covered most of the issues, so I’ll finish up with monitoring, measuring and reporting. The report argues that reliable, up-to-date accounting of flows, volumes in storage, extractions and losses due to seepage and evaporation are essential to create and maintain public confidence in system management, and this is currently a problem. Of course this requires funding, and apparently the funding levels have dropped substantially over the past decade. The report cites former funding and investment through the Co-operative Research Centre, Land and Water Australia and the National Water Commission, but ‘by the early 2010s, all of these sources of funding had terminated and today aggregate levels of funding have reduced to early 1980s levels, at a time when water was far less of a public policy challenge than it is today’.
Canto: We await the government’s response to that one.
Jacinta: And on fisheries research in particular, it has been largely piecemeal except when their was a concerted co-ordinated effort under the Native Fish Strategy, but the issue right now is to know how many fish (and other organisms) of the various affected species survived the event, which involves multi-level analyses, combined with management of Basin water balances, taking into account the ongoing effects of weather events due to climate change, in order to foster and improve the growth and well-being of fish stocks and freshwater habitats in general. Connectivity of the system in particular is a major concern of the report.
Canto: Right, so this has been a bit of a journey into the unknown for us, but a worthwhile one. It suggests that governments have been a bit dozey at the wheel in recent years, that extractions, especially in the upper reaches and tributaries, haven’t been well monitored or policed, and the connectivity of the system has suffered due to extractions, droughts and climate change. Funding seems to have dried up as much as some of the rivers have, and we’ll have to wait and see if this becomes an election issue. I suspect it’ll only be a minor one.