Posts tagged ‘IPCC’

Delivering IPCC report to Peter Khalil MP to #SafeGuardOurClimate

Merribek citizens delivered the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 6th Assessment synthesis climate report to Labor MP for Wills Peter Khalil office on Friday March 24. Along with this report a transcript of the UN Secretary General’s speech launching the report was also handed over, as well as a statement from 6 Pacific nations calling for the phaseout of coal and gas. (see below for full details)

Peter is now part of the Federal Government. But he has had little discussion with climate and environment groups in his electorate over climate policy, particularly the implementation of the proposed Safeguard mechanism. He had promised the establishment of a Wills Climate and Environment Advisory Group since his re-election in May 2022.


March 25, 2023 at 6:17 pm Leave a comment

Forum on Transport issues for Merribek for 2022 #vicvotes state election

L to R: Mike Williams, Tim Read, Evan Mulholland, Shea Evans

Local Candidates for the 2022 state election discussed transport issues for Brunswick and the northern region in a forum organised by The Metropolitan Transport Forum and hosted by the City of Merri-bek at Brunswick Town Hall on 4 October 2022.

Some of the local issues discussed included:

  • frequency and reliability of trains on the Upfield Line and the need to duplicate and extend the line;
  • better bus services especially on Sundays;
  • more level access tram stops to boost accessibility for all;
  • safe cycling and provision of local protected cycling infrastructure.
  • Refurbishment of Sydney Road to increase safety and liveability for all users
  • Brunswick Level Crossing Removal

September 3, 2022 at 8:00 am 2 comments

Submission: Keep building Protected bike lanes in City of Melbourne

William street Protected bike lane (2021) Photo by Philip Mallis/Flickr, Creative Commons licensed.

City of Melbourne Future Melbourne committee will be considering a proposal to defer new protected bike lanes construction in the Hoddle grid for the next financial year at its meeting on 7 June 2022. Many Moreland residents cycle into the city and use the present cycling infrastructure, and to grow the numbers of people cycling now is not the time to stop building safe protected cycling infrastructure in the Melbourne CBD. The Climate Action Moreland submission is below.

Recent published peer review study focused on Melbourne by Pearson et al (2022) concluded: “Our results show the potential for substantial increases in cycling participation, but only when high-quality cycling infrastructure is provided.”(1) The recent IPCC 6th assessment report also highlights the importance of prioritising cycling and walking as part of urban solutions to reduce emissions and act on climate. See the Extend the Upfield Bike Path blog post.(2)

Update: in an email to those who made submissions, Cr Rohn Lepport explains that the deferral was needed as there are no major new protected bike lanes shovel ready within the Hoddle Grid, hence the prioritisation of Arden St, Macaulay Rd, Grattan St and Royal Pde lanes, while working on design and approval of further protected bike lane infrastructure in future years. The politics and process is little messy but a way forward was found by City of Melbourne. Read the full email at the end of this article.


June 5, 2022 at 5:28 pm Leave a comment

IPCC: Climate change is unequivocal with rapid and substantive emissions reduction required

Science panel at AMOS answering questions on IPCC report

Science panel at AMOS answering questions on IPCC report

A packed hall last thursday night (3 October) in Melbourne heard from Australian climate scientists on the latest science report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I was one of four members of Climate Action Moreland who attended.

The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (AMOS) organised the free public event in Melbourne to explore the findings and significance of the latest comprehensive report on the science of climate change. It was so popular that 700 people registered to attend – the capacity of the hall, and a further 200 people enquiring had to be turned away or put on a waiting list.

The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, IPCC Working Group 1: the Physcical Science, a review of the science of climate change, was released the previous Friday, September 27 in Stockholm Sweden. The scientific report found that the Science is now unequivocal on human caused climate change – deep and rapid cuts to carbon emissions are needed for a safe climate.

Upon publication of the report Professor Andy Pitman, Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at The University of New South Wales, and a review editor and previously a lead author on AR4 said in a comment to the Australian Science Media Centre:

“This is a bad news, and a good news story. The bad news is that the 2013 IPCC report finally puts to rest the role humans play in causing global warming. The good news is that it highlights we can still avoid 2 degrees of warming if we deeply and rapidly cut emissions of greenhouse gases. The future scale of climate change is therefore still within human control provided the global community does deeply and rapidly cut greenhouse gas emissions.”

Master of Ceremonies was environmental entrepreneur Rob Gell, who is Chairman of UNESCO Western Port Biosphere, and also Chair of Wildlife Victoria. The evening consisted of a keynote address, followed by questions posed to a panel of Australian climate scientists, some of whom were lead authors or reviewers of the report. Some questions had been gathered from twitter and facebook in the days leading up to the event, as well as questions from the audience.

