Adaptive Capability's Climate Change Adaptation Blog

31 October 2023 By David McEwen

Mandatory Climate Disclosure is Coming – Are You Ready?

From 1 July 2024, the Australian Government intends to require mandatory disclosures of climate related financial and non-financial data in company annual reports, in what is one of the most significant corporate reporting shake ups in decades. It is designed to clearly quantify all emissions including end-use of a company’s products, a first for Australia. One company’s end product is another’s input, so there is likely to be some virtuous contagion that will occur as emission intensity becomes another factor like price in product selection.

The changes will affect both listed and private entities, starting with larger firms in 2024 (and those that are already required to report their emissions), but with the net tightening over the following four years to include (by the 2027/28 reporting year) mid-sized companies that meet at least two of the following thresholds: over 100 employees; $25m+ in gross assets; and/or $50m+ in consolidated annual revenue.

Companies will be required to consider material emissions along their full value chain, from raw materials extraction and intermediate processing, to emissions arising from the downstream use and disposal of their products or services. These so-called Scope 3 emissions typically account for most an organisation’s total climate impacts. Various databases and proxy measurement methodologies are available for estimating Scope 3 emissions, but increasingly, companies will be expected to be able to provide their customers with externally assured data breaking down emissions sources and providing estimated emissions per unit or dollar spend.

Based on the International Sustainability Standards Board’s (ISSB) climate standard, IFRS S2, the new requirements will be formalised over the next few months, following consultation earlier in the year. Building on the disclosure framework originally proposed by the Taskforce for Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) in 2017, IFRS S2 adds more specific and onerous qualitative and quantitative disclosures around governance, strategy risk management, metrics & targets, and the location and timing of reports.

The exact details of the Australian implementation will be contained in new Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) standards, expected to be finalised early next year. Quantitative analysis and levels of external assurance will be phased in, to give companies and their boards a bit of breathing space as they develop competency with the complex requirements.

The new disclosure standards are expected, in conjunction with other initiatives being undertaken by the ACCC and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (such as the recently announced reform of its Climate Active certification scheme), to provide investors, customers, competitors and other stakeholders with much more comprehensive data and information about firms’ emissions intensity and climate risks, and the credibility of their plans for reduction and risk management. Greenwash will become much easier for regulators and others to identify and call out.

As ISSB Vice-Chair Sue Lloyd has said, “Companies should do this not because they’re forced to – but choose to – because it’s a great way to communicate to the market and attract capital.”

Even if your business is not caught in the disclosure net, expect those B2B clients who are to demand disclosure of the emissions intensity of the products and services you supply, along with your trajectory towards net zero greenhouse emissions. Companies with lower emissions intensity and a clear and compelling pathway to net zero will be at an advantage. If your business represents a material component of their value chains, expect them to request a breakdown of your climate risks and associated controls to feed into their own reporting. And if you’re seeking capital, bankers and other potential investors are likely to begin to require such disclosures.

Not sure where to start? Contact us for a complimentary confidential briefing session to help you ascertain where you are in your climate reporting journey and recommended next steps to prepare.

10 August 2022 By David McEwen

The Biggest Part of Achieving Net Zero Could be the Hardest

What is a company’s largest source of greenhouse emissions? For most businesses, the answer lies in their value chains. Or rather, the tangled net that is their value mesh.

Scoping the Problem

When you think about sources of a company’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the first thing that might come to mind is emissions associated with its facilities: its factories, warehouses, and offices. If the company is in the transport sector (e.g. a courier company or an airline), you might think about the emissions from its vehicles. If so, you’re thinking about the company’s scope 1 and 2 emissions.

Country level GHG measurement standards were defined by the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, which stipulates which types of gases need to be measured and the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of each. The GWP assesses how powerful the warming impact of a unit of a given gas is over a specified period of time. For example, a kilogram of methane released into the atmosphere has over 80 times the warming impact of a kilogram of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. Some refrigerant gases have GWPs in the tens of thousands.

As an aside, most GHGs persist in the atmosphere for many centuries or millennia, so cumulative emissions count: if we achieved zero emissions globally tomorrow, the climate would just stop getting hotter. It wouldn’t revert to where it was, say, 100 years ago, unless we achieved negative emissions and actually reduced the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere.

In turn, corporate GHG measurement standards are defined by the GHG Protocol Initiative, which was established by the World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development. The Protocol established three “scopes” of emissions:

1. Direct emissions associated with facilities and vehicles directly controlled by the company. Typically associated with the combustion of fossil fuels (such as natural gas, oil and its derivatives petrol and diesel) or releases of GHGs related to various chemical or biological processes, such as cement production or fertiliser use. Leaks of GHGs such as methane (natural gas) and refrigerant gases from equipment or pipelines owned by the company are also counted – these are known as “fugitive” emissions.

2. Purchased energy in the form of electricity, steam, heating or cooling that is used by the company. A company measuring its emissions needs to understand the “emissions intensity” of the energy sources it purchases. This is assessed in terms of how many kilograms of GHGs (typically normalised as “kg CO₂-equivalent”, where the warming impact of the various GHGs is baselined to the equivalent impact of a kg of carbon dioxide) are used to produce a particular unit of energy. For example, in a power grid dominated by bituminous coal electricity generation, a MWh of electricity might produce around 800kg of emissions.

3. All other emissions associated with what the company does.Scope 3 is where it gets complicated. Because you’re needing to measure the full upstream and downstream value chain of the company. Effectively, its sphere of influence: what emissions would not be produced if that company did not exist (regardless of whether competitor firms simply sold more in that case). And when you set out to do that, you quickly realise that the term “value chain” is altogether too linear. It’s really a “value mesh”.

The Value Mesh Challenge

A manufacturing client I work with purchases over 1,000 items that go into its products, from hundreds of suppliers located around the globe. In all cases, those suppliers themselves source inputs from other companies, who in turn source inputs from other companies, and so on back to the raw materials providers. In addition to emissions directly associated with producing the input, each of those suppliers has emissions associated with their facilities, electricity, employee commuting, business travel, waste, transportation of products, and many more. It’s easy to see how the upstream value chain is more of a tangled net.

And it’s by far my client’s largest source of emissions. These upstream sources are known as “embodied emissions”. Though it’s very difficult to measure the entirety with any accuracy, given a lack of well-regulated emissions data for many companies; and a purchaser typically having limited influence over their suppliers (unless they happen to be a giant in their sector, like Coles or Woolworths are in Australian FMCG).

Indeed, contractually it may be almost impossible to get information about a supplier’s ownsuppliers, let alone untangling any further up the mesh. As such, measurement of upstream value chain emissions typically relies on proxy metrics, using datasets that associate an emissions factor to dollars spent on different types of supplies.

