Oil and gas: UK and US among rich nations that must end drilling by 2034, report finds

The UK, US, Norway, Canada, Australia and the United Arab Emirates are among a list of high-income countries that must end production of oil and gas in the next 12 years to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, a new report has found.

By Ilona Amos
Tuesday, 22nd March 2022

Meanwhile, the world's poorest nations should be given until 2050 to end production but will also need significant financial support to transform their economies to ensure citizens are not unfairly penalised, it recommends.

The findings come from a new study from the University of Manchester which proposes different phase-out dates for oil and gas producing countries, in line with the Paris Agreement’s goals to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels and ensure a fair transition to a low-carbon world.

It warns that there is no room for any nation to increase production, with all required to make significant cuts this decade.


The UK and US are among 19 of the world's richest countries which must end oil and gas production by 2034 to help reach global climate targets, a new report from the university of Manchester recommends. Picture: Getty Images

The richest, which produce over a third of the world’s oil and gas, must cut output by 74 per cent by 2030.

Giant floating wind farm and green gas scheme in Scotland could be UK's 'biggest emissions abatement project to date'

The poorest, which supply just one ninth of global demand, must cut back by 14 per cent over the same period.

The research, commissioned by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, notes that some developing nations are so reliant on revenues from fossil fuels that rapidly removing this could threaten their political stability.

Countries like South Sudan, Congo-Brazzaville and Gabon, despite having low production levels, have little other income streams.

Conversely, the report states: “Wealthy nations that are major producers typically remain wealthy even once the oil and gas revenue is removed.”

Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester and a leading researcher at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said: “Responding to the ongoing climate emergency requires a rapid shift away from a fossil fuel economy, but this must be done fairly.

“There are huge differences in the ability of countries to end oil and gas production while maintaining vibrant economies and delivering a just transition for their citizens.

“We have developed a schedule for phasing out oil and gas production that – with sufficient support for developing countries – meets our very challenging climate commitments and does so in a fair way.”

The research was completed prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but the researchers say the current instability in the international energy market highlights the need to end reliance on fossil fuels.

“Our first thoughts are with the Ukrainian people and indeed with all of those caught up in the war,” he said.

“But the rocketing oil and gas prices only serve to strengthen the case we make in our report.


Major oil rig recycling and offshore energy construction hub planned for port in...

“Had we spent the last 20 years establishing an efficient and sensible use of energy alongside a massive roll-out of renewables we would not now be scrabbling around for alternative oil and gas supplies and facing the impacts of volatile prices.

“Now is exactly the time we should be planning for a renewable 21st century rather than reliving the oil-based 20th.”

A flagship report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned last month that failing to limit global warming to 1.5C would have devastating global impacts.

Projections suggest the world will exceed 1.5C of warming as early as 2030 to 2035 if current levels of greenhouse gas emissions continue.

ARYAN SETTLER COLONIALISM
Why Australia’s Indigenous People Fear the Police

Thirty years after a landmark report on inequality, Australia’s justice system remains plagued by structural racism.

By Dechlan Brennan
March 22, 2022

Protesters march in Sydney, Saturday, June 6, 2020, to support the movement of U.S. protests over the death of George Floyd. Black Lives Matter protests across Australia saw thousands of demonstrators in state capitals honor the memory of George Floyd and protest the deaths of Indigenous Australians in custody.

Credit: AP Photo/Rick Rycroft

March 21 was the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which marks the anniversary of a horrific massacre in apartheid South Africa in 1960, in which 69 innocent civilians were killed whilst protesting in Sharpeville. It is a widely recognized day that seeks to shape a more equal world, free from discrimination.

In Australia however, March 21 is only known as Harmony Day. Some in the media have argued that this is because acknowledging “the elimination of racial discrimination” would actually mean accepting its presence in the first place.

When it comes to the Australian justice system, the prevalence of systemic racism is hard to ignore. Cheryl Axleby, co-chair of Indigenous justice group Change the Record, is blunt in saying that the justice system openly discriminates against Indigenous people.

“Every year, Aboriginal people suffer racist or violent mistreatment and abuse by police,” Axleby, a Narungga woman, told The Diplomat. “They don’t report it for fear of reprisal. For those who do, complaints often take months, sometimes even over a year, to be investigated and resolved.”

The Top-End and Struggles With Justice

The Northern Territory (NT) exemplifies Axleby’s comments. A large, sprawling, and isolated expanse at the top of Australia, the NT makes up just over 1 percent of the Australian population. Of its 230,000 inhabitants, the majority live in the port city of Darwin.

Whilst the Indigenous population in Australia sits at below 3 percent, in the NT, members of the world’s oldest civilization make up just over 25 percent of residents. It is no coincidence that NT is also home to some of the most gruesome parts of Australia’s bloody history.

Guardian Australia recently published “The Killing Times,” an interactive map documenting the deaths of Indigenous people at the hand of Australian settlers. Dotted throughout the Northern Territory are tales of murder. In 1924, 20 Indigenous people were murdered for unknown reasons in the Victoria River District. A survivor later told of how his people “were run down and shot like dogs.”