Dr Scott Power, Senior Principal Research Scientist, Bureau of Meteorology and Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 11, Fifth Assessment Report, IPCC Working Group 1, presented the keynote address which presented the major scientific conclusions and summary of the report. Watch it as a basic introduction to the report. (27’32”)

You can also watch the keynote filmed by AMOS here on youtube. They also have the full Q and A full session by the scientific panel.

The Scientific Panel who answered questions included Dr Scott Power, as well as:

Dr Julie Arblaster
– Senior Research Scientist, Bureau of Meteorology
– Lead Author of Chapter 12, Fifth Assessment Report, IPCC Working Group 1

Professor Neville Nicholls
– Professor, School of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University
– Past President, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Dr Penny Whetton
– Senior Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
– Lead Author of Chapter 25, Fifth Assessment Report, IPCC Working Group 2

Dr Malte Meinshausen
– Honorary Senior Research Fellow, University of Melbourne
– Senior Researcher, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany

About 30 questions were asked including questions on: the carbon dioxide lag effect in the atmosphere, sea level rise, capacity of the ocean to continue as a CO2 sink, the problem of ocean acidification, longer term projections past 2100, impact on tropical cyclones, likelihood of increasing desertification in Australia, high risk low probability outcomes and how they are treated by the IPCC, whether reduction in short term emissions is useful, impact of 2 degrees warming on food production, whether climate change will impact on volcanic activity, Geo-engineering, adaptation and heatwaves, and emission scenarios and current (business as usual) trajectory.

The IPCC and high Risk, low probability impacts

The question asked by Dr Barrie Pittock from the audience was one of the more interesting and thought provoking ones. Barrie Pittock led the Climate Impact Group in CSIRO until his retirement in 1999. He contributed to or was a lead author of all four previous major reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His question was on how the IPCC considers high risk low probability outcomes.

I asked a similar question on twitter, which wasn’t raised at the meeting, with regard to sea level rise (Read more on this on my blog: Is Climate Change causing an exponential rate of Ice sheet Mass Loss, sea level rise?)

“#askamos James Hansen thinks multi-metre sealevel rise by 2100 due to non-linear dynamic ice sheet loss is quite possible with BAU global warming of 3-6°C. There are still many scientific unknowns to model ice sheet collapse accurately. Could the IPCC AR5 process for sea level rise projections still be too conservative?”

Here is what Barrie Pittock asked: “I had trouble right from the beginning with the IPCC on communication and I think it is explicitly brought out in this report with the definitions of uncertainty.” he said, “A critical point is that climate change is a matter of risk assessment.”

He used the example of the probability of a 2 metre rise in sea level by 2100, that even if it is unlikely, it needs to be communicated. “A 1 in 10 chance or a 1 in 3 chance of something terrible happening is important and politicians and others should take note of it.” he explained.

Dr Penny Whetton from CSIRO responded to the question:

“I think Barrie expressed it very well. Neville mentioned earlier the evolution of very careful language in the IPCC. One of the down sides to that is the IPCC has tended to focus on statements that it can make confidently. As a consequence it probably doesn’t put enough emphasis on rare but possible events. That’s one of the things you always have to look at when managing risky issues, for risky issues such as this. You don’t take out fire insurance on your house because you think it is likely to burn down, you do it because it may burn down in a 1 in 100 case. It is those warmings of 5 or 6 degrees which may be treated as low liklihood according to the IPCC. What they are also saying is that they are still possible and we need to actually look at those, particularly when it comes to responses.”

The 2 Degree Limit is a political value judgement, not science

One of the few important outcomes of the 2009 Copenhagen UNFCCC meeting was there was agreement by all Governments to limit global warming to a maximum of two degrees, although small island nations in particular argue for a lower level. This was further confirmed at the meeting in Cancun in 2010, and Durban in 2011. Although we talk about the importance of a 2 degree limit, this is an arbitrary point and value judgement which the intergovernmental political process has decided upon as beyond which lies ‘dangerous’ impacts of climate change. But the science tells us we may see high impacts and tipping points crossed even below this arbitrary point.

Dr Malte Meinshausen made clear that two degrees is not the IPCC target, “There are thresholds and the more warming you have, the more surprises you have to expect, and the more impact we are going to see. In fact small island states say ‘2 degrees is too high for us. We are not going to have our islands here for another 100 years with sea level rise projected. We want to survive’ so they want a 1.5 degrees target. It is important. It is a value judgement about where do you want to stop climate change. The value judgement has been done by most of the Governments, but it is not a value judgement that can come or should come from science.”