This simplification may mask wide variation between the relative emissions intensity of different companies producing the same supplies. For example, if one aluminium smelter uses renewable electricity while another uses coal, their emissions intensity for a kg of aluminium would be chalk and cheese.

When Downstream Counts More

On the other hand, for some industries, including fossil fuel energy supply and automotive manufacturing, the largest source of their scope 3 emissions is the downstream value chain, particularly customers’ use of their products. In this case, it is relatively easy to see that a company that exclusively produces electric vehicles rather than petrol/diesel should have lower scope 3 emissions (knowing that charging the vehicles’ battery from grid power largely sourced from coal generation is typically less emissions intensive per kilometre travelled than even an efficient internal combustion engine).

In terms of an electric vehicle manufacturers’ overall emissions, the embodied emissions of the materials used to make the battery and electric motors need to be compared with the equivalent emissions for a petrol/diesel vehicle’s engine, starter motor, radiator, gearbox, fuel tank, battery, etc. Typically, an EV is somewhat heavier than an otherwise equivalent internal combustion model, but only by about 10%. Nevertheless, all of these factors, along with the end-of-life arrangements – such as the recyclability of the vehicle’s parts – need to be taken into account in assessing the manufacturers’ total emissions.

A franchise business model might also have large downstream scope 3 emissions, since franchisees’ operations and supplies count as part of its sphere of influence, even if the master franchisor has a relatively small direct footprint.

Investment Emissions

Another potentially large source of a company’s scope three emissions, and one that is seldom considered, is its investments. Where are its free cashflow and reserves invested? If they’re in deposit accounts of banks that lend to emissions intensive industries (such as fossil fuel firms), or in equities or bonds issued by emissions intensive firms, then that could be material (in which case it should require disclosure). Financial services firms have come under intense scrutiny over the last decade given their facilitation of high emitting activities, and companies with large cast reserves are starting to be examined by various think tanks and activist groups.

If You Have Value Chain Influence, Use It Wisely

Purchasing power is a function of how much a company buys as a proportion of the total market for the particular good or service. As mentioned earlier, the supermarket giants in Australia control a significant proportion of the total spend on entire product lines and industries. Companies with high purchasing power are in the position to transform industries towards low emissions intensity. Or to force a switch to low emissions substitutes.

But your company needn’t be a behemoth to have positive influence. Simply modifying your standard RFP (request for proposal) procurement clauses to make a supplier’s commitment to sourcing its electricity from renewable sources a desirable (or even mandatory) requirement can make a difference. If nothing else, it will make that supplier think about it.

In addition to renewable electricity, some key questions to ask major suppliers could include:

Outline [supplier’s] plan to achieve net zero GHG emissions including the target date and emissions reduction achievements to date.
Has the net zero plan been endorsed by the board and publicised? Is it aligned with other strategic plans? Is executive remuneration tied to the achievement of the plan? To what extent has funding been committed to implement the plan?
Is the plan endorsed by the Science Based Targets Initiative?
What proportion of the planned move to net zero is accomplished by genuine emissions reduction vs use of purchased carbon offset credits?
Explain the extent to which scope 3 value chain emissions are included in the net zero target. How they have been measured or estimated? What upstream/downstream emissions sources are excluded?
Have your major suppliers made net zero commitments at least equivalent to yours?

These types of queries will provide a useful reference to baseline and track upstream value chain progress over time. Including contractual clauses requiring updates and evidence of key suppliers’ emissions reduction achievements is also useful.

Measuring and driving down value chain emissions is a critical step towards delivering net zero emissions. But it requires effort and tenacity.

David McEwen is a Director at Adaptive Capability, providing TCFD-aligned climate risk, and net-zero emissions (NZE) strategy, program and project management. He works with businesspeople, designers and engineers to deliver impactful change, and has delivered dozens of property-related projects. His book, Navigating the Adaptive Economy, was released in 2016.

9 June 2021 By David McEwen

Climate of Care. A New Risk for Corporate Australia

In a landmark judgement, Australian Federal Court Justice Mordecai Bromberg recently established that the Commonwealth Government has a duty of care to protect Australian children from future harms related to climate change.

Accepting evidence that was uncontested by the legal team representing the Minister for the Environment, Bromberg agreed that a particular coal expansion project (the subject of an injunction sought by a group of teenage applicants) would incrementally contribute to future climate harms if approved. While stopping short of granting the injunction to prevent the Minister from approving the mine, the judge was very clear that such a decision would be open to judicial review given the facts established in the case.

Corporate Australia Take Notice

By extension, this principle could now be applied to any corporate action or inaction that causes an increase in the greenhouse gas emissions that are heating the planet at an unprecedented rate. Activists are lining up and crowd funding to apply this principle, along with principles established by favourable litigation offshore. And they’re no longer your stereotypical activists either: respected groups such as doctors, parents, farmers, engineers, lawyers, athletes and many other professional groups are engaged in a global version of “whack a mole”, fighting emissions intensive projects and exploring litigation to bring governments and corporates to account to achieve the objectives of the Paris Climate Agreement.

On the same day as the Bromberg judgement, for example, a court in The Hague ordered Royal Dutch Shell to slash its emissions by 45% by 2030 (off 2019 levels). Not just its direct scope 1 and 2 emissions, but also the scope 3 emissions associated with its supply chain and, most significantly, customers’ end use of its products.

The 45% ruling reflects the global average emissions cuts needed by 2030 to maintain a chance of limiting global heating to the safe(-ish) level of 1.5^oC: for developed countries such as Australia the target is significantly higher. For example, updating the Climate Change Authority’s 2014 methodology (which recommended reductions of 40% to 60% by 2030), researchers found earlier this year that – due to minimal emissions reductions in the intervening years, and the cumulative impact of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – Australia’s 2030 target has increased to 74% off the 2005 baseline.

As such, climate litigation must now be considered a significant corporate risk. While both the aforementioned cases are subject to appeal, the global mood is clearly shifting. Companies that are not seen to be making serious and genuine efforts to cut their emissions, across their entire value chains, are at risk of actions that could scuttle expansion plans; render parts of their business unviable; and sink asset valuations. Governments may be compelled to refuse project approvals that were until recently seen as legitimate and societally beneficial.

It’s not just fossil fuel firms that are under the microscope. Major energy users such as airlines and logistics firms; big organisations with massive supply chains such as supermarket and FMCG giants (whose size means they have the influence to transform industries); producers of emissions intensive building products and the construction giants who use them; and “big meat” agribusinesses, are just a few sectors that will increasingly feel the heat for their actions or inactions.

Next Steps for Boards

The implications for boards?

Identify, assess and evaluate your physical and transitional climate risks.
Understand the emissions intensity of your supply chain, assets, processes, products and services.
Adopt Science Based emissions reduction Targets (SBT) that go beyond greenwash to encompass upstream and downstream scope 3 emissions, and establish delivery accountabilities.
Accept that purchased offsets are a complement – not a substitute – for genuine, near term emissions reduction.
Appreciate that achieving genuine emissions reduction may require transforming your business model or product range.