Four years later, at Coniston, a “reprisal” by colonizers left up to 200 Indigenous people dead. Many Warlpiri and Yanmatjiri Aboriginal people were hunted down and murdered by police expeditions.

These incidents aren’t isolated in Australia’s history, but form a pattern that continues to repeat today. In 1991, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC) was deemed to be a landmark moment in the relationship between Indigenous Australians and the justice system, but since that time, over 500 Aboriginal people have died while in custody. No one has been found guilty or faced prison time over these deaths.

Axleby is devastated by this. “It is hard to feel justice,” she told The Diplomat, “when time and time again Aboriginal people are killed in custody, but no one is held accountable.”

One Indigenous person, who requested not to be named, noted that an inherent fear of the police has been ingrained into many in the Northern Territory.

“I don’t talk to the cops, it’s a very scary thing to do,” she told The Diplomat. “I avoid it all costs. Even my children are afraid of the police.”

She noted that police are often stationed at liquor stores, checking the IDs of Indigenous patrons and subjecting them to further questions, sometimes including their address. All of this results in an ingrained anxiety.

Cases like the recent trial of Zachary Rolfe, which ended with the police officer being acquitted for the murder of an Indigenous teenager, have emphasized to people like Cheryl Axleby the stark contrast in justice for police as opposed to Indigenous people.

When an Indigenous person dies, “too often findings are ‘inconclusive’ due to insufficient evidence.” But at the same time, “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who are the victims of police misconduct face huge barriers to justice.”

Another Indigenous activist told The Diplomat that “our people have always been criminalized because of the color of our skin.”

The reality of the systemic racism faced by Indigenous people in the justice system is highlighted by former Chief Justice of Western Australia, the Hon. Wayne Martin 

Aboriginal people are much more likely to be questioned by police than non-Aboriginal people. When questioned they are more likely to be arrested. If they are arrested, they are much more likely to be remanded in custody than given bail. Aboriginal people are much more likely to plead guilty than go to trial, and if they go to trial, they are much more likely to be convicted. If convicted, they are much more likely to be imprisoned than non-Aboriginal people, and at the end of their term of imprisonment they are much less likely to get parole than non-Aboriginal people.5

Is Change Happening?

In 2008, the Australian government released a framework, titled “Closing the Gap.” The report alluded to the large discrepancies in key factors such as life expectancy, incarceration rates, and health issues between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.

This year, the Law Council to Australia released a statement clarifying that a lot of these aspirations had yet to be fulfilled.

“It is now more important than ever to grapple with what Closing the Gap will mean in practice,” said Law Council of Australia President Tass Liveris. “Because whether as accused people, offenders or victims, outcomes for First Nations peoples in the criminal justice context clearly continue to worsen,”

It is widely accepted that the forced removal of children from their families under a government mandated movement now known as “The Stolen Generation,” has resulted in long-lasting trauma, which has heavily contributed to Indigenous over-representation in the Australian prison system.

In the Northern Territory, home to the highest percentage of prisoners in the country, Aboriginal people make up 84 percent of the inmates, despite representing around a quarter of the total population in NT. One of the key recommendations from the RCIADIC was that the dramatic and unique trauma that was inflicted on the Indigenous population needed to be taken into account when sentencing.

Too often, this simply isn’t done. The Law Council of Australia has implored the federal government to work with First Nations groups directly to progress reforms such as Closing the Gap, noting that currently the plight of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the justice system “is a national tragedy.”

Any progress has been notoriously slow, however, and is often mired in debates around merit.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart, a campaign led by many prominent Indigenous leaders, has called for a dedicated Aboriginal voice in Parliament. They say this will allow the first people on the land to have a direct, political say in the way Aboriginal people are supported in the various communities. Laws that directly and often only impact Aboriginal people would be, the first time, be reviewed and recommendations given by a dedicated Aboriginal representative. “We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country,” the statement said.

Such a reform, however, has been consistently opposed by most members of the current government.

Change the Record has called for more funding for Indigenous health care groups, especially for Indigenous women, who are 32 times more likely to than non-Indigenous women to be hospitalized as a result of domestic violence.

Change the Record’s report made 12 recommendations, including an Indigenous research group to look at systemic racism in health systems.

Other recommendations included an increase in the welfare rate, which was refused by the federal government, and more access to housing, with overcrowding becoming a serious issue throughout the country.

Sadly, most of these changes have not been implemented. And to many activists, the limited reforms that have been made do not have any lasting impact on the everyday safety of ordinary Indigenous people.

For Cheryl Axleby, real change needs to come from the top and be universal. “Governments need to start addressing the underlying drivers of inequality and injustice in our communities instead of just throwing money at police to respond,” she said.

When asked why there doesn’t seem to be much tangible change, she doesn’t mince her words: “There is still not the political will or leadership to end the injustice, discrimination, and disadvantage that hurts our people.”

Until this happens, discrimination and injustice will continue unabated for many of Australia’s original inhabitants.