Dr Penny Whetton, in responding to another question, made it clear that 2 degrees of global warming is too hot for coral reefs, including Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. (For more information see my blog post on Global Warming imperils coral reefs: 2 degrees warming is too hot say scientists)

Climate Adaptation and heatwaves

Climate adaptation is going to be essential, even if we mitigate and rapidly and drastically reduce emissions because of the substantial inertia in the climate system and the cumulative lag effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Days over 35 degrees C for Melbourne

I asked a question on climate adaptation and heatwaves, which wasn’t raised at the meeting. But Professor Nicholls did give a response to a question on the relative importance of climate adaptation and heatwaves. Here is my question:

#askamos Australia has just experienced its hottest 12 month period on record. Extreme heatwave events are predicted to become of longer duration and more intense as global average temperatures increase in coming decades, even if we rapidly decarbonise our society in best case scenarios.

Heatwaves also exacerbate and amplify the Urban Heat Island Effect so that the impact is magnified (Li et al 2013). This affects infrastructure (think warped train lines, power spikes), reduces work capacity (Dunne et al 2013) and increases heat stress related mortality. These are direct economic and health impacts which we experience now in our cities with climate change. (think 2009 heatwaves associated with Black Saturday bushfires, 2013 Angry Summer)

These questions are less about science more about adaptation. Prof Nicholls might like to answer:

1. What are the future projections for extreme heat events in Australian cities?

2. Are our health authorities, hospitals and mortuaries adequately prepared?

3. Are all levels of Government taking adequate measures to upgrade urban infrastructure and the urban environment for more climate resilience?

4. Are current programs in place to inform and prepare the public on extreme heat events adequate and sufficient? What more should be done?

Professor Nicholls explained we need to engage in adaptation regarding the impact of climate change on heatwaves, which will affect people especially in urban areas like Melbourne.

“I am sure adaptation is going to be part of the way we react to climate change and we already are. Since 2003 when we had a massive heatwave with massive mortality in Europe, most cities in most developed countries around the world have been developing heat wave alert systems in an attempt to make sure that doesn’t happen. Now that has benefits now even if we don’t get any further climate change. It has even more benefits in the context of global warming. Those systems, we have one in Melbourne and Victoria; there are ones under development in the rest of Australia. They are already saving lives, and they will save lots of lives, but they won’t save everyones life. It will be hot from this global warming. So adaptation is an essential tool in our weaponry against climate change but it can’t do it alone without mitigation to actually slow things down it is very very difficult for us to attack. Even in what is quite a simple area: human mortality related to heat is actually not too hard to actually think about what we can do. When you get to technical infrastructure in the context of a continuing warming planet, that is actually a much harder to adapt to. It really is difficult. If we don’t mitigate it is going to be tough.” said Professor Nicholls.

Carbon budgets and current emission trajectory

Carbon budgeting was included in this IPCC report for the first time as a major section. Dr Malte Meinshausen made the point that the first carbon budget study was actually published in 1978 and said that we can burn no more than 10 per cent of our known fossil fuel reserves without getting into trouble.

Dr Malte Meinshausen also highlighted in answer to the very last question that we are currently tracking at the largest emissions scenario.

Hottest September and hottest 12 months on record for Australia

Even though the global land surface temperatures have appeared to plateau since 1998 – a global hiatus – other measurements show global warming has continued with continued warming of the oceans, sea level rise, melting of Arctic sea ice, continued retreat of mountain glaciers. 2000 to 2010 was also the hottest decade on record.

Significantly, Australia has broken many temperature records this year with the extreme January heatwave and Angry Summer, sizzling warming into late Autumn, a relatively warm Winter, and now the hottest September on record averaged across Australia, and the hottest 12 months on record. Australia is also on track for the hottest calendar year this year.

The Bureau of Meteorology issued a Special Climate Statement updated on 13 October: Exceptionally warm late winter/early spring with unusually persistent warm conditions over the last 12 months (PDF). You can read the Climate Council analysis on this statement: ’OFF THE CHARTS – Record breaking September Heat and Climate Change’.


The BOM statement said:

Averaged over Australia, monthly maximum temperatures were 3.41 °C above average for September and monthly minimum temperatures 2.09 °C above average, combining to a monthly mean temperature 2.75 °C above average.

All of these have set new September records for Australia, with the monthly mean temperature more than a degree above the previous record. The monthly maximum and mean temperatures have also set Australian records for the largest positive temperature anomaly observed in any month. (The previous records are respectively, 3.16 °C above average in August 2009, and 2.66 °C above average in April 2005).