Above all, embrace climate change as an opportunity, rather than a threat. Accept that the business environment is changing, it’s gathering pace, and it’s already unstoppable. Treat climate change as a disruptor, much like digital has been for the past two decades. Avoid having a Kodak moment: neither size nor venerable history will protect your organisation from the shift to a net zero emissions economy.

4 June 2021 By David McEwen

Getting Off Gas – Commercial Buildings

In the last post we looked at the many reasons Australia needs to kick its methane gas habit, including health, climate, cost and jobs concerns. In this one we drill into de-gassing commercial buildings. The latest version of the Green Building Council of Australia’s GreenStar rating tool denies its highest ratings to commercial office buildings that cannot demonstrate that they are “fossil fuel free.” That is, that they do not consume gas or other fossil fuels on premises, except for backup power generation.

Photo by **Logan Kirschner** from **Pexels**

Major institutional property investors have already changed projects mid-construction to design-out gas and are reviewing their portfolios to determine the most cost effective pathways to replace gas plant in existing buildings.

Heating, hot water and cooking are the three main uses of gas in commercial buildings.

Cooking Without Gas

Electrifying cooking is pretty straightforward once chefs are convinced of the benefits of induction cooking, with its instant heat, fine control, easy to clean surfaces, and efficiency. There are even commercial grade induction units suitable for wok cooking, with large concave elements to provide even heat. The spatial footprint for induction appliances is identical; it’s just a case of getting the power there (more on that in a moment).

Heating and Hot Water

Replacing boilers and other heating and hot water plant may be more difficult. Their electric equivalents, heat pumps, use the same principles as a reverse cycle air conditioning unit, and typically require outdoor and indoor units, potentially creating spatial and even structural challenges in terms of where they can be situated. Council authority approvals are often required if adding external plant due to visual and acoustic impacts to neighbours, unless it can be sited within an existing recessed external plant area. Some buildings use instantaneous gas units for water heating, which have a very small form factor; heat pump systems may require additional bulky and heavy tanks. Pipework may require re-routing.

Power Impacts

Then there’s electricity. A commercial building’s power bill has three main parts to it:

Consumption, charged on a per-kWh basis, often with time of day and/or aggregate consumption charges;
Maximum demand, charged based on the highest electricity demand in kW during the year; and
Fixed network and statutory charges.

When building plant is electrified, both consumption and maximum demand patterns will change. While the gas bill will fall, it’s critical to model the impact on electricity over the course of the year. If maximum demand increases, this will both increase those costs, but could also result in the building requiring a larger feed from the electricity distributor (if one is readily available given local network constraints – we’ve seen examples where the distributor has offered an upgrade providing the customer provides the capex to run new cabling from substations up to tens of kilometres away). Meanwhile, daily and seasonal consumption patterns and aggregate electricity supply will increase.

And it’s not just the supply to the building that might need to be upgraded. The capacity of the main switchboard, sub-mains cabling running to each floor, distribution boards serving the relevant plant rooms and kitchen areas all need to be reviewed and may require modification.

Fortunately, due to seasonal variability between major building energy uses, building electrification may be possible without increasing maximum demand, and can be cost effective in conjunction with normal plant replacement cycles. However, it requires careful modelling and effective design to ensure costs don’t go through the roof.

One Size Doesn’t Fit All

Whereas most vehicle designs are mass-manufactured and it is often possible to design an electrification retrofit kit that can be rolled out at scale, every commercial building is unique given the original architects’ and engineers’ proclivities, plus differing block sizes and planning constraints. The arrangements and sizing of plant rooms, pipe and cable risers, and of course the various building systems (electrical, mechanical and plumbing) varies considerably from building to building.

Unfortunately, there’s no “one size fits all” solution for removing methane gas uses, and it’s critical to use experienced engineers to ensure electrification upgrades are efficient, cost effective and reliable. And when you’re playing with critical building systems, capable project management is also a must.

4 June 2021 By David McEwen

Getting Off Gas

Australia has a gas problem. Not the type that comes from eating too many beans, but the stuff that’s pumped out of the ground, into our homes and factories, and onto ships for export. I’m talking about fossil methane, known better by its marketing name, “natural gas”.

Little Good About Gas

There is little good to say about fossil methane.

Exposure to it is bad for our health. Gas stoves and other un-flued gas appliances in homes are a leading cause of childhood asthma, amongst other conditions. When gas is vented or leaks from pipes or appliances into the atmosphere (which modern measurement techniques are showing happens far more extensively than had been assumed) it acts as a potent greenhouse gas, heating the planet planet at 86 times (or more) the rate of carbon dioxide (which itself is emitted when methane is combusted).

Extracting methane is increasingly expensive and environmentally harmful. The days of cheap gas from sticking a well into Bass Strait are over, with those supplies dwindling over the next decade. As such, gas exploration companies have turned to unconventional methods such as Coal Seam and Shale Gas, with or without so-called fracking (in which a dangerous cocktail of chemicals is pumped deep into the ground to fracture the reservoirs). These processes are relatively expensive; involve drilling a patchwork of hundreds of wells interconnected with access roads (which destroy bushland, animal habitat and encroach on farmland); produce salt and other waste streams; can irrevocably compromise artesian water supplies and may contaminate streams and rivers.

Another factor that has pushed up domestic gas prices was the granting of rights to extract, liquefy and export fossil methane as LNG. Traditionally Australians paid less than international markets for our gas. Not anymore. That has reduced the competitiveness of Australian manufacturers (many of which have traditionally relied on cheap gas for process and high heat applications or as a feedstock) and pushed up energy prices for householders. The gas industry itself is far from critical to Australia’s economy. Being capital intensive, it sustains fewer jobs than just one of the major banks, even allowing for the LNG export market, and has been very effective at claiming substantial subsidies while minimising its taxes and royalties.

Electricity generated using gas is now significantly more expensive than renewable power, even allowing for the costs of batteries or other forms of storage (that provide continuity for variable solar and wind generation sources). Renewables and storage projects (including longer form storage such as pumped hydro) have pushed down wholesale electricity costs over the last few years are now being deployed at significant scale: more than what is necessary to accommodate forthcoming coal plant closures.

And with the International Energy Agency – once a bastion of the fossil fuel industry – now advising that in order to limit warming to no more than 1.5^oC and meet the objective of the Paris Climate Accord, no new coal, oil or gas developments can be made. No mines or wells. No new power plants. No new industrial uses. Many of Australia’s major trading partners are starting to take climate action very seriously so it is likely that, as has already happened with coal, the market for our LNG will rapidly peak and decline.

De-Gassing is Already Underway

As such, it’s high time Australia commenced a transition away from gas. How can this be done?

Of the gas extracted in Australia, nearly three quarters is exported. Domestically, gas is used in four main areas [1]:

30% (and declining) is used for electricity production
28% in manufacturing and non-LNG mining
27% in conjunction with the production of export LNG.
15% in residential and commercial buildings.

The good news is that domestic gas use is in decline. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) noted in 2021 that the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) “has lowered its demand forecast by 77 PJ per year on average,” – about 6.7% of ex-LNG domestic demand [2]. Why? Because gas has become relatively expensive as producers have pegged prices to international markets and cheap conventional supplies have depleted. As a result it is being used less in electricity production as it is supplanted by cheaper renewables (which are increasingly firmed with grid scale batteries or other forms of dispatchable storage).

High gas prices have also forced some manufacturing offshore, and there are opportunities to electrify process heating uses of methane. Green hydrogen (renewably produced, zero emissions) may in future provide an alternative to methane for high heat and some feedstock uses, but it is likely to remain uncompetitive in the medium term unless a carbon price was to be reintroduced.

In buildings, it is already more cost effective to fully-electrify new builds, and is often economical to switch plant or appliances to electric alternatives at their end of life. We’ll look at this in more detail in a future post.

[1] Derived from https://www.energy.gov.au/sites/default/files/Australian%20Energy%20Statistics%202020%20Energy%20Update%20Report_0.pdf , Figure 2.3

[2] https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Gas%20Inquiry%20-%20January%202021%20interim%20report_1.pdf, p29

5 January 2021 By David McEwen

Climate Ambition is Rising – What Does it Mean for Your Business?

In December 2020 a virtual meeting of 70 world leaders took place, with many countries including the European Union and UK strengthening their emissions reduction ambitions through new pledges as part of the 5 yearly Paris Climate Agreement ratchet clause. [1] Australia – with a 2030 target that is less than half of what would be consistent with the IPCC’s recommendations to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees above the historical average, and with no net-zero commitment – was not invited to present to the forum. [2]

What are the implications for businesses?

It is clear that the world is shifting, at least in terms of policy announcements, towards a downwards emissions trajectory. Emissions peaked in 2019, and though dampened by the Covid-19 pandemic during 2020, are expected to trend upwards in 2021 as economies reopen and more normal travel patterns resume. However, the year has been marked by significant changes of stance and tone in the politics of emissions reduction amongst Australian trading partners that collectively purchase nearly three quarters of our emissions, including the UK, Europe, China, South Korea and Japan. [3] The US Presidential election result will see the incoming Biden team snap back to pre-Trump policies, including re-joining the Paris agreement and announcing a formal net-zero by 2050 target. [4]

In Australia, while there was a slight change in language since the US election, as yet there has been no shift in Federal emissions reduction policy, despite all states and territories now having net-zero policies or legislation. [5] This is cementing Australia’s position as a laggard amongst developed nations, particularly given our extremely high per-capita emissions. [6] This puts most businesses at a distinct disadvantage.

Let’s get physical

From a physical risk perspective, Australia is experiencing national temperature increases significantly above the global average due to the thermodynamics of its large dry landmass, which is on its way to becoming significantly hotter and dryer. The Murray Darling basin, home to much of the country’s agricultural output, has seen river flows has seen an 11% winter rainfall decline over the last two decades and is on its way to a projected 20% decrease in river flows even in a comparatively good case scenario of 2 degrees average global warming. [7]

Throw in higher rates of evaporative soil moisture loss, heat stress on plants; fewer frost days in winter (which are essential for some crops’ growth cycles); and more weather extremes including extreme precipitation events that denude topsoil and take juvenile plants with them, and you have a recipe for lower overall agricultural productivity and much greater output variability. It’s all very well as a wealthy country to say “we’ll just import more in a bad year”, but there is a growing likelihood that, with increasing frequency, multiple growing regions will experience bad years simultaneously. [8]

It’s not just agriculture that is exposed. As unusually intense storms pummelled Australia’s East Coast this week, threatening infrastructure and leading to significant erosion of Byron Bay’s iconic main beach [9] we had a taste of the growing threat of extreme coastal weather, particularly the damage that storm surges propelled by high tides and magnified by even small levels of sea level rise (to date mostly caused by thermal expansion of the heating ocean, but increasingly from melting land ice in polar regions). [10] Climate models project that both tropical cyclones and East Coast Lows, while not necessarily more frequent, are generally likely to be more intense when they do occur. [11]

Indeed, recent analysis by insurance broker Aon found that so-called secondary perils including hail, flood, storms and bushfires (that generate small to mid-sized losses compared with primary perils such as earthquakes and cyclones) have generated over half the global insured losses between 2017 and 2019. All of these phenomena are expected to become more damaging due to climate change. [12]

Globally, economic losses from extreme weather events have increased significantly over the last four decades, partly due to the increasing value of assets built in exposed areas. [13] With multi-metre sea level rise over the long term (beyond 2100) now locked in even if the Paris climate goals are met, and the majority of coral reefs almost certainly devastated by mid-century, billions of dollars of coastal infrastructure (including major roads, ports and airports) and tourism assets is at risk. [14] As such, affordability of insurance is decreasing: following Townsville’s 2019 flooding, premiums rose as much as four-fold. [15]

From Transition to Transformation

Then there are the transitional risks, which could affect companies’ revenues, asset valuations, or costs of doing business. Take the recently floated Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal, which Queenslanders have an ill timed stake in through the government-owned QIC’s 10% share. Down 25% in its first week, during which the ASX shed just 0.6%. [16] The ASX200 energy sector has significantly under performed the broader Materials Index (covering all resources) over much of the last five years. [17]

While fossil-fuel related electricity and resources assets are currently the most affected, with major managers responsible for trillions of dollars of investment decisions announcing Paris-aligned net-zero mandates for their portfolios, it won’t be long before the malaise spreads to other major users of fossil fuels, particularly in transportation and in turn energy intensive industries such as steel. Just last week a new initiative – Net Zero Asset Managers – was launched with 30 founding signatories, adding to the UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance, launched in September 2019, which now has 33 members. [18] Emissions intensive businesses will come under increasing pressure to adopt transformative business models. Australian businesses may be disadvantaged to the extent our energy system remains fossil fuel dependent.

Unless Australia embraces a net zero 2050 target (along with a coherent plan to get there) – and particularly while it remains the highest per-capita emitter and one of the largest global producers of fossil fuels – exporters are likely to start feeling the pinch. The European Union has proposed a tax on imports from countries whose emissions reduction targets are not Paris-aligned, and one of the top contenders for the head of the OECD is proposing a global roll out of such a scheme. [19]

Most Australian businesses would benefit from policy decisions that accelerate the transformation towards a clean energy system encompassing electricity, transport, industry and agriculture. Economist Ross Garnaut and other analysts predict that a renewable grid would push electricity prices down, in turn lowering operational and transportation costs as vehicle fleets are electrified (or converted to green hydrogen in the case of some heavy transport). [20] As NSW’s recent renewable energy zone auction demonstrated, there is considerable private sector appetite to fund this transition given the superior economics of solar, wind and storage. [21]

Contrary to public perception, Australia’s coal and gas industries are responsible for only about 1% of jobs. [22] Clean and circular services, manufacturing, agriculture, energy and non-fossil resources industries are key to our future economy. Talk to Adaptive Capability today to understand the risks and opportunities of climate change and turbo charge your business.

David McEwen is a Director at Adaptive Capability, providing strategic risk and project management advice to help businesses create and preserve value in the face of climate change. His book, Navigating the Adaptive Economy, was released in 2016. Visit www.adaptiveeconomybook.com.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/12/world-is-in-danger-of-missing-paris-climate-target-summit-is-warned

[2] https://www.9news.com.au/national/united-nations-pressure-to-declare-climate-emergency-scott-morrison-snubbed-at-climate-ambition-summit/e158f9b6-ea6e-480c-b0f6-1f11e04e2d1a

[3] https://www.ft.com/content/185e5043-fd72-4fef-a05c-f2a5001c7f4b

[4] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54858638

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/29/scott-morrisons-climate-language-has-shifted-but-actions-speak-louder-than-words

[6] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55222890

[7] https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/stop-fighting-and-start-adapting-to-climate-change-basin-authority-says-20201214-p56nbc.html

[8] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-18/climate-change-may-double-the-risk-of-breadbasket-failures

[9] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/dec/14/byron-bay-beach-damage-worst-in-a-generation-as-storms-batter-1000km-of-coastline

[10] https://cleantechnica.com/2020/04/23/the-number-of-people-affected-by-floods-will-double-by-2030/

[11] https://climatechange.environment.nsw.gov.au/Impacts-of-climate-change/East-Coast-Lows/Future-East-Coast-Lows

[12] https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2020/09/23/583704.htm

[13] https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/climate-change-what-are-the-risks-to-financial-stability

[14] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/23/melting-antarctic-ice-will-raise-sea-level-by-25-metres-even-if-paris-climate-goals-are-met-study-finds

[15] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-21/high-premiums-driving-uninsured-homes-in-northern-australia/11819814

[16] https://www.afr.com/companies/infrastructure/dalrymple-bay-infrastructure-shares-sink-on-first-day-of-trading-20201208-p56lj8

[17] For example, graph in section 3 of this article: https://www.marketmatters.com.au/blog/post/market-matters-weekend-report-sunday-19th-july-2020/

[18] https://www.ipe.com/news/net-zero-asset-manager-initiative-kicks-off-with-30-founding-signatories/10049545.article

[19] https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/economy-and-ecology-cormann-s-top-oecd-rival-pledges-climate-reform-20201210-p56m75.html

[20] Garnaut, R., Superpower – Australia’s low-carbon opportunity, La Trobe University Press, 2019.

[21] https://reneweconomy.com.au/dubbos-new-renewables-zone-shows-the-path-away-from-fossil-fuels-79082/

[22] https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7055572/how-australia-could-move-away-from-fossil-fuels-without-mass-layoffs/

18 November 2020 By David McEwen

Climate Litigation – An Expanding Risk for Business

With compelling evidence that even 1.5 degrees of global warming will mean suffering for millions, climate activism is heading to the courtroom.

Climate activists are on the prowl. Armed with not for profit law firms they are becoming increasingly creative in their attacks on governments and business. During 2020 in Australia alone, there have been dozens of cases lodged, often aimed at halting or challenging government approvals of private sector projects. Indeed, Australia has one of the highest rates of climate litigation outside of the United States. [1]

As legislative compliance avenues have been exhausted, activists have increasingly moved to human rights and common law challenges. A good example of the latter is Sharma et al v. the Minister for the Environment, which invokes the Minister’s duty of care for young people to attempt to prevent approval of a thermal coal mine extension. Another is O’Donnell v. Commonwealth, which alleges that the Australian government has “…breached its duty of disclosure and misled and deceived investors in failing to disclose” climate risks related to its issuance of government bond. And one of the most famous is the Urgenda case in the Netherlands, which has forced the government to significantly up the ante on its emission reduction targets.

Of course, a growing number of fossil fuel firms have been directly sued for their projects’ environmental harm. Not for profit law firms such as the Environmental Defenders Office, Environmental Justice Australia and Equity Generation Lawyers have been busy progressing such cases. This includes a landmark case applying new Queensland Human Rights legislation, challenging the state’s Land Court to reject Clive Palmer’s proposed Waratah coal mine near the Adani Carmichael project in the Galilee Basin.

It’s not just governments facing the brunt of the law. Superannuation funds and banks have found themselves under attack for failing to consider climate risks in their investing and lending activities. Similar to the O’Donnell case, McVeigh v. Retail Employees Superannuation Trust (REST, lodged in 2018) involved a member of the fund challenging the manager on its failure to disclose or address climate risks. In early November it was settled just before court proceedings were due to commence, with REST agreeing to improve its climate risk assessment and disclosure, along with measurement of the emissions intensity of its portfolio and a realignment to achieve carbon neutrality for the fund by 2050. While not creating a legal precedent, the settlement nevertheless sends a clear signal to the influential sector, which controls substantial holdings in all listed companies and can exert its influence to pressure carbon polluting companies to clean up their acts and transition to clean energy alternatives.

And a number of progressive governments have themselves got in on the act, with jurisdictions such as the state of New York suing fossil fuel firms (in this case Exxon Mobil Corporation) for their complicity in misleading their investors with regard to the deleterious impacts of their products on the global climate. Thus far such cases have failed to stick in court.
Conversely, local governments have come under attack from residents when they have attempted to amend development plans to limit coastal developments subject to erosion due to sea level rise. While it’s a natural response from a well heeled owner of waterfront property wanting to avoid value loss or have their , a number of back downs have eroded local governments’ authority to assert prudent controls. In turn this raises risk for purchasers of vulnerable property, while insurance affordability is progressively reduced. As long ago as 2011 the Australian Local Government Association commissioned a report to help councils prepare for this risk.

What has been less common in Australia — thus far — is the practice of companies suing governments (or other companies) on climate grounds. 2014 marked one of the first such examples: filed as a show case and later withdrawn, perhaps as a warning shot above the bows. In it, the Illinois Farmers Insurance Company challenged Cook County (covering greater Chicago) over its failure to implement effective stormwater management capacity in light of increasing extreme inundation events as a result of climate change, which was leading to increased payouts by the insurance company.

The insurance industry has a great deal to lose from climate change as acute physical climate risks in the form of extreme weather events become more intense and/or frequent over time. It is perhaps surprising that insurers have not been more active in pursuing stronger government action on emissions reduction. And the impacts cascade: as insurers retreat from coverage in vulnerable areas (initially by raising premiums), the proportion of under- and un-insured assets increases. Vulnerable property values decrease, resulting in losses for owners when selling. Banks face default risk in the case of asset damage to uninsured properties. Some of the burden passes to government social services, as mortgage holders are forced from their homes.

As the extent of business and individual losses due to climate inaction becomes more apparent, there is likely to be a boom in climate litigation. To the extent that your business is not seen to be taking genuine action to reduce emissions in line with science based plans aligned with the IPCC’s 1.5 degree target, it could be vulnerable. While governments and major emitters associated with the fossil fuel industry will remain the major targets (and are fertile territory given evidence of their long term knowledge and suppression of information about the risks of climate change), other sectors are not immune. Airlines, shipping, steel, cement, petrochemical derivatives and meat based agriculture are amongst industries that could have actions brought against them, particularly as science-aligned emissions reduction targets are legislated by states and countries.

Is your business next? Talk to Adaptive Capability today to understand the risks and opportunities of climate change to your business.

[1] Columbia University’s climate litigation database http://climatecasechart.com/ tracks cases globally.
[2] https://equitygenerationlawyers.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Statement-from-Rest-2-November-2020.pdf
[3] https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d9b2f9cf-d7ab-4fa0-ab0e-483036079dc7/files/alga-report.pdf

15 October 2020 By David McEwen

Is hydrogen in buildings the right approach?

83 years after the Hindenburg disaster highlighted the dangers of this highly flammable and explosive gas, hydrogen is now being touted as an energy saviour that will help humanity reduce its greenhouse emissions to avert catastrophic climate change. There’s a lot of talk and a growing investment pot, but not all of it is realistic or beneficial in helping countries achieve net zero decarbonisation targets.

Hydrogen is the lightest gas; colourless, odourless, and an excellent energy carrier: around three times more so than natural gas (methane, a fossil fuel) on a weight for weight basis. When burnt, its only emission is water, with no greenhouse gases or other toxins released.

On the other hand, in terms of energy density (per litre) it is considerably less efficient than natural gas and oil, and it involves a number of technical challenges to handle, store and transport safely and efficiently for different applications. Nevertheless it’s already used at reasonable scale in industry, mainly for applications like fertiliser production and refining petroleum products. Perhaps surprisingly, on many measures hydrogen is considered safer than methane or petrol. [1]

Where Does Hydrogen Come From?

Due to its tendency to bond with other elements, pure hydrogen (H2) is typically not found in abundant quantities either in the atmosphere or underground – it has to be made, using chemical processes that consume energy and, depending on the method, may involve significant greenhouse emissions themselves. And, it’s currently relatively expensive.

Those seeking action on climate change have their hopes pinned on hydrogen produced by splitting water molecules into their component H2 and O parts using electrolysis. Kids can do this at home using two conductors placed in a cup of water and connected to a battery. Bubbles of hydrogen form at the negatively charged cathode, while oxygen collects at the positive anode. Commercial electrolysers are improving rapidly in cost and performance.

If the electricity for the electrolyser is sourced exclusively from a renewable source (such as a wind or solar farm) then the hydrogen is known as “green”: it involves no operational emissions in its production or use. Electrolysers at large scale could provide a valuable demand response solution for the grid, by skimming excess renewable generation, or bespoke wind/solar farms could be established near production sites (see https://asianrehub.com/ for one such example).

(Of course, if processes involved in its transportation and storage create emissions, then it may not be a truly emissions free source. It also consumes a lot of fresh water, but so does the extraction and processing of fossil fuels and their use in electricity production.)

On the other hand, most of the hydrogen produced today comes from a process called steam methane reformation (SMR) using fossil gas; another method involves coal gasification. Both of these approaches produce significant greenhouse emissions.

Some (including the Australian Government in its recently released Technology Roadmap [2]) argue that SMR with carbon capture and storage (CCS) – i.e. trapping and burying the greenhouse emissions deep underground) can produce low emissions hydrogen, referred to as “blue”.

However:

CCS technologies are relatively unproven and in any case do not trap 100% of emissions;
CCS consumes additional energy, which would itself need to be renewably produced; and
the extraction and transportation of the fossil methane to the hydrogen production facility involves significant “fugitive” emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Perhaps they call it “blue” because its emissions reduction outcomes are pretty sad compared to green hydrogen.

What should hydrogen be used for?

Currently, fossil methane (marketed as natural gas) has a wide range of applications including electricity production; vehicle fuels; many industrial processes, including where high heat is required; plus cooking, space and water heating in homes and commercial buildings. Theoretically, green hydrogen could be used for most of these (apart from industrial processes that rely on the specific chemical composition of methane or other hydrocarbons).

Hydrogen in Electricity Production
Does hydrogen have a place in electricity production? Renewable electricity generation supported by batteries and other storage systems can replace most use of gas (and coal) in the grid (much more cost effectively than hydrogen). There is likely to still be a need for dispatchable generation for odd times when wind and solar under-produce for multi-day periods depleting battery and pumped hydro storage capacity. A well designed renewable grid will limit but probably not eliminate those occurrences, and as we’ll see the grid is expected to grow significantly over the next few decades due to electrification. For a fully decarbonised grid, we will likely need green hydrogen turbines (as production costs become competitive) to fully phase out coal and fossil gas generation. For the foreseeable future however, hydrogen is likely to be relatively uncompetitive against fossil methane for such peaking requirements.

Hydrogen in Transport
Transport falls into two camps. The vast majority of personal transport needs will soon be able to be cost effectively met by battery electric vehicles, with hydrogen fuel cells remaining uncompetitive. Given the enormous advances in technology and manufacturing scale, BEVs are expected to be available before mid-decade for the same or lower cost of an equivalently featured internal combustion engine (ICE, i.e. petrol or diesel) car. They will have battery ranges more than equivalent to similarly sized ICE vehicles.

At that point (and assuming fast charging infrastructure matches uptake), only enthusiasts and those in remote parts of the country would buy an ICE vehicle given the much lower running costs of BEVs (charging costs a fraction of filling a tank, and with far fewer moving parts the outlook is bleak for motor mechanics). Charging a national fleet of BEVs is expected to increase grid demand in the order of 20%. [3]

Hydrogen fuel cell personal vehicles could gain a small foothold in remote communities given their ability to carry additional fuel, particularly if sales of ICE vehicles are banned and hydrogen refuelling infrastructure is established.

Conversely, for heavy transport, including buses, trucks, un-electrified trains, and shipping (but perhaps not aircraft), green hydrogen is emerging as a sensible way to go, cost effective given the emergence of a network of refuelling depots and once its cost drops a little more, as it already has with growing scale and experience. The Australian government has set a target of A$2 per kilogram, at which point it is expected to become competitive with liquid transport fuels. According to UNSW research it’s currently in the $4-8 range [4]).

In the case of shipping, green hydrogen converted to ammonia (another fuel that is emissions free when burnt) may be a good substitute for the heavy (and highly polluting) fuel oil that is currently used. Ammonia produced in this way is more energy efficient than current processes and can also be used in other applications such as fertiliser production (currently a major source of emissions associated with agriculture). [5]
Suitable replacements for aviation fuel are more problematic. Battery powered planes may work for short haul commuter flights in the future, but hydrogen’s density issue may prevent it from replacing avgas. Synthetic carbon neutral fuels — which green hydrogen might play a part in manufacture of — may be the solution here.

Hydrogen in Industry
In industry, replacing natural gas and coking coal with hydrogen for a range of high heat applications including major emitters steel and cement offers great potential if the cost of hydrogen falls or carbon pricing is applied to traditional processes.

Why Hydrogen Doesn’t Make Sense In Buildings

For both residential and commercial buildings, replacing fossil methane with renewable hydrogen does not make sense for three key reasons:

1. To be competitive with gas for in-building applications, hydrogen would need to be significantly cheaper than is predicted for the foreseeable future. And that’s with domestic gas prices having climbed in Australia since the emergence of the LNG export market. Even if hydrogen prices reach US$1 per kg, it remains relatively uncompetitive with fossil gas, particularly in the absence of a carbon price. [6]

2. Electric substitutes, generally with superior energy efficiency, can replace gas appliances in both homes and larger buildings. There is no economic case for expensive hydrogen to be used in buildings when electricity is available. As the emissions intensity of electricity generation continues to decrease with greater renewables penetration, neither fossil methane nor hydrogen can compete.

3. Above about 10% concentration, hydrogen in the existing fossil methane transmission network (made of high tensile steel) will make the pipes brittle. While the local distribution network has mostly been replaced with HDPE pipes, which are acceptable for hydrogen use, many appliances in buildings will need to be adapted or replaced to cope with for high concentrations of hydrogen.

The ACT government has already introduced mandates for new subdivisions, resulting in the first intentionally gas-network free suburbs. A number of recent commercial building projects have announced net zero targets, requiring all energy consumed to be fossil free. In such cases, fossil gas has been designed out in favour of all electric building systems and power contracted from renewable generators. This trend is expected to grow rapidly as more companies announce plans to achieve carbon neutrality.

What Future for the Gas Network?

If hydrogen in buildings doesn’t make sense, what is the future for the fossil gas network?

Proponents argue that there is merit in starting to inject “clean” hydrogen into the existing gas network. The NSW Government has set a target of 10% green hydrogen in the network by 2030. Australia’s Chief Scientist, Professor Alan Finkel, believes this early use of hydrogen will allow production to scale up over the decade before “pure” hydrogen applications can be rolled out at scale, providing much needed learning opportunities.[7]

We note, that unless there is a clear signal regarding the future of the gas network (i.e. its path to net zero emissions), blending hydrogen with fossil gas will slow down the uptake of electrification in buildings and lead to investment in gas-based plant that could become stranded assets as policies shift to achieve decarbonisation targets. Since going much beyond 10% concentration of hydrogen will require costly upgrades to transmission and building plant (as well as a material impact on energy prices), it is essential that government policy is resolved to provide investment certainty.

Hydrogen is clearly in our future as a vital part of measures to achieve net zero emissions. A pure hydrogen gas network will be required, but it can be much smaller and more distributed than the current fossil gas grid. Rather than serving millions of buildings, it will only need to connect local hydrogen supply points (of which there will be many given the distribution of renewable energy generation), with connections to industrial and generation users, heavy transport vehicle fuelling stations and export terminals, collectively numbering in the hundreds or thousands.

[1] For example, https://blog.ballard.com/hydrogen-safety-myths
[2]https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/September%202020/document/first-low-emissions-technology-statement-2020.pdf
[3] https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Electric_Vehicles/ElectricVehicles/Report/c03
[4] https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/how-green-hydrogen-can-become-cheap-enough-compete-fossil-fuels
[5] https://arena.gov.au/projects/hydrogen-to-ammonia/
[6] https://reneweconomy.com.au/renewable-hydrogen-to-undercut-gas-on-price-but-not-the-answer-for-transport-99853/
[7] Alan Finkel answering the author’s question at the Australian National University’s Energy Change Institute webinar “Digging deeper into the Technology Investment Roadmap”, 8 October 2020

11 August 2020 By David McEwen

Applying Climate Scenarios – A Balance of Assumptions

TCFD guidelines recommend stress testing the resilience of corporate strategy against different climate scenarios. In practice this is easier said than done.
The Taskforce for Climate-related Financial Disclosures [1], an initiative of the global Financial Stability Board, has established as the de facto global standard for corporate disclosures about the impacts of climate change. While it’s certainly an improvement to have guidelines, one of the more difficult aspects to operationalise is the development and application of future “climate scenarios.”

Another issue is that, while various supra national organisations are beginning to publish descriptions and assumptions for potential scenarios that could be adopted, they tend to deal with impacts at a decidedly macro-economic level: implications for GDP and other high level metrics. Unpacking that into micro-economic implications for a particular company (or even an industry) involves a multiplicity of assumptions.

To make matters worse, the economic modelling makes use of integrated assessment models, which authors of scenarios, such as the Network for Greening the Financial System (a global group of central banks) admit are either producing wide ranges of potential outcomes for a given scenario, or are under-estimating likely impacts, potentially by a wide margin [3]. Both of which makes there usefulness at the corporate coal face somewhat compromised.

So what to do?

Each climate scenario needs to articulate two sets of assumptions across short, medium and long time horizons:

1. What is likely to happen to the climate (physical)?

2. How are governments, consumers, the economy, society, competitors, etc. likely to respond (transition)?

Applying those assumptions can then yield specific risks to a particular organisation. Typically (though not necessarily in a linear fashion), the likelihood and in some cases the impact of physical risks, such as asset damage or supply chain disruption due to extreme weather, will increase over time as global heating and its associated effects worsen. To the extent that countries collectively achieve or don’t achieve the emissions reduction targets inherent in the objectives of the Paris agreement, and within what time frames, will dictate the severity of the physical risk. Projected regional impacts based on climate models have been published over various time horizons and emissions reduction trajectories to inform scenarios.
Transition risks follow a less certain path and are dependent on the collective actions of governments, companies and individuals. The extent to which they affect a particular business (negatively or positively) depends on what that business does, how and where it sources, manufactures and sells its products or services, and what strategies it adopts with regard to climate risk.

However, a company that decides to switch to a low emissions path could be penalised if local government policy and customer sentiment is not aligned, particularly if its products are not cost competitive with incumbent alternatives or close substitutes.

This phenomenon can be seen most clearly with electric vehicles. When charged from renewably generated electricity they have no operational emissions, and no tail pipe pollution. In markets where government and popular opinion have embraced them, such as Sweden, uptake has been rapid despite the initial cost premium and perceived disadvantages such as range anxiety and the time it takes to charge, achieving over a quarter of new car sales by early 2020 [4].

In Australia on the other hand, where governments have actively resisted their uptake and fanned negative consumer sentiment by stressing their disadvantages [5], penetration has been tiny, with less than 0.5% of new car sales being electric models [6].

Defining climate scenarios with sufficent clarity to assess the sensitivity of a particular company’s P&L requires a clear process of considering, documenting and testing a range of macro and micro-economic, government policy and social assumptions (overlaid with regional climate projections relevant to the company’s sourcing, operating and market locations), within a broad scenario definition (such as implications of achieving a global heating limit consistent with the Paris Agreement, or exceeding that).

Suffice to say, whatever assumptions are made will most likely not materialise as expected. However, the strength of the scenario planning exercise is to help the organisation consider contingencies that may fundamentally change its operating environment and its customers’ appetite for its products. The bottom line is that the world is, quite literally, changing. More than ever before, past trends are no guarantee of future conditions.

As such, climate scenario planning should be seen as a process of continuous improvement, not a one off workshop. Leading companies are embedding climate considerations into day to day decision-making, striving to improve the analysis behind their scenario assumptions, and continually assessing the rapid shifts that are taking place.
Talk to Adaptive Capability today to understand the risks and opportunities of climate change to your business.

[1] https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/

[2] https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Combustion-engine-phase-out-briefing-may11.2020.pdf

[3] https://www.ngfs.net/en

[4] https://cleantechnica.com/2020/03/25/sweden-reaches-26-electric-vehicle-market-share/

[5] https://reneweconomy.com.au/lets-talk-about-electric-vehicles-australias-policies-are-an-embarrassment-35863/

[6] https://www.caradvice.com.au/855020/electric-car-sales-australia-2020/

18 June 2020 By David McEwen

Show your stripes

This isn’t art, it’s data. Each vertical line is a year. Blues are years that were cooler than the average between 1971 and 2000; red is hotter. The darker the colour the further from the mean. The hottest 10 years since records began in the late 1800s have all been in the last 20 years. 2020 has a good chance of setting a new record.

It’s not sunspots or volcanos or the earth’s rotation or whatever else you might want to believe because you watched some denialist crap on YouTube: it’s us. Mainly our use of coal, oil and gas, cement, land clearing and agriculture.

As it gets hotter, the weather becomes more tempestuous, crop harvests and fresh water supplies become less reliable, the seas rise and become more acidic, and ecosystems on which our lives depend collapse. This is all accelerating now.

How to Fix It

We can fix it, given government will to make systemic changes to our economic system. The good news is that the technology is available today, and is already (or soon will be) cheaper than the old ways that have created the problems. There are multi trillion dollaropportunities for business, millions of jobs, and clean air and water to look forward to. Here’s how:

1. A moratorium on new fossil fuel extraction. Any new investment in coal, oil or gas is utterly incompatible with where we need to be. Existing plants will need to be wound down as quickly as later steps can be scaled up.

2. Rapidly scale up renewables and storage. Australia is currently at 21% (of the current grid). We need to get to at least 700%. We have more than enough land, sun, wind and know how; and wind/solar with storage are now cheaper than fossil or nuclear alternatives – we just need the right policy and regulatory settings from government.

3. Use the excess renewable power to electrify everything that can be including transportation, gas use in buildings and industrial processes.

4. Use the rest of the excess to produce green hydrogen, which can be used for heavy transport (including ships and maybe aircraft), to make steel (instead of coking coal), fertiliser, and for other industrial processes that can’t be electrified. There’s also a huge emerging export opportunity to ship clean hydrogen instead of coal and LNG, and even to send power to Indonesia, Singapore and beyond via submarine cables from the NT.

5. Replace cement, plastic and other products with emerging clean alternatives.

6. Adopt regenerative agriculture to trap carbon in soils, improving productivity and water retention and reducing the need for artificial fertilisers. Reduce the livestock herd and introduce feed systems to reduce their methane emissions.

7. Trap and store methane from landfills and wherever else emissions can’t be eliminated. Trapped greenhouse gases can be used as a feedstock for plastics, jet fuel and other chemical uses.

8. Rewild – return land to nature.

To maintain any semblance of a safe climate the world needs to halve greenhouse emissions by 2030 and get to net zero no later than 2050. As a rich nation with almost the highest per capita emissions in the world, and amazing assets to decarbonise, Australia owes it to the world to punch above our weight.

But there are powerful vested interests distorting and diluting this message and fighting to preserve the status quo. The fossil fuel industry has captured Australian politicians (from both major parties) and key media organisations. They are using their super-profits to buy their longevity, while knowingly hastening the end of a habitable planet.

What can you do?

Educate yourself. Start with the IPCC’s 2018 report about the difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees of warming. Read science written by scientists; avoid opinion pieces written by people with vested interests. Understand who funds what you read and watch, and question their motives. Join a group such as Australian Parents for Climate Actionto learn more and connect with the growing community of concerned people.
Engage with your MPs and Senators. Write to them, call them, meet with them. Let them know you expect to see decisive and meaningful emissions reduction to secure your vote.
Engage with your community. Encourage your family, friends and colleagues to become more aware and politically engaged.
Use your money wisely. Switch your super to a fund that does not invest in industries that contribute to climate change (it will probably generate a better return than your old fund – being sustainable pays). Bank with an institution that doesn’t lend to the fossil fuel sector. Switch to a power company that only uses renewable power. Replace ageing gas appliances with efficient electric alternatives. Insulate and draught-proof your home. Put solar on your roof and make your next car electric. You’ll save money and feel great.
Eat less meat and dairy. Even if you’re a committed carnivore, try out the growing range of meat and dairy substitutes. Some are almost indistinguishable from the real thing and prices are falling. If you have the means, plant a veggie garden and compost.
Travel less and think about your choices. Less flying and car use; more terrestrial mass transit, cycling and walking. Value time in nature.
Switch your media to sources that clearly communicate the gravity of the climate crisis.
Buy less stuff. Recognise that your self worth is not bound up in what you have, but about who you are and the actions you take. When you need stuff, think second hand. Repair, gift, or sell what you don’t need.

Please, for your children’s or grand children’s sake; your nieces, nephews or just your friends’ children; we must convince our governments to truly act in the best interests of the voters they were elected to serve.

#ShowYourStripes graphic by Ed Hawkins