GUEST AUTHOR
Dechlan Brennan is a freelance writer from Melbourne.

How to Save Thailand and Malaysia From Rising Sea Levels

A recent meeting between the nations’ leaders was a missed opportunity to address one of the most pressing challenges of the coming century.

By Piyali Banergee
March 22, 2022

An aerial view of the Strait of Malacca, which runs between peninsular Malaysia and the Indonesian island of Sumatra.

Credit: Depositphotos

When Malaysia’s Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob met with his Thai counterpart Prayut Chan-o-cha in late February in Bangkok to discuss, among other things, closer crossborder ties, the two leaders might also have considered coordinating efforts to address the deleterious impact of rising sea levels on their vulnerable coastlines and inland areas.

Predictions about when coastlines will be threatened by rising oceans and by exactly how many millimeters seas in Southeast Asia will rise may be rough, but it’s safe to assume, based on new evidence that initial estimates put forward by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 were grossly underestimated.

Back then climate science was just finding its footing. For instance, the IPCC’s 2007 Special Report on Emission Scenarios estimated that in the 20th century, global average sea level rose at a rate of about 1.7 millimeters per year. It also initially concluded that by the mid-2090s, global sea levels would rise to 0.22 to 0.44 meters above 1990 levels – or around 4 millimeters per year, about twice 20th-century levels. Those estimates were worrisome but not catastrophic.

Importantly, the authors acknowledged that “thermal expansion” would contribute to more than half of the rise; it also forecast that “land ice will lose mass increasingly rapidly as the century progresses.” This is the red warning light that has been flashing worldwide ever since. Yet the projections of exactly how high sea levels will rise have been the subject of some speculation.

That is, until now.

Those who wrote the 2007 IPCC report conditioned their estimates about the rapidity of sea rise by stating that “an important uncertainty relates to whether [the] discharge of ice from the ice sheets will continue to increase as a consequence of accelerated ice flow.”

In 2018, a study published in Science Advances determined that “freshwater melting of glaciers in some regions of Antarctica caused a layer of cold, freshwater to float above warmer, saltier water, both slowing ocean circulation and melting lower parts of the ice sheets.”

Here the authors describe the so-called “feedback loop,” which posits exactly that: that the underbellies of the Antarctic’s vast ice shelves are being exposed to this warmer water and melting more quickly as a result.ADVERTISEMENT


This, of course, leads to the ice shelves eventually breaking away from the frozen mainland, which, in turn, exposes the mainland ice to liquefaction. This then will result in rapid – and aggressive – sea level rises that will have a devastating impact on the low-lying coastlines of many nations, including Thailand and Malaysia.

Then, in 2019, Climate Central issued a report stating that over the course of the 21st century, “global sea levels are projected to rise between about 2 and 7 feet… and possibly more.” It further noted that the threat was “concentrated in coastal Asia and could have profound economic and political consequences within the lifetimes of people alive today.”

Climate Central’s interactive threat maps forewarn unimaginable levels of coastal flooding in Thailand and Malaysia between 2030 and 2050. The Thai capital Bangkok, it is predicted, will be more or less submerged as global sea levels rise, given that it sits only 1.5 meters above sea level in the Gulf of Thailand.

Below are Climate Central’s most updated projections, made on February 28, which forecast the severe flooding in Bangkok and along Malaysia’s coastlines that is now projected to occur as soon as 2030.



Almost certainly, between 2030 and 2050, peninsular Malaysia’s western and eastern shores will be inundated by the waters of the Malacca Straits and the South China Sea, perhaps submerging as much as 12,000 square kilometers of coastal property, or up to 1.7 million hectares of agricultural and urban landmass.

These losses would be truly devastating.

But back to the latest science. In 2021, scientists presenting before the American Geophysical Union said they anticipated that within the next five to ten years the Thwaites Glacier in Western Antarctica will collapse, much earlier than expected. According to the scientists, the Thwaites Glacier is a behemoth: one of Antarctic’s largest glaciers, about the size of Florida. They maintain that its meltwater “alone is responsible for 4 percent of global sea level rise.”

According to an article published by Columbia Climate School, if the Thwaites Glacier were to dissolve, “then global sea levels would rise by 65 centimeters or about two feet.” If, however, not only the Thwaites Glacier but also several of the surrounding glaciers, including Pine Island Glacier, melt and “cannot hold back the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which holds the equivalent of 3.3 meters (10.8 feet) in sea level, then it could affect coastlines across the world.”

In other words, Thailand and Malaysia can reasonably expect to begin to experience the catastrophic impact of sea rise starting in the early 2030s. And depending on whether or not global temperatures are kept below the target level of 1.5 degrees, these levels could rise dramatically going forward.

Accordingly, it makes sense for the two countries to partner on ways to combat their mutual vulnerabilities. How could they prepare?

One idea to consider is building national networks of coastal sea walls or dykes to fend off the menacing rising tides. Certainly, Bangkok will need defending, with over 120 kilometers of low-lying southern shoreline. But also Malaysia, which has up to 1,000 kilometers of low-lying coastlines exposed to rising seas.

There is a precedent for this. In 1530, a storm surge wiped out nearly 100,000 people living in the Netherlands after overrunning an early system of dykes and storm surge barriers. Since then, the low-lying European nation has had hundreds of years of experience building coastal barriers to hold back the powerful forces of Mother Nature.

Another idea, gaining currency in the Netherlands, is to use more natural solutions to protect against the hazards of impending sea rise. The Dutch are experimenting with a solution they call “De Zandmotor” or “sand motor.” This would involve the creation of huge peninsulas composed of sand to help keep the sea at bay and away from coastlines and local cities. In appropriate places, “sand motors” could contribute to a wholesale solution for both Malaysia and Thailand.

Whatever these two important Southeast Asian countries decide to do to protect their people, they need to begin planning a steady course of action. The science is irrefutable. The tides will not wait. The sea is rising. They can hope for the best, but need to prepare for the worst.

GUEST AUTHOR
Piyali Banergee is an environmental issues writer in Southeast Asia and the executive director of Nature Watch.

With walkout threat, Disney finds itself in balancing act

Mon, March 21, 2022



ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — With some workers across the U.S. threatening a walkout Tuesday, The Walt Disney Co. finds itself in a balancing act between the expectations of a diverse workforce and demands from an increasingly polarized, politicized marketplace.

On the one side are LGBTQ advocates and Disney employees calling for a walkout in protest of CEO Bob Chapek's slow response in publicly criticizing Florida legislation that critics have dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. The legislation bars instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade.

On the other are politicians like Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who accuse the entertainment conglomerate of bending to cancel culture after a Disney decision to temporarily suspend political contributions in the state. According to Disney's conservative critics, the company should be in the business of making profits instead of pushing an agenda.

Evan Power, chairman of the Leon County Republican Party, said he believes a strident minority of Disney employees are pushing the issue and DeSantis has more to gain by taking the side of parents who want more control over education and “sexual conversations” in early grades at school. DeSantis is viewed as a likely Republican presidential candidate in 2024.

“I think it pays dividends with parents across the state of Florida regardless of political divisions,” Power said.

Officials for the unions that represent tens of thousands of workers at Disney theme parks in Florida and Anaheim, California — including the hundreds of costumed performers who portray Mickey Mouse, Cinderella and Stitch at Walt Disney World — said there didn’t appear to be any momentum for a walkout.

“We are not in support of that,” Romualdas Dulskis, a Teamsters official in Orlando whose local represents costumed characters, bus drivers and other Disney workers, said Monday. “That’s just not the way we are going to go about this.”

Union leaders said they had advised their members not to participate because their contract prohibits work stoppages or disruptions.

“I don’t want to downplay anyone’s efforts, if someone feels what they are doing is the right way to make an impact,” said Eric Clinton, president of Unite Here! Local 362, which represents custodians, housekeepers and other Disney World theme park workers. “We aren’t part of that. It would violate our contract if members of our union participated, though we are concerned about the issue, of course.”

One of the organizers of the walkout, a New York-based employee, said they were expecting more participation from Disney workers in production, marketing, IT and other desk jobs than those in hourly, union jobs. The worker spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of being targeted online and because organizers didn’t want a single organizer taking the spotlight.

Part of the goal of the walkout is for those workers with the “privilege” to be able to protest to stand up for those who can’t, the New York employee said.

Workers participating in the walkout plan to meet up with each other at locations in Orlando, New York City, Anaheim and Burbank, California, where the company is headquartered. A Disney spokesman didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.

Disney, whose movies and properties shaped generations of children around the world, has spoken out several times in recent years about contentious social and political situations.

It was one of a slew of U.S. companies that in January 2021 said it would suspend political donations to lawmakers who voted against certifying President Joe Biden’s electoral victory. It also spoke out early against a 2016 anti-gay bill in Georgia, threatening to pull its business from the state, which has become a favorite of movie and TV studios. The bill was vetoed by Georgia’s then-governor.

And the company has not been immune to changing societal expectations. It has said it would revamp the Jungle Cruise, Pirates of the Caribbean and Splash Mountain rides at its theme parks to remove racist and sexist elements and put short warnings in front of some of its classic movies on its streaming service, Disney+, warning of “outdated cultural depictions.”

This time, company CEO Chapek has drawn fire for speaking out about the gender identity bill only after it passed the Florida Legislature.

Republican lawmakers pushing the Florida legislation had argued that parents, not teachers, should be the ones talking to their children about gender issues during their early formative years.

The legislation attracted scrutiny from Biden, who called it “hateful,” as well as other Democrats who argue it demonizes LGBTQ people. It has been sent to DeSantis, who was expected to sign it into law.

Earlier this month, Chapek apologized for not coming out more forcibly and publicly against the bill, saying Disney officials had been working behind the scenes to stop it. Chapek, who became CEO in 2020, also announced it was pausing all political donations in Florida and increasing support for advocacy groups fighting similar legislation in other states. Chapek reiterated those points during a company-wide discussion with employees on Monday.

Disney has long been influential in Florida politics, tending to be conservative and supporting Republicans who have been in control of Tallahassee, the state capital, for two decades, but also being more open on social issues, said Patricia Campos-Medina, co-director of the Worker Institute at Cornell University. “That’s why people felt surprised that they wanted to say quiet on this issue,” she said.

Organizers of the walkout maintain that withholding political contributions isn't enough.

On a website calling for the walkout, the group says that until the legislation is repealed, Disney leaders need to stop investments in Florida, including the relocation of 2,000 mostly professional jobs from its California headquarters to Orlando. They also say Disney needs to develop an LGBTQ brand similar to the Onyx Collective, an initiative aimed at developing content by and for people of color.

Power, the GOP official in Tallahassee, said he was confident that Disney and Florida Republicans would get past this flashpoint and restore their relationship, eventually.

“It’s good that we’re pushing back, because the purpose of a publicly traded company is not to push an agenda,” Power said. “The people at Disney know they need to work with the Legislature and the governor, and they’ll come back around.”

___

Farrington reported from Tallahassee. AP writers Tali Arbel in New York and Amy Taxin in Orange County, California, contributed to this report.

___

Follow Mike Schneider on Twitter at https://twitter.com/MikeSchneiderAP

Mike Schneider And Brendan Farrington, The Associated Press

US companies may finally have to admit their carbon emissions under new SEC rule

New rule could stop firms from ‘greenwashing’

Josh Marcus
San Francisco
THE INDEPENDENT

Landmark IPPC report reveals scale of the climate crisis

Some of the most powerful companies in America, and thus the world, may finally be forced to disclose how much their businesses are impacting the climate crisis, according to a proposed rule from the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The proposal, which the SEC approved for consideration on Monday, would create a uniform framework that requires all publicly traded companies to measure their greenhouse gas emissions, evaluate the material risks they face from the climate crisis, and share that information with the public and financial regulators.

Environmental advocates hailed the new rule, which now goes into a two-month public comment period before the SEC gives it a final vote.

“Markets are an indispensable tool that we must leverage in order to make the transition from fossil fuels to cleaner energy at the pace scientifically necessary to prevent climate catastrophe,” representative Sean Casten, a Democrat from Illinois, who is a sponsor on the related Climate Risk Disclosure Act in the House, said in a statement. “I urge the SEC to thoroughly evaluate feedback on the proposal issued today to ensure the strongest possible final rule.”

The new rule will provide a more concrete way to get companies to go green, according to Bill Weihl, a former sustainability executive at Google and Facebook.

“It will make it possible for all interested stakeholders, including shareholders, to then push companies to take real action,” he told The New York Times on Monday.

All companies covered under the proposal, which passed with a 3-1 vote from SEC commissioners, would be required to disclose how much greenhouse gas emissions their business creates, including from the electricity they use and vehicles involved in their operations.

Larger companies are required to have their numbers vetted by an outside auditor, and to disclose so-called scope 3 emissions, which measure the carbon footprint of a company’s suppliers and customers.

Perhaps most crucially for green investors, the new rule mandates that companies that have made carbon pledges detail how they will achieve them, and disclose technical details on how much they plan to rely on carbon offsets or a specific internal benchmark to price carbon impacts.

Both of these facets have come under scrutiny from environmentalists who argue companies often engage in “greenwashing” and use these factors to overstate the impact of their environmental work.

“Our core bargain from the 1930s is that investors get to decide which risks to take, as long as public companies provide full and fair disclosure and are truthful in those disclosures,” SEC chair Gary Gensler said in a statement. “Today, investors representing literally tens of trillions of dollars support climate-related disclosures because they recognise that climate risks can pose significant financial risks to companies, and investors need reliable information about climate risks to make informed investment decisions.”

Going green may now be vogue in some corners of the corporate world, such as Silicon Valley, but a lack of uniform reporting standards has made meaningful comparisons between companies difficult.

For instance, Ford tracks the emissions from its production lines, as well as its customers on the road, while electric-vehicle maker Tesla only tracks production emissions from a single line of its cars, the Model 3.

Others have doubted whether the SEC, a financial regulator, has the appropriate expertise or legal mandate to make such a significant change to environmental policies.

“Setting climate policy is the job of lawmakers, not the SEC,” former SEC chair Jay Clayton, a Trump administration appointee, argued in an op-ed on Sunday in The Wall Street Journal. “Taking a new, activist approach to climate policy — an area far outside the SEC’s authority, jurisdiction and expertise — will deservedly draw legal challenges,” he added.

West Virginia has threatened to challenge the SEC in court if the new policy goes through, arguing the government doesn’t have a “compelling” state interest in forcing firms to make climate disclosures.

If passed, the new rules would be phased in over several years, with the largest firms facing the new requirements in 2023, and the rest the following fiscal year.

Countries like Brazil, Hong Kong, New Zealand, and Switzerland are working on or already require climate disclosures, and Britain and Japan will roll out environmental reporting rules next month.

In 2024, large firms listed on the European stock exchange will also have to report their emissions.

Recommended

‘This is madness’: UN warns against turning to fossil fuels because of war in Ukraine

‘Unthinkable’ polar heatwaves show we are coming to crunch on climate

Oil and Gas Authority rebrands in ‘epitome of greenwashing’

AUSTRALIA 

Debate escalates over controversial nuclear waste storage site

• Michele Madigan
 
• 15 March 2022

        

The long conflict between the federal government plan for a national radioactive waste facility in South Australia and the opponents of the plan has continued to escalate in the past months. On 19 November, Kimba on SA’s Eyre Peninsula was declared South Australia’s Agricultural Town of the Year. Notwithstanding this significant honour, on 29 November the federal Minister for Resources Keith Pitt finally made the formal declaration that Napandee in the Kimba district was the chosen site for the proposed federal radioactive waste dump.

With just 4.5 per cent of South Australia as arable farming, the Napandee site is on premier farming country. The Barngarla peoples are the Traditional Owners of the area.

The federal government plan is for two adjacent facilities: one for low-level radioactive waste and the other for long-lived intermediate waste (ILW) from Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO). It was quite extraordinary that when interviewed then by SA ABC radio Minister Pitt said only that the facility would be used ‘for low level waste.’

In addition to the ILW already at ANSTO will be the latest shipment of two tonnes of reprocessed nuclear waste from the United Kingdom to Australia. The shipment consists of four 500kg canisters held inside a forged steel container called a TN-81.

Since the late 1990s, the supposed needs of nuclear medicine have always been promoted as key in successive government claims for hosting the nation’s radioactive waste in what understandably might be an otherwise unpalatable addition to any community. Throughout 2021, in the face of opposition, Resources Minister Keith Pitt occasionally emerged to make exaggerated claims of the necessity of the dump for the future of nuclear medicine in Australia.

In this debate around nuclear medicine, it is essential to present up-to-date facts. Nuclear expert Dr Jim Green addressed relevant facts in his paper, Nuclear waste and nuclear medicine in Australia, ‘…According to Medicare figures, nuclear medicine represents less than three percent of medical imaging. Nuclear medicine should not be confused with X-rays using iodine contrast, radiotherapy or chemotherapy, which are used much more commonly used…Nuclear medicine typically uses short-lived radioisotopes and the waste does not require special handling after a short period of radioactivity…’

 

'It would be far safer, cheaper and completely possible to keep the long lived intermediate level waste at ANSTO until a required "world’s best practice" underground site is identified and built.'

For decades, ANSTO has presented the argument that there's no more room for the storage of their own nuclear waste manufactured on site at their Lucas Heights facility. This has been supported by various governments as necessitating the creation of a federal waste facility elsewhere. 

However in the 2020 Senate Inquiry, the CEO of the federal nuclear regulator ARPANSA confirmed ANSTO has the ability to manage the waste onsite ‘for decades to come.’

The significant 2021-22 federal budget allocation of $59.8m to ANSTO for building expansion provided a forum for nuclear experts to advise government in the resultant September Public Works Committee hearings. Senator Hughes’ request to explain why Sydney is seen as a safer option for storing its nuclear waste ‘than a far less densely populated area’ gave Dr Margaret Beavis from the Medical Association for Prevention of War, a chance to make a crucial point in the debate:

‘I think the expertise and security at ANSTO is far greater. I also think the risks from this waste pale into insignificance compared to the risks of the nuclear reactor. So, if you're going to be keeping one large facility secure, you may as well keep it all there. The regulator has said quite clearly that there's sufficient space at Lucas Heights to store this waste for decades to come. If you've got to look after the reactor-which we absolutely do have to do…’

Throughout the long campaign, Traditional Owners, Barngarla women and men, exhausted by the 25 years it took to successfully establish their native title rights over their traditional areas, have been incredulous at being excluded from the vital site vote.

On 21 December, following the Minister’s official declaration, Chair of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation Jason Bilney made the official announcement on State Parliament House steps, of the launch of their court appeal against the federal process which had denied them having a say on their own country.

Bilney faced the media flanked by Craig Wilkins and Barry Wakelin, former Member for Grey and implacable local Kimba opponent to the dump plan. Wilkins as the CEO of CCSA, South Australia’s premier conservation body, the Conservation Council of South Australia took the opportunity to announce their latest report which clearly states, ‘the planned facility is not consistent with international best practice, and waste will be placed in temporary storage without a plan for what happens next.’

In January this year, the Kimba district was affected by floods causing widespread damage to roads and infrastructure. And in February the State Greens initiated Legislative Council debate of opposition to the federal plan concluded with the Greens and Labor opposition in a tied vote with vote forcibly resolved by the Liberal Speaker.

The question remains: what are the requirements for this plan to go ahead? An historic hurdle is that the former Olsen Liberal Government passed legislation to prevent radioactive waste being brought into the state. This particular state legislation prohibited the introduction of the higher level waste ILW. Later, the Rann Labor government raised the threshold to prohibit the importation of any national radioactive waste. Thus the State Parliament must conduct a public parliamentary inquiry. 

Overriding this South Australian legislation is another obstacle the federal government must deal with to achieve the planned facility. As well, the Barngarla court case is in train, unlikely to be concluded before the federal election. The strong No Rad Waste opposition continues on many levels in Kimba and with their colleagues throughout Eyre Peninsula. The SA State election (on 19 March) is imminent. The regulator ARPANSA must enter into the licensing process of the project. The federal government has named ARWA Australian Radioactive Waste Agency as the department which has carriage of the nuclear facility plan; legislation must be passed for it to become an independent body.

However more than any of the serious domestic hurdles, recent weeks have brought home quite starkly the dangers of nuclear projects including this one. The Chernobyl site was among the first Ukrainian areas to be captured by invading Russian forces. The Russian seizure of Europe’s largest nuclear plant Zaporizhzhia is another cause for alarm.

The present government plan for Australia’s long-lived intermediate level waste means ongoing transportation for the 1700 kms from its present storage place in Lucas Heights, to be stored above ground for the next one hundred years. There is no dispute that this ILW is toxic and dangerous for an unimaginable 10,000 years. At least two nuclear engineers including Alan Parkinson have pointed out the dangers of this plan open as it is to terrorist attacks in this uncertain world.

It would be far safer, cheaper and completely possible to keep the long lived intermediate level waste at ANSTO until a required ‘world’s best practice’ underground site is identified and built. Whichever party is successful in the coming federal elections, it is to be hoped good sense prevails in this crucial national issue.

For further information, visit Nuclear Free Campaign.

Michele Madigan is a Sister of St Joseph who has spent over 40 years working with Aboriginal people in remote areas of SA, in Adelaide and in country SA. Her work has included advocacy and support for senior Aboriginal women of Coober Pedy in their successful 1998-2004 campaign against the proposed national radioactive dump.

Main image: Radiation sign. (Ryan McGinnis / Getty Images)

Let slip the dogs of war: A tale of futility and bloody-mindedness

• Dorothy Horsfield
 
• 22 March 2022

        

In an article published four days before the launch of his country’s invasion of Ukraine, Moscow-based Director of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC)Dr Andrei Kortunov warned of its tragic consequences for Russia. The de facto partition of Ukraine, he said, as a result of the Kremlin’s recognition of the independence of the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, will signify ‘the final formalisation of he division of Europe’ from which there may be no easy retreat. 

Even with the likelihood of a relatively rapid Russian victory on the battlefield, Kortunov was conjuring a darker and more dangerous East/West confrontational future for his homeland. It is an influential narrative that has been widely re-iterated by media spokespeople both within Russian think-tanks such as RIAC and internationally. For Kortunov, it is one to lament: Relations between Russia and the West will be clarified, he wrote, but it will be the crystal clarity of a cold January dawn, when the scorching north wind takes your breath away and squeezes involuntary tears out of your eyes.

I first met Kortunov in 2017, when he travelled to ANU to address a conference on ‘Russia in the wake of the Cold War’ that I had organized. A gentle, humane man and a formidable scholar of international relations, he has a decades-long commitment to post-Soviet integration into a globalized world. This has meant the pursuit of multilateral diplomacy, commentaries on trends in trade and investment and philanthropic engagements with a long list of organizations, including the International Crisis Group, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Oxfam in Africa.

Under his directorship, RIAC also fosters research collaborations and educational exchanges with policy forums such as the Brookings Institution and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, as well as with American, British, European and Chinese universities, and with political leaders, not only among his country’s Eurasian neighbours, but globally. A recent Princeton study described the Council as the world’s most influential think-tank on Russian affairs.

Kortunov’s pre-invasion analysis of the impact on Russia and the West of the war in Ukraine has proven to be prescient. The Putin government has become an international pariah, with virtually no allies or, at least sympathetic observers in the West. Even China, with whom it allegedly has close ties, is currently radically reviewing its stance regarding Russia’s belligerence. Confronted with the unified global condemnation of Russia’s actions, a consensus seems to be emerging among Beijing’s policy-makers of the need to distance China from any potential economic and geopolitical impact of what is perceived as an unwinnable war. It is also argued that China may be in a unique position to leverage Putin to stop the war.

 

'There has been some talk of the need for bringing a mediator to the negotiation table. Both China and India have been suggested as candidates.' 

 

Kortunov’s other predictions add up to a catalogue of human misery, in which Russia is relegated to the role of an isolated rogue state. These include an expanded, very costly and protracted arms race, both nuclear and conventional, in which over time a wealthier and more advantaged Western alliance inevitably would surpass the formidable Russian arsenal; the impoverishment of the economy, not only through draconian sanctions; European countries, the UK and the US already are seeking out alternative sources, for example of hydrocarbons and agricultural imports; and the exclusion of Russian research scientists from participation in the further development of the 4th Industrial Revolution technologies of a world economy already in transition. In other words, the brutality and cruelty of the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been deservedly described as an abomination which will mark the country’s relations with the West for decades to come.

What continues to be an enigma is that, despite his high-profile analyses of his country’s foreign policy challenges, Kortunov’s bleak warnings went unheeded behind the closed doors of Putin’s inner circle. In contrast, anecdotally, it has been repeatedly claimed there was a shared assumption among Russia’s intellectual and business elite that any plan to conquer Ukraine was geostrategic insanity. Among many long-term Russia watchers in the West, it was also assumed that geopolitical commonsense would prevail.

Four weeks into the war it is hard not to share Kortunov’s poetic lament. As the humanitarian catastrophe intensifies and murderous devastation is wrought on cities across Ukraine, diplomatic solutions remain as elusive as ever. At this stage, carrying only a modicum of hope, there has been some talk of the need for bringing a mediator to the negotiation table. Both China and India have been suggested as candidates. 

What remains uncertain is how intransigent is Putin’s commitment to his conditions for peace-making. There is the question too of the extent to which America’s long-standing diplomatic obtuseness, warmongering and self-righteousness, of which its dominant role in NATO is emblematic, will undermine any diplomatic attempt to bring to an end the conflict. To paraphrase geopolitical realist Henry Kissinger’s resonate observation, the vilification of Putin and by implication post-Soviet Russia is not a constructive policy. It is the alibi for not having one. Or as Kortunov put it, what is needed now is empathy, flexibility and compromise.

 

 

---

Dr Dorothy Horsfield is currently a Foundation Fellow at the ANU's Australian Studies Institute. Her most recent book is titled Russia in the Wake of the Cold War Perceptions and Prejudices. 

Main image: People stand in front of a school hit by a Russian attack in March, 2022 in Zhytomyr, Ukraine. (Chris McGrath / Getty Images)

China, Africa continue to jointly promote common progress

March 22, 2022 Liu Yuxi World Stage 



This year marks the 20th anniversary of the founding of the African Union (AU). Recently, Chinese President Xi Jinping extended his warm congratulations to African countries and people in a congratulatory message to the AU Summit, which mirrored the unbreakable and everlasting friendship between China and Africa.

The AU, as a successor of the Organization of African Unity founded in 1963, officially replaced the latter in July 2002 when it held its first summit, and has become the most representative and authoritative intergovernmental organization in Africa.


Over the past 20 years, the AU has stayed committed to seeking strength through unity, actively explored a development path suited to Africa, facilitated important progress in regional integration and coordinated a concerted response from African countries to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Such efforts have proven effective in maintaining peace, stability and development in Africa, and have won Africa growing influence and stature in the world
China and the AU are important partners in promoting high-level China-Africa community with a shared future and safeguarding international equity and justice.


China is the world’s largest developing country, and Africa is the continent with the largest number of developing countries. Shared past experiences and similar aims and goals have brought China and Africa close together.

Since the founding of the AU, China-AU relations have been constantly developing. The two sides have maintained frequent high-level mutual visits. In 2008, they established a strategic dialogue mechanism, and their political mutual trust has been continuously deepened.

he China-aided AU headquarters’ building, which was completed in 2012, became a new monument of China-Africa cooperation. In 2015 and 2018, the Chinese Mission to the AU and the AU Representative Office in Beijing were respectively launched, further consolidating their bilateral relationship.

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, China and the AU have helped each other and fought side by side to defeat the pandemics.

In February 2020, the AU issued a communiqué in support of China’s anti-pandemic efforts, being the first international organization to offer China such support.

China has provided more than 100 batches of medical supplies to African countries and the AU. The China-aided headquarters of the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention commenced its phase-1 project ahead of schedule and was topped-out at the end of the last year.

China and the AU signed a memorandum of understanding for the establishment of a coordination mechanism for Belt and Road cooperation. It marked that the China-Africa joint construction of the Belt and Road Initiative has entered a new phase of implementation, and has injected new impetus into China-Africa win-win cooperation and common development.

At the 8th Ministerial Conference of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation held in November 2021, President Xi announced ‘nine programs’ for future cooperation with Africa, including a donation of another 1 billion doses of vaccines to Africa aiming to help Africa strengthen capacity building in public health.

With profound changes and a pandemic unseen in a century, the global governance system is undergoing unprecedented adjustments. To respond to new challenges brought about by COVID-19, President Xi put forward the Global Development Initiative (GDI), and the initiative has been well received by African countries.

China welcomes the AU and African countries to join the initiative, and is willing to further synergize the GDI with the AU Agenda 2063. The GDI will become another powerful booster to promote China-Africa cooperation and play a positive role in Africa’s economic recovery and sustainable development.

Both history and reality prove that the close relationship between China and Africa is not forged within a day, nor was it bestowed by others. Instead, their relationship was a hard-won result of the two sides’ long-term mutual assistance offered through thick and thin.

The majestic strength of the 2.7 billion people in China and Africa is unstoppable. China-Africa cooperation will continue to enhance the welfare of the Chinese and African peoples, and create a bright future featuring common development and prosperity.