Some key facts from the BOM statement regarding mean temperature records for Australia from the last 12 months:

  • Australia’s warmest month on record (January)
  • Australia’s warmest September on record
  • Australia’s largest positive monthly anomaly on record (September)
  • Australia’s warmest summer on record (December 2012 to February 2013)
  • Australia’s warmest January to September period on record
  • Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record (broken twice, for the periods ending August and September)
  • Indeed, Australia’s warmest period on record for all periods 1 to 18 months long
    ending September 2013
  • Two significant daily maximum temperature records were also set this year: Australia’s hottest summer day on record (7 January) and Australia’s warmest winter day on record (31 August)

Rob Gell read from the BOM statement and asked the science panel about the significance of these new records.

October 6, 2013 at 2:44 pm 2 comments

Part 3: Labor’s climate policy: so will we reach our paltry targets?

And we continue our special series on the Labor Party’s 2010 climate policies. Part one is here, and part 2 here. This edition, we discuss rewarding businesses for being responsible, chopping down trees that according to Labor don’t really exist, and we look at where we’re headed under Labor and where we need to go.

Rewarding business for energy efficiency

(hopefully they’ll turn off some lights too)

A one-off bonus tax deduction for businesses that undertake energy-efficiency capital works, starting from mid-2011. Cost of $180 million over four years, and $1 billion over a decade. Plus, in the meantime an extra $30 million for the Green Building Fund, which provides grants for retrofitting buildings. This is sensible, and could go even further. Wonder how long it will be before they start taking funding away from this one?

Rewarding business by freezing time

The government will keep emissions baselines frozen in time, rewarding businesses that reduce or constrain emissions before an ETS is introduced. If only we could freeze the entire world in time until Labor is ready to implement meaningful climate policies.

Green Start

(another embarrassing name change)

This policy replaces the Greens Loans Scheme, which offered interest-free loans to improve household energy efficiency, another scheme which had… issues. To make a fresh start (see what they did there?) Green Start scrapped the loans part and now offers energy assessments and some other vague unspecified energy efficiency help. Nobody knows, basically.

Photo: Peter Halasz

Native forest logging and logging and logging

Labor is arguing in international forums that emissions created from native forest logging should not be counted. Even though Victoria’s native forests are the most carbon rich in the world. And even though deforestation of native forests accounts for 20% of Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions. Labor also says it is committed to a ‛net increase’ in Australia’s ‛vegetation cover’. Oooh, goody, more pine tree plantations where there used to be native forests!

Emissions target shooting

(too little, too late)

Just to recap. The IPCC is a group of scientists who issue comprehensive assessments on climate science. Their report states that to keep global warming at under 2 degrees celsius, Australia as a developed country needs to reduce emissions 40% lower than 1990 levels by 2020. HOWEVER, the IPCCs reports are always on the conservative side because it is a U.N. body and the world’s governments must approve their contents.

So here comes the really hard to take bit. Don’t worry, we’ll get through it together. (more…)

August 18, 2010 at 1:26 am 1 comment

Pulling Yourself Off The Ground By Your Whiskers

How can Australia learn from the lessons of the EU?

Australia is ramping up for an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) having been passed in the lower house is heading for the Senate and it looks like the Liberals may pass it after all (which is the only way it would go through, as both independents and The Greens have stated that they won’t). The ramifications of the scheme will be far more widespread than even the GST, and it has the scope to affect every Australian. However, there is still much confusion and little real debate about what may actually happen. Will jobs be lost, will there be an explosion of green jobs and most importantly will emissions go down.

The EU has been operating an ETS for a few years now and many of the mistakes that were made in its inception are being repeated and expanded on by the Rudd Labor Government. And with a global deal in Copenhagen only months away, understanding how the system works is more important than ever. George Monbiot has generously given CAM permission to re-publish his article that appeared in the Guardian a few weeks back that takes a look at the UK’s targets of 80% by 2050.

George, many thanks and all the best from CAM.

Here is the simple mathematical reason why large scale carbon offsets can’t work

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian, 17th July 2009

Well at least that clears up the mystery. Over the past year I’ve been fretting over an intractable contradiction. The government [UK] has promised spectacular cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. It is also pushing through new roads and runways, approving coal-burning power stations, bailing out motor manufacturers and ditching its regulations for low-carbon homes. How can these policies be reconciled?


July 26, 2009 at 3:29 pm Leave a comment


Petition Dan Andrews on Climate Emergency

Sign the petition to Premier Dan Andrews to declare an Ecological and climate emergency declaration

What Lies Beneath

Read David Spratt’s What Lies beneath:
Spratt-What Lies beneath-cover

Elephant in the Sky

New report on Aviation emissions and Australia, The Elephant in the Sky:

Climate Reality Check

Read David Spratt's Climate Reality Check:

Dubai, United Arab Emirites, COP28

UNFCCC climate conferenceNovember 30, 2023
5 months to go.

This is the current C02 in our atmosphere. We need to get it below 350 for a safe climate.

Current CO2 concentration in the atmosphere


Visitors to